Land Disposal Transparency and Efficiency Act

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me congratulate the chairman on the Seahawks, and also remind him that there was a long 16-game season. They won their division. They played San Francisco three times, two out of three, and then after that they went into the playoffs. Then after the playoffs, they went to the championship game and, finally, to the Superbowl, which they won. Congratulations. So it is great that you got that cap 1 minute after the game was over. I am pointing out that there was a long, deliberate process with rules, games to be won, that encompassed the whole season. Sometimes us rushing legislation is cutting corners that great championship teams like the Seahawks never do.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright), my colleague.

I will have more to say on the specifics of this legislation later.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Washington (Ms. DelBene).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2954 is another attempt to weaken landmark environmental protections, to dictate land management decisions, to convey and dispose of Federal land, and to rewrite grazing policy.

This Chamber, once again, will spend a day debating bad policy put forth by the majority, which seems to work tirelessly to undermine the progress of the last century Americans have made in land conservation and environmental protection, undeterred by reality or a desire by the American people for bipartisan legislation and compromise. Furthermore, Republicans have long criticized omnibus bills as an affront to regular order, but they now attempt to force this bill of bad policy proposals through the House, which has no chance of passing in the Senate.

Let me quote a statement from the White House, which strongly opposes the bill. It reads:

Overall, H.R. 2954 contains a number of provisions that

would undermine the responsible balance of interests and

considerations and stewardship of the Nation's lands and

natural resources . . . Provisions of the bill would

disregard or reduce public engagement on a range of community

interests, including natural resource protections, and would

preclude agencies from considering less detrimental

environmental alternatives . . . Provisions of the bill would

waive all Federal laws and consultation requirements that

would now initiate a timber sale without those, that would

eliminate the balanced limitation on off-road vehicle use

within the Cape Hatteras recreation area and that would waive

environmental review requirements for grazing activities on

Federal lands.

The White House said it could support provisions that would restore the Green Mountain Lookout in Washington State and that would modify conservation programs at the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

Overall, this legislation is going nowhere. It has no chance of ever becoming law, but here we are. Furthermore, even though we could be working together on a variety of public land issues that need to be addressed, like the reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, we are, instead, debating a package of bills that fails to address significant issues that have bipartisan solutions. In fact, we can work together on some of the individual titles in this bill as stand-alones. We are not legislating. We are wasting valuable time. It is clear why the American people have such a negative view of Congress. Let me review quickly the substance of the package.

Title I would extinguish the reversionary clause covering property on Santa Rosa Island in Florida. The reversionary clause requires that the property in question is used for public purposes, since Federal land is for the American public in its entirety.

What is the reason for rescinding the clause? So that the county of Escambia can dredge and build a harbor that would cut off access to the rest of the island, most of which is managed as part of the Gulf islands National Seashore, a unit of the National Park Service.

Titles II and III are much of the same, Federal land grabs to be used for

windfall profits at the expense of the American people. Title III goes further by waiving a number of laws, including the Endangered Species Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; the National Historic Preservation Act; and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.

Title IV would prevent the BLM from carrying out its mission to manage public lands for multiple use until the agency creates a public database of all lands identified for disposal. BLM would be barred from all land acquisitions until such database is created.

BLM currently uses a public process developed and implemented locally through Resource Management Plans, and approved by Congress, to identify parcels for acquisition or disposal. This measure would just add another extreme layer of bureaucracy.

Title V would threaten endangered nesting shorebirds and sea turtles in the Cape Hatteras National Seashore recreational area. In 2007, the National Park Service placed modest limits on the use of off-highway vehicles on the beaches in order to limit the impacts on these species. The National Park Service was sued, and a judge determined the limits were inadequate protection for the endangered species.

In arbitration, the parties, including all stakeholders, agreed on a new plan that provided adequate protection for endangered species while allowing managed off-highway vehicle access. This measure would require the seashore be managed under the first rule rather than the agreed upon settlement.

Title VIII would change grazing tenure from 10 to 20 years and provide environmental waivers for grazing permit renewals, reissuance, or transfers. If we are going to reform grazing permit tenure, we should also talk about those ranchers who would like to get out of the business and retire their permits.

Also, we should address the low cost of grazing on Federal lands. Grazing fees have not changed since 1996 and are significantly lower than in the past, while State and private landowners generally seek market value for grazing. This measure is completely unbalanced and fails to address significant grazing issues.

Title IX, like many other natural resource measures proposed by the Republicans, waives NEPA, judicial review, and administrative review, completely disregarding the input of critical stakeholders such as the general public.

In conclusion, this so-called lands package should be called the ``Federal Lands Giveaway, Destruction of Protected Species, and Lack of Accountability Act.'' This package undermines the management of our public lands, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It should be noted for the record that the National Park Service provided a series of recommendations to make this portion of the legislation workable, and those were not considered during the process.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, this land was to be used for public purposes. This is public land, not land to give away and, as stated before, over and over again, be dredged and used for a harbor for potential windfall profit. Not only that, this action completely disregards the conservation goals of the adjacent national seashore by hindering access. On one hand, we talk about limited access to public lands; on the other, we hinder access to those places we see fit.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We have heard our colleagues on the other side of the aisle make fun of the fact that the United States Congress has to be involved in such unimportant matters as the conveyance of Federal land, this great Nation defeated that the Soviet Union, and we allude to the fact that we have a Soviet-style centralized government with regard to land management in this country. I think that my colleagues need to take that up with the Framers of the Constitution.

Article IV of that document states:

The Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make

all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or

other property belonging to the United States.

So I am sorry if the majority finds this burdensome, but the Framers apparently felt that Federal property was valuable and that Congress should play a role in determining what to do with it.

Let's be clear: we are talking here about Federal property, that is, property owned by all Americans. The land in question in Escambia County, Florida; Anchorage, Alaska; Fernley, Nevada; Cape Hatteras, North Carolina; Yellowstone and Grand Teton and the land on which Federal grazing occurs, the land impacted by this package is Federal land, owned by each and every American taxpayer.

In the case of these land transfers, the Federal Government gave the land, gave it to a local community as a means of Federal support, and the only requirement, in most cases, was that the land always be used for public purposes. As long as it is a park or a school or a fire station, it is yours, for free.

What these bills do is end those public purpose requirements. The communities want to use these lands for private profit. They want to close them to the public, in many cases.

This is not a land grab by Uncle Sam. This is not some silly scheme by the Feds to harm local communities and to use their power to hold down the taxpayers and keep the public out. This is a community asking to make money off land that was owned by all Americans, and it is the job of Congress to decide if that is a good idea or not.

Let's put one other misleading claim to rest. While Republicans claim the Federal Government owns too much land, the historic trend has been one of divestiture and fragmentation.

As recently as the late 1860s, the Federal Government owned 1.8 billion of the 2.3 billion acres in the contiguous United States. Grants to States, homesteaders, land-grant colleges, railroads and others settling in the Alaska and the West have reduced Federal land ownership by roughly 640 million acres to date.

We have been giving land away for centuries, not buying it up. Today we have a whole series of bills seeking more Federal land, and we owe it to the American people--the American people require that we consider this carefully, and the Constitution requires that Congress be empowered to consider these carefully.

These mischaracterizations are not helpful in the discussions. These bills are not in the best interest of the American people, on the merits alone, and using misinformation to claim otherwise is wrong.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

I want to respect the chairman. The chairman is correct. The Natural Resources Committee, of which I am a proud member, appears to be very busy passing bills.

But let's be clear: the Republican majority, time and time again, acts unilaterally, alone, without meaningful cooperation with the minority in this legislation, in the House, and with the Senate and with the administration.

On suspensions, the majority insists on ridiculous limitations that prevent consideration of many measures designed to conserve lands, and, of course, they insist on a more than 3:1 ratio of their legislation to the minority's legislation, to ours. No wonder the number of suspensions is lagging behind what we have done in the past.

As to the bills we have considered under a rule, most of them are almost identical repeats of the bills that were passed in the House last Congress, but because they were opposed by the Senate and the administration, they went nowhere.

To keep passing the same, dead-on-arrival bills over and over again to make the committee look busy should not be mistaken for legislating. The idea is to work on legislation that can bring bills of a bipartisan nature, that the Senate will deal with and, more importantly, that the administration will sign.

That is the legislation my side of the aisle looks forward to working on and, in a very serious manner, improving the operation of Interior, improving the operation of our public lands, and creating transparency at all levels.

We want to do that, and we look forward to working with the majority and with our esteemed chairman in that direction.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward. It strikes title IV of the bill. Title IV is the text of H.R. 2095, introduced by my friend from Utah (Mr. Bishop), chairman of the Public Land Subcommittee.

The title would prohibit BLM from acquiring additional land until the agency creates a publicly accessible database that inventories current landholdings and identifies land suitable for disposal.

Much of the bill we are considering today seeks to undermine the public planning process and give away Federal land free of charge. This land belongs to the American people, and if we are going to be in the business of giving it away, we should at least not hinder our ability to acquire more land when it makes sense to do so.

Let me see if I understand this. I do not oppose the idea of creating a database that catalogs Federal landholdings. I do not oppose the idea of transparency at BLM, or any other government agency for that matter, but putting an arbitrary condition on land acquisition authority is just bad policy.

The true intent of the title is not to create a database. The intent is to limit land acquisition.

The majority has been clear about their agenda to limit expansion of the Federal estate, and the bill we are considering today is just another attempt to advance that priority. It is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Through the public land use planning process, BLM keeps an inventory of its land. Land managers, from the folks down the street in the Department of the Interior building to the field staff all over the country, know how much land the Federal Government owns.

In fact, the Federal Land and Policy Management Act, also known as the BLM's Organic Act, provides clear direction and authority for cataloging and the inventory of Federal lands. FLPMA also provides the agency with authority to dispose of lands deemed worthy for disposal through the public planning process.

Like I mentioned before, I don't see a problem with creating a database of information available in BLM's Resource Management Plans. The problem is with limiting authority for land acquisition.

Land acquisition authority makes the management of Federal lands more efficient. It is not the bogeyman that the sponsors of the bill claim. Federal land managers acquire land in order to clean up the checkerboard pattern of ownership, consolidating Federal holdings and making them easier to manage.

Limiting this authority will have the consequence of making the management of Federal lands more difficult and less efficient.

Land is also acquired when it makes sense for conservation and resource management purposes. The Federal Government is the steward of some of our Nation's most pristine and treasured resources. There are times when it makes sense to add to national parks or national monuments to make sure that they have the resources and the protection that they merit.

Popular programs like the Land and Water Conservation Fund have helped conserve millions of acres that provide all of our constituents with opportunities to hike, hunt, fish, and pursue other recreational activities.

If we want to ensure that efficient management of Federal land, limiting land acquisition authority is a step in the wrong direction. My amendment makes sure that this important tool is not jeopardized, and I urge my colleagues to support its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, in my amendment, we are also talking about the Federal Government having the authority to buy land from willing sellers. And when you bar the Federal Government from trying to buy land, then what happens? The seller still wants to sell. So who steps up? Developers, other high-intensity uses around areas that should be protected.

When you look at Uncle Sam as a buyer for political purposes, you empower developers and others that want the land for completely different uses; and before you know it, an area that you wanted to conserve and preserve is gone. This is bad policy. And to remove the authority from the Federal Government of being able to purchase land from willing sellers I think is a step too far.

And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

This amendment attempts to conform with the Senate language related to the Grazing Improvement Act, but two wrongs don't necessarily make a right. The language is still problematic.

I thank the sponsors for this amendment and for this opportunity to talk a little bit more about public land grazing.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, title VIII attempts to address one issue related to public lands grazing, the backlog of permit renewals, but it fails to take on the larger issue of below-market grazing fees.

The Federal Government charges $1.35 per month per animal unit on Federal lands. If we are going to consider legislation that waives NEPA and extends the tenure of grazing permits, almost doubles the number of years, we also have to review the formula for grazing fees.

The State of Idaho charges $12 to $14 per month to graze on State lands. In

Arizona, we charge $8 to $9 per month. Washington State charges $12 per month; Nevada, $12.50 per month; California, over $16 per month.

We often hear from the majority that the States do a better job of managing their lands. In this case, I would agree. The States do a better job of making sure their taxpayers get a fair return on the use of their State lands, while Federal taxpayers are stuck subsidizing the practice of grazing on public lands.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment, very simply, seeks to limit, if not eliminate, judicial review on those who have an interest in grazing on our public lands. This amendment attempts to, with incentives--negative incentives to the public--limit the public from challenging Federal action on grazing decisions by making them pay the prevailing party's legal fees.

Like I have mentioned before, all Federal taxpayers are on the hook for subsidizing grazing on Federal lands; therefore, all citizens of this country should have the opportunity to challenge the decisions made that have an effect on their public lands.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, grazing has impacts on public lands like no other use, and it is important that we

consider these impacts through the NEPA process and through judicial review, both that are being struck from that process today. Steamrolling and eliminating judicial review and the public process, as in a reference to East Germany, centralized government and thought control, once we begin to limit the public's and the individual's access to redress through the courts by action of this Congress, it is a dangerous not only precedent and a dangerous step in public transparency, but more importantly, in the public's right to know.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, since the Rim Fire burned over 200,000 acres in California's Sierra Nevada Mountains in August of last year, Mr. McClintock has expressed an interest in expediting salvage logging operations in the burned area. The language he has offered to achieve this

goal keeps evolving, and, in my opinion, it keeps getting better. Unfortunately, I still cannot support this amendment, the latest version of H.R. 3188.

Since the fire, the Forest Service has engaged in an extensive planning effort that includes salvage operations where they are deemed appropriate. The planning effort is ongoing, and the amendment seeks to force a decision before it is complete. The amendment references a proposed action that predates the issuance of the draft Environmental Impact Statement. The draft EIS is due out in April. Until then, we should allow the public process to end before backing the Forest Service into a corner with a mandated decision. Otherwise, we take away the opportunity for public input and the ability for the Forest Service to examine the economic feasibility of salvage operations, potential damage to wildlife, and other consequences.

CEQ has already approved an expedited process for the EIS that includes a shortened timeline for the comment period and eliminates notification requirements. The Forest Service is committed to this expedited process and working diligently to advance appropriate restoration.

The amendment still mandates salvage logging in areas where it might not be appropriate while waiving Federal environmental standards. Taking NEPA out of the picture will not end up in more logging or less lawsuits. Supporters of this amendment understand that this is the case. That is why the amendment waives a bevy of other environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act.

The forests of Sierra Nevada provide Californians with clean water, fish, and wildlife habitat and recreation. Indiscriminate salvage logging threatens these treasured forests.

Additionally, the amendment limits judicial and administrative review. This is still a huge sticking point. Salvage logging is extremely controversial, and we shouldn't take away any tools available for the public to be able to weigh in on these critical decisions. Supporters of this amendment argue that the objection process is overused and abused, but it is there to make sure that everybody has a voice in the process.

I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to oppose its adoption. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the Forest Service, as we speak, is preparing to authorize salvage operations on 30,000 of the 154,000 burned acres, and a decision is due as early as August. As I said earlier, salvage logging is not without controversy, and the decisions to authorize these activities need to be fully analyzed and fully transparent. Many ecologists believe that post-fire landscapes are an essential component of forest lifecycles that provide critical habitat for wildlife and other essential ecological services. Rushing to allow indiscriminate salvage operations, as this bill intends, threatens the overall health of the forest. The planning process is ongoing under expedited emergency provisions set out by CEQ.

Our national forests are more than timber factories, and we have a public planning process that ensures all uses and benefits are considered. This bill ignores that process, and that is why I repeat opposition to it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2954.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the Public Access and Lands Improvement Act, H.R. 2954, is a bipartisan package of 10 bills to protect and promote public access to lands; to improve opportunities by removing red tape that stands in the way of responsible, local economic development and jobs; and to encourage transparent community center land management.

This small grouping of bills will advance important local projects that will have a direct impact on jobs and on economic growth in communities throughout the country.

The package includes several commonsense land conveyance bills to remove unnecessary bureaucratic strings attached to how land is used and how it is managed. It recognizes that locally elected leaders, not Federal bureaucrats, know how to best manage certain lands.

There are measures to prevent unreasonable Federal regulations or actions from destroying a historic lookout tower in my home State of Washington, blocking unreasonable public recreation access to the Cape Hatteras seashore in North Carolina, and preventing the use of hand- powered boats, such as kayaks, in several national parks in the West.

This bill will help family businesses and ranchers by implementing commonsense reforms to the process of renewing livestock grazing permits. Livestock grazing on Federal lands is an important part of the American ranching tradition. This bill will help our Nation's ranchers operate more efficiently and with greater certainty.

The package, Mr. Chairman, also includes legislation sponsored by the Public Lands Subcommittee chairman, Mr. Bishop of Utah, requiring the BLM to establish an Internet database for all BLM lands that are available for sale to the public.

In the year 2014, if I may be parochial, when a Seahawks fan can purchase a championship hat on the Internet just moments after the Superbowl ends, the Federal Government can certainly get its act together and post its lands that are available for sale online.

This bill will expedite the planning and implementation of emergency salvage timber sales for Federal lands in California that were ravaged by the Rim Fire last summer. Without prompt emergency action, the impacts of this devastating wildfire could become even worse. Fire- damaged trees invite disease. They invite insect infestations. They increase the risk of future wildfires, and they are a threat to visitor safety. Emergency salvage and forest restoration efforts should not be delayed due to bureaucratic hurdles and lawsuits.

Finally, the bill provides for transparency and accountability in how Federal funds are spent in protecting the Chesapeake Bay.

This small package of bills is reasonable, responsible, and it reflects the will of local communities and their elected leaders. It deserves support, I believe, from my Democrat and Republican colleagues.

Before concluding my remarks on this piece of legislation and listening to the statement of the gentleman from Arizona, I would like to briefly address the legislative work of this committee as a whole. The committee, of course, I speak of is the Natural Resources Committee.

Just this week, the House will have considered three measures from the House Natural Resources Committee.

Two of these packages were individual bills, which means a total of 18 different bills from this committee will have effectively been considered and debated and voted upon by the House this week.

Prior to this week, over the first 13 months of this Congress, the Natural Resources Committee has advanced nearly 60 individual bills through the House. Nearly 50 of those bills have passed on a broad bipartisan basis under the expedited suspension process. Ten bills under the jurisdiction of the committee, both Republican and Democrat, have been signed by the President, which represents a noticeable percentage of the public laws that have been enacted by this Congress. These totals do not include individual bills included in other measures, such as bills that were included in the Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. Chairman, this statement is not made as a pat on the back, but to make clear that the intent of this committee is to dutifully work and act on priorities for our Nation. They may be narrow bills to resolve a parochial problem or broad measures affecting the country as a whole. Of course, the nature of our committee is to deal with, in many cases, bills that deal on very parochial issues. That is one of the reasons why there are so many bills that come out of our committee.

In matters of broad policy, some are of great urgency, such as the importance of restoring responsible, active forest management to both support economically struggling rural communities and to improve the health of Federal forests. We passed that bill earlier this year. Just yesterday, the House moved swiftly to provide a solution to the devastating drought in California.

We have also acted on multiple bipartisan measures to streamline red tape and boost America's ability to safely harness our vast energy resources to create jobs--because we know that energy jobs are good- paying jobs--to lower prices, and to strengthen our national security by reducing dependence on foreign energy from hostile nations.

On each of these measures, it is time for the Senate to act and to pass their own proposals so that we can then work to reach an agreement. Obviously, there will be differences between both Houses, but they need to pass their legislation so we can work on the differences so that these measures can become law. We have differences, but we have a responsibility to represent those we are elected to serve and put forward real solutions for the challenges facing the American people.

There are dozens of bills solving local problems, implementing locally supported solutions, and establishing protections for historic and special places that can be acted on by both the House and the Senate. I believe that this is possible on matters under the jurisdiction of the Natural Resources Committee, that we can find common ground with the Senate. Why do I say that? Because we have successfully done so repeatedly over this last year. That is why there are a noticeable number of public laws from our committees that have been acted on by the House and have gone to the President.

But, as always, this will require a willingness to recognize and respect differences in philosophy and procedure in both the House and in the Senate. It must be a two-way street where each Chamber acts on the other's priorities, but, again, has successfully been done in the past, and I know it can be done in the future. The Republican majority in the House has demonstrated our willingness to do so while maintaining our fundamental views on Federal land management, the importance of multiple use of public lands, and the ability of local communities to make better decisions for themselves than Federal bureaucracies.

So as we conclude this week's full slate of action on House Natural Resources Committee bills, I pledge to continue working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of the Capitol to make progress in the days, weeks, and months ahead.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), who is the author of one of the titles of the bill.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Labrador), who is an author of one of the titles of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), an author of one of the titles of the bill.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), subcommittee chairman and also an author of one of the titles of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, could I inquire how much time is on both sides?

Mr. Chairman, I will advise my friend that, at this point, I have no more requests for time, and I am prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased when I heard my good friend from Arizona congratulate the work of the committee until I heard his explanation of what the committee did, and then I had to have a bit of a caution there.

I just want to point out that when the gentleman complains about the ratio of majority and minority, we are following precisely the same example when roles were reversed. In other words, when the Democrats were in the majority, when we were in the minority, we had the same ratio. So we are following that pretty much to the same, and that has been the tradition in this House for a long period of time.

The difference, however, I would say, Mr. Chairman, is that the committee has been much more productive when we have been in control, meaning that there has been more legislation moving that the Democrats would like.

I want to make this point also. There are Democrat and Republican suspension bills that are both sitting in the Senate that haven't been acted on, and I think that the Senate needs to act on those pieces of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, this is an important piece of legislation. All of these titles have passed out of the committee and were amalgamated here, but they had all been acted on. They all had input in subcommittee in some way or the other within the committee.

So I wanted to make that point. This is not legislation that was pulled out of the air. It was legislation that was deliberated upon within the committee.

I also want to mention, even though the Statement of Administration Policy was negative in some parts of the bill, there is no veto threat by the administration on this piece of legislation. They expressed concerns, as is understandable, on certain parts of it. I understand that, but there is no veto threat at all whatsoever in what the administration has said.

Finally, let me make this observation, and we hear this over and over and over, especially as it relates to the NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act.

Now, I am going to acknowledge that NEPA certainly has its place within our statutes and how we conduct policy, particularly on public land, but here is where we part company, Mr. Chairman.

We part company because my friends on the other side of the aisle always advocate that, even before Congress acts, NEPA should be the judge of whatever that action is.

Now, I have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, I think that is contrary to what our role is here. Congress created NEPA, meaning that Congress is the one who decides what the law of the land is. Within these bills, we are deciding what the law of the land is, and NEPA should not get in front of our actions.

To hear my friends on the other side of the aisle argue, they are saying over and over and over again that NEPA should be between Congress acting on a law.

Wait a minute. We are putting regulations before Congress should be doing their constitutional duty and enacting statutes?

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman; I part company with that philosophy, yet that is exactly what we hear over and over and over from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

We are the ones that are given authority by the Constitution to make statutes. We believe that that should be the law, and then regulations follow, not the other way around. But that is what we hear over and over and over again.

So, Mr. Chairman, this is a good piece of legislation. As I mentioned, it addresses areas that are certain parochial and certain parts of the country, as my colleague from Utah said, all the way from Florida to Alaska.

I think it is responsible legislation, and I think it deserves our support.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

I support this amendment. I think the brief part of this debate here points out the importance of having flexibility on the local level rather than having a one-size-fits-all; because there are conditions that can come up in grazing in various States, and those managers need that flexibility, which is, I think, a common thread that we talk about all the time when we talk about Federal land management. So I think this amendment adds very much to the Labrador title of the bill, and I intend to support it.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I think that the gentleman's amendment to this piece of legislation is an important policy step. In fact, I think in many cases a ``loser pay'' ought to apply to a much larger area.

I know that the gentleman's amendment only deals with grazing, but he cited an example in Wyoming where it cost somebody $125,000, and with the volatility of the market, that is a big expense on individuals. I think this will help curb that in the future.

So I congratulate the gentleman for his amendment, and I intend to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I just want to say that I think this amendment adds to what he is attempting to do because the issue of salvage and the timeliness of that is something that is lost on a lot of people. So I congratulate the gentleman for not only the title in the bill but for the amendment. I intend to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and particularly want to thank him for his work on the Natural Resources Committee and for his invaluable assistance on this bill.

This summer, the biggest fire in the history of the Sierra Nevada mountains burned 400 square miles of forestland. The fire left behind an unprecedented swath of environmental devastation that threatens the loss not only of the affected forestland for generations to come, but sets events in motion that could destroy the surrounding forest for many years to come.

The fire also left behind hundreds of millions of board feet of dead timber that is on Federal land that could be sold to raise millions of dollars, money that could then be used to replant and reforest our devastated lands. In addition, processing that timber would help to revive the economy of a stricken region.

But time is already running out. Within a year, the value of the timber declines rapidly as the wood is devoured by insects and rot. That is the problem. Cumbersome environmental reviews and litigation that inevitably follow will run up the clock of this valuable asset until it becomes absolutely worthless.

Indeed, it becomes worse than worthless--it becomes hazardous. Bark and wood-boring beetles are already moving in to feast on the dead and dying timber, and a population explosion of pestilence can be expected if those dead trees remain. The beetles won't confine themselves to the fire areas, posing a mortal threat to the adjacent forests.

By the time the normal bureaucratic reviews and lawsuits have run their course, what was once forestland will have already begun converting to brushland, and by the following year, reforestation will have become infinitely more difficult and expensive. Within just a few years, several feet of dry brush will have built up, and the smaller trees will have begun toppling on this tinder. It is not possible to build a more perfect fire stack than that. That means that intense second-generation fires will take advantage of this fuel, sterilizing the soil, eroding the landscape, fouling the watersheds, and jeopardizing surrounding forests.

Without timely salvage and reforestation, we know the fate of the Sierras because we have seen the result of neglect after previous fires. The trees don't come back for many, many generations. Instead, thick brush takes over the land that was once shaded by towering forests. It quickly overwhelms any seedlings struggling to make a start. It replaces the diverse ecosystems supported by the forests with scrub brush.

For this reason, I introduced H.R. 3188, which waives the time- consuming environmental review process and prevents the endless litigation that always follows. It authorizes Federal forest managers, following well-established environmental protocols for salvage, to sell the dead timber and to supervise its careful removal while there is still time. The millions of dollars raised can then be directed toward replanting the region before layers of brush choke off any chance of forest regrowth in the foreseeable future.

It was modeled on legislation authored by Democratic Senator Tom Daschle for salvaging dead and dying trees in the Black Hills National Forest, a measure credited with speeding the preservation and recovery of that forest. Unfortunately, the bill spawned lurid tales from the activist left of uncontrolled logging in the Sierras. Nothing could be further from the truth. The legislation vests full control of the salvage plans with Federal forest managers, not the logging companies. It leaves Federal foresters in charge of enforcing salvage plans that fully protect the environment.

Because of the opposition--and we heard a little bit of it just a moment ago--in a few minutes, I will offer an amendment that was worked out in consultation with the U.S. Forest Service and with several Democratic offices, and I hope it will receive bipartisan support. It preserves the EIS process and the environmental and judicial reviews, but it expedites them and assures that salvage under the direction of the Forest Service can begin this spring.

There is plenty of room for compromise, but there is absolutely no excuse for inaction. The left wants a policy of benign neglect--to let a quarter of a million acres of destroyed timber rot in place, to surrender the ravaged land to beetles and to watch contentedly as the forest ecosystem is replaced by scrub brush. It is true that without human intervention the forests will eventually return in about a century from now but certainly not in the lifetimes of ourselves, of our children or of our children's children. If we want to stop the loss of this forestland and if we want to control the beetle infestation before it explodes out of control, the dead timber has to come out soon.

If we take it up now, we can generate the funds necessary to suppress brush buildup, to plant new seedlings and to restore these forests for the use and enjoyment of our children. If we wait for the normal bureaucratic reviews and litigation and delays, we will have lost these forests for the next several generations.

The irony is that 16,000 acres of that same forest were destroyed but were on private land. The owner, Sierra Pacific Industries, is in the process of salvaging the timber on their lands. They will be done by this summer, and then they will begin reforesting from a portion of those proceeds. Meanwhile, the public lands lay unattended. Let me tell you something. Within a couple of years, the difference is going to be dramatic. We will have fully salvaged and reforested private lands next to neglected, overgrown public lands that are dry with scrub brush and just waiting for the next fire.

The public management of our lands will be judged in comparison with the management of the private lands, and if we maintain current law, we will have been held in the balance and found wonting.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, last August, the Rim Fire destroyed 400 square miles of timber in the Sierra Nevada. It left behind hundreds of millions of board feet of dead timber that can still be salvaged, but, as I pointed out earlier, time is of the essence. Within a year, the fire-killed timber loses much of its value. Yet the current environmental review process takes a year to complete, and then litigation starts and runs out the clock on what remains of that perishable resource.

Sixteen thousand acres of the destroyed timber is on private land owned by Sierra Pacific Industries. It does not face the bureaucratic obstacles that we face on the public land. SPI is already halfway through its salvage. It will be completed by summer. They will use a portion of those proceeds to replant their devastated acreage.

Meanwhile, the timber on the public land continues to rot and decay. The earliest the Forest Service can conclude its environmental review is August, and then the litigation process will start, and then it will be too late. The cost will be hundreds of jobs, millions of dollars of lost economic activity, and millions of dollars of lost salvage revenues that could otherwise have been used by the Federal Government for reforestation of the public lands.

Now, title IX of the bill in its current form was based on bipartisan language introduced by Senator Tom Daschle to expedite salvage in the Black Hills National Forest, but these provisions were opposed from the other side of the aisle. So I sat down with the Forest Service and opposition offices to work out a process that will assure that salvage can begin by spring, while maintaining both environmental and judicial review. And I particularly want to thank Chief Tom Tidwell for his technical assistance and that of his office. This amendment is the product of these talks.

It authorizes the Forest Service to select acreage for salvage where there is no wilderness, ESA, historic, or other legal restrictions. It authorizes them to implement the draft EIS that is expected to be completed by April and deems the draft is compliant with all applicable environmental reviews. This will allow salvage to begin under their direction in April.

It authorizes the Forest Service to modify the draft EIS in response to public comment and allows for judicial review of the final EIS based on ecological impacts. It merely bars litigation based on process, and it bars temporary restraining orders. This will allow the timely salvage of a portion of the public lands destroyed by the fire while the final EIS is prepared and while any judicial review proceeds. Finally, it authorizes the Forest Service to use the millions of dollars raised by the salvage for forest restoration in the devastated Sierra.

This compromise language assures compliance with all environmental laws and maintains judicial review while assuring that salvage can begin this spring. It is also important to the economy of the region that has been devastated by the fire and by increasingly stringent Federal restrictions and land acquisitions that have ravaged the timber, livestock, mineral, and tourist industries upon which these mountain communities depend. It means jobs for hundreds of lumberjacks, mill workers, truckers, and all those who support them.

I yield to the gentleman.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, if the opposition prevails, the Sierra, 400 square miles of it anyway, will be consigned to scrub brush and disease for generations to come. We have bent over backwards with the opposition to work out this compromise, and their continued opposition is quite disappointing.

I repeat that time is of the essence. I beg the Senate and the Democrats to take up these provisions without further delay. These provisions were developed with the full input of the administration and Democratic offices. But if they are still not acceptable, then tell us what is, but please don't just sit there and do nothing.

The Forest Service estimates that 2.2 million board feet can be processed per day. That means every day we dither and delay, $250 million of Federal revenue is lost. That is enough to reforest more than 1,000 every day. But every day we delay, we lose that revenue, we lose those jobs, the salvage value deteriorates with the wood, and that window will start to close even before the litigation begins under current law.

The private lands destroyed by the fire will have been fully salvaged and replanted a few years from now. They are going to host a thriving, young forest. If we don't change current law now, the public lands will remain unsalvaged and the millions of dollars we could have raised for reforestation will have been forfeited. Dry brush and dead trees will be the legacy of the Sierra that we leave our children.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me begin by talking about some things that have been overstated on parts, especially the one that is my title.

My title does not stop the BLM or anybody in the Interior Department from doing multiple use on land. It has nothing to do with management. It simply says they can buy no new land until they first become transparent and provide a database that anyone can easily accomplish.

As with some of the other statements that have been made on the floor, some of them are somewhat exaggerated from what this bill intends to do.

Mr. Chairman, let me talk about this bill as an entity. There is a common thread that runs through this bill that deals with public lands and people from Florida to Alaska and all stations in between. What we simply have found is the Federal Government has large, centralized bureaucracies that do our land management process that no longer meet the needs of people, but, rather, they hide behind rules and policies and regulations which make them safe for them. But they don't actually help people, which requires sometimes people to be flexible and think outside the proverbial box.

The island in Florida that Mr. Miller was just referring to was given by Florida to the government, and the government gave it back to Florida before I was born--and that has been a while. But the concept here is that the government does not own this land. They don't need it, they don't use it, but they still wish to control it--it doesn't matter why; they still do--and there is no purpose for that.

It is ludicrous that the Congressman from Alaska must come down here and write a law to transfer 3 acres of land in Anchorage back to the city of Anchorage so it can be used to benefit the people of Anchorage. Again, land the Federal Government does not own, they don't need, they don't use, but they still wish in some way to control it.

The grazers in Idaho who produce the stuff from which Big Macs and Whoppers are made--and I know that from personal experience, obviously--only wanted to be treated fairly and consistently and with consideration for the needs so they can be successful in their trade.

Kayakers in Wyoming simply want the ability to recreate on an area that was designed for recreation without being specifically prohibited by rules and regulations that were to insist and support a policy that we have found no longer is necessary and does not work.

If these 10 bills were to pass, unfortunately it doesn't solve all our problems. Because all these 10 bills do is show a tip of the proverbial iceberg of the problems that we face in dealing with land management when it comes from a large, centralized bureaucracy and we no longer put our primary interest in helping people meet their needs.

Mr. Chairman, when the Berlin Wall fell down, the entire world realized that large, centralized bureaucracies of the communist world failed.

Eastern Europe learned that, entrepreneurs learned that. They found that lean, aggressive companies simply take market share from the lumbering corporate products of the past.

Everyone realized that a large, centralized bureaucratic program is ineffective, except here in Washington, D.C., where we still address every problem with an effort to try and build something that is going to be controlled here in the center of all wisdom that is large, that is centralized, and that is bureaucratic. It is mind-boggling that the Nation who defeated the Soviet Union with creativity and freedom still decides to solve all problems and all management issues by going back to a Soviet-styled agency program and concept.

This bill is needed because it affects people throughout the length and breadth of this country, and it is only the beginning of what we need to do to set it right and make sure that our highest priority is people, not rules and regulations.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I appreciate very much the gentleman from Arizona. I do enjoy working with him on the subcommittee. And I have to admit, at this stage of the game, I am a little bit perplexed about the amendment.

The gentleman purports that the idea of transparency and keeping a database is not a bad idea. He just objects to the enforcement mechanism we put in there. If that were the case, I would wonder why he didn't just strike the enforcement mechanism out or come up with a substitute enforcement mechanism. I am not bound to this particular one. Had there been a date certain or some other ideas, I may even have accepted that as a friendly approach to try to help this particular title. But, instead, the amendment strikes everything. It strikes the very essence of forcing them to actually come up with a database that is there.

During the Clinton administration--and that has been a while ago--the Interior Department did come up with a database of lands that were available for disposal, that were needless, that were useless for the government. We have the data. The only problem is it is almost impossible to get to the data. The data is found in books in over 150 different local offices. It would take a huge road trip to try to come up with just the information.

This is now 2014. The idea that the BLM cannot actually put this data on a Web site that is available to everybody is, quite frankly, not acceptable. That they are too busy to do this is simply not acceptable.

All this says is the data is there. Put the data on a Web site so it is transparent and it is viewable for everybody to see.

And then we said, since there has been a whole lot of dragging their feet since the Clinton administration in trying to do this, we will give you some incentive. You can't buy new land until you put on this Web site so people can see what land is available for disposal. It does not stop them from managing the land for multiple use or for nonmultiple use or any other reason. It simply gives them an incentive to go ahead and do it.

Like I said, if your goal was to change the incentive, I would have been amenable to discussions on that. I will still be amenable to discussions on that. But this amendment strikes the entire thing, not just the enforcement provision. For that reason, I would oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman) to show how this amendment would impact the Chesapeake Bay area.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, the Alaska Native Allotment Act allowed Alaska Natives to acquire up to 160 acres of Federal land. Approximately 2,800 Alaska Natives served in the military during the Vietnam War, and because of their absence, they did not have an opportunity to apply for their Native allotment.

In 1998, Congress passed a law that provided certain Alaska Native Vietnam veterans an opportunity to obtain an allotment.

One of my constituents, Mr. William Alstrom, applied for an allotment in accordance with this law. During the war, he served honorably in the Air Force. Mr. Alstrom is a lifelong resident of St. Mary's, Alaska, a village of roughly 550 mostly Yup'ik Eskimo residents located on the Lower Yukon River in southwestern Alaska. His family has a long history in the region, helping to settle the area and operating the first general store. During World War II, Mr. Alstrom's father, Fred, was a member of the Alaska Territorial Guard, or the Eskimo Scouts, a military reserve component of the U.S. Army organized in 1942.

Following a TB outbreak in 1954, Mr. Alstrom was sent to a boarding school in southeast Alaska with many other children from Alaska villages. As the Vietnam War was escalating, he graduated from one of these boarding schools and promptly enlisted in the U.S. Air Force, serving his country. Soon thereafter, he left his wife and two children stateside and headed to southeast Asia. During the war, the newly minted Sergeant Alstrom served in Thailand, preparing aircraft on their way to strike North Vietnam.

On completion of his service, William and his family returned home to St. Mary's, where he invested himself in his village and continued to grow and raise his family. Today, William continues to serve--this time as mayor of his community and president of his village corporation.

In 2002, William applied for the Alaska Native veteran's allotment he was entitled to by law. Following an extensive application and vetting process, in 2009, the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, deeded him two 80-acre parcels located in the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge.

With his deed in hand, William transported lumber and other supplies to one of his parcels on his skiff, spent countless hours clearing trees and brush, and finally built a small cabin and fish camp for him and his family to enjoy.

Out of the blue a few years later, the Fish and Wildlife Service realized that errors had been made by the Fish and Wildlife Service and BLM personnel, both in the surveying and application approval process. Instead of being located on general refuge lands, the two allotment parcels were located within the congressionally designated Andreafsky Wilderness Area. Conveying allotments in wilderness areas is prohibited by law. Similarly, making improvements to the land, such as constructing a cabin, cutting trees, or clearing bush, is also prohibited. As a result, the BLM canceled the deed to the two parcels, plunging this Alaska Native veteran and the status of his allotment and cabin into a state of limbo.

After this decision, William contacted me for assistance. To their credit, the BLM quickly admitted that both they and the Fish and Wildlife Service screwed up. Though, after looking into their options, they also admitted that they couldn't fix their mistakes administratively. In an attempt to resolve the issue, the BLM offered William two parcels of equal size elsewhere in the region. While he agreed to accept one of the replacement parcels, the second proposed parcel excluded his cabin.

My amendment today would approve his application for the second original parcel, subsequently saving his cabin and fish camp from demolition.

Though two Federal agencies are at fault, my Alaska Native constituent is the one being forced to bear the full cost of their errors. The purpose of my amendment is simply to allow a veteran to retain the 80-acre parcel with the cabin on it, at no cost to the taxpayer.

An identical version of this amendment was adopted by voice vote when the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held their markup of the Green Mountain Lookout Heritage Protection Act, of which the House version is included in today's package.

As you well know, I am no proponent of the fact that the Federal Government is the landlord of well over 60 percent of my State. Think about this: 60 percent. I generally oppose wilderness areas. I have often had an adversarial relationship with Federal land management agencies. All of that aside, this amendment is not meant to make a statement for or against wilderness designations, but rather to fix a unique issue for a truly deserving Vietnam veteran. At its core, fixing issues like this is what we do well when we are sent to Washington. Mr. Alstrom, like his father before him, served this country with honor and dignity, and he deserves similar treatment from this government in return.

I hope you will join me today in fixing this unfortunate mistake and allow this gentleman and his family to move on with their lives by supporting this simple amendment to H.R. 2954.

I yield back the balance of my time.