Valley View Ferry Preservation Act of 2013

Mr. President, today I rise to re-introduce three bills that will better protect unique and important areas in the beautiful state of Oregon. Two of these passed out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee the last two Congresses. I am pleased to again be joined on these bills with my colleague from Oregon, Senator MerklEy. I look forward to working with Senator Merkley, other colleagues and other supporters of the bills to keep up the fight for these special places in Oregon.

The first bill I am introducing--the Oregon Caves Revitalization Act of 2013--will enhance the existing Oregon Caves National Monument to protect this majestic site for future generations. The bill expands the boundary of the National Park Service land to create the Oregon Caves National Monument and Preserve.

A Presidential Proclamation in 1909 established 480 acres of natural wonder as the Oregon Caves National Monument in the botanically-rich Siskiyou Mountains. At the time, the focus was on the unique subsurface resources, and the small, rectangular boundary was thought to be adequate to protect the cave. However, scientific research has since provided much greater insight into the cave's ecology and its hydrological processes, for which 480 acres is inadequate. The National Park Service formally proposed boundary modification numerous times--in 1939, 1949, and 2000.

My bill expands protections in and around the Oregon Caves National Monument. The entirety of the Cave Creek Watershed would be included in the park site, transferring management of 4,070 acres of United States Forest Service land to the National Park Service. Hunters will still have recreational access to this land since it will be designated a Preserve.

And the expansion of the Monument's boundary would be incomplete

without protecting the water that enters the cave so as to preserve the cave's resources. My legislation would designate at least 9.6 miles of rivers and tributaries as Wild, Scenic, or Recreational, under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act--including the first Wild and Scenic subterranean river, the ``River Styx.'' A perennial stream, the River Styx--an underground portion of Cave Creek--flows through part of the cave and is one of the dynamic natural forces at work in the National Monument. In addition, this bill would authorize the retirement of existing grazing allotments. The current grazing permitee, Phil Krouse's family, has had the Big Grayback Grazing Allotment, 19,703 acres, since 1937. Mr. Krouse has publicly stated that he would look favorably upon retirement with private compensation for his allotment, which my legislation will allow to proceed.

The Oregon Caves National Monument offers important contributions to Southern Oregon and the nation. The cave ecosystem provides habitat for one of the highest concentrations of biological diversity anywhere. And as the longest marble cave open to the public west of the Continental Divide, the Monument receives over 80,000 visitors annually. A larger Monument boundary will help showcase more fully the recreational opportunities on the above-ground lands within the proposed Monument boundary.

I want to express my thanks to the conservation and business communities of southern Oregon, who have worked diligently to protect these lands and waters.

My second bill is the Devil's Staircase Wilderness Act of 2013. Under this bill, approximately 30,500 acres of rugged, wild, pristine, and remote land surrounding the Wasson Creek area will be designated wilderness. In fact the area is so rugged that federal land managers have withdrawn this landslide-prone forest from all timber activity numerous times. At the heart of this coastal rainforest lies Devil's Staircase, a crystal clear waterfall that cascades over slab after slab of sandstone. The Devil's Staircase proposal typifies what Wilderness in Oregon is all about.

The proposed Devil's Staircase Wilderness is the finest old-growth forest remaining in Oregon's Coast Range, boasting huge Douglas-fir, cedar and hemlock. The ecological significance of this treasure is as clear as the water running through Devil's Staircase. The land is protected as a Late-Successional Reserve by the Northwest Forest Plan, as critical habitat for the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet, and as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern by the Bureau of Land Management. Preserving these majestic forests as Wilderness for their wildlife and spectacular scenery not only matches the goals of the existing land management plans but also permanently protects this natural gem for future generations. The wilderness designation is needed to protect these areas permanently.

My bill would not only protect the forests surrounding Wasson Creek but would also designate approximately 4.5 miles of Franklin Creek and approximately 10.1 miles of Wasson Creek as Wild and Scenic Rivers. Franklin Creek, a critically important tributary to the Umpqua River, is one of the best examples of pristine salmon habitat left in Oregon. Together with Wasson Creek, these two streams in the Devil's Staircase area deserve Wild and Scenic River designation by Congress.

The third bill I am introducing is the Oregon Treasures Act of 2013. This bill seeks to provide protections for five significant areas in Oregon. They are the Chetco River, the Molalla River, the Rogue River, and Horse Heaven and Cathedral Rock. Each of these parts of the bill aim to protect natural treasures in Oregon, preserve them for use and enjoyment for generations to come, and build upon the economic opportunities they provide for their local communities.

The Oregon Treasures Act of 2013 includes a provision to protect two of Oregon's natural treasures, Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven. This wilderness designation has been introduced in the two most recent Congresses. The Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven wilderness proposal will do more than simply protect these areas. It will also help Oregon's economy, because visitors from all over the world come to my state to experience firsthand the unique scenic beauty of place like the lands preserved by this bill.

This legislation will consolidate what is currently a splintered ownership of land in this area and protect 17,340 acres of new Wilderness along the Lower John Day River. The fractured land ownership in this area makes it difficult for visitors to fully appreciate these areas when they hike, fish or hunt there because of the scattered and misunderstood lines of private and public ownership. This bill will solve that problem and make these lands more inviting to visitors while giving the landowners more contiguous property to call home.

The area in question is stunning. The Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven Wilderness proposals encompass dramatic basalt cliffs and rolling hills of juniper, sagebrush and native grasses. These new areas build on the desert Spring Basin Wilderness that was established in 2009 as a result of legislation I introduced, and are located directly across the John Day River from Spring Basin.

With 500 miles of undammed waters, the John Day River is the second- longest free-flowing river in the continental United States and is a place that is cherished by Oregonians. The Lower John Day Wild and Scenic River offers world-class opportunities for outdoor recreation as well as crucial wildlife habitat for elk, mule deer, bighorn sheep and native fish such as salmon and steelhead trout. Through land consolidation between public and private landowners, this legislation will allow for better management and easier public access for this important natural treasure. With the current fragmentation of public and private land ownership in the area, river campsites are limited. Many federal lands among them can't be reached by the hikers, campers and other outdoors recreationists who could most appreciate them. With the equal-value land exchanges included in this bill, public lands would be consolidated into two new Wilderness areas. This would enhance public safety, improve land management, and increase public access and recreational opportunities. I want to recognize that some have raised concerns about the lack of roaded access to Cathedral Rock. I have engaged the private landowners on this issue to seek a solution. Whatever the outcome, I do know that the Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven proposal will create an incredible, new heritage for public lands recreationists who are an important factor in keeping Oregon's economy healthy and thriving.

Rafters of the John Day River can attest to the need for more campsites and public access to the Cathedral Rock area. Backcountry hunters will be able to scan the hillsides for elk, deer and game-birds without having to worry about accidentally trespassing on someone's private land. Anglers will be able to access nearly 5 miles of the John Day River that today are only reachable from privately owned lands. Likewise, such a solution ensures that local landowners can manage their lands effectively without running across unwitting trespassers.

One good example of the value of these land swaps is Young Life's Washington Family Ranch. This Ranch is home to a Christian youth camp that welcomes over 20,000 kids to the lower John Day area each year. This bill sets out private and public land boundaries that can be clearly seen on the ground and these boundaries create a safer area for campers on the Ranch; this serves the children who visit the area well and ensures the continued viability of the Ranch, which, in turn, provides big economic dividends to the local community.

The Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven Wilderness proposal is described as ``win-win-win'' by many stakeholders--nearly five miles of new river access for the public and protected land for outdoor enthusiasts; better management for private landowners and public agencies; and important habitat protections for sensitive and endangered species. This proposal is an example of the positive solutions that can result when varied, bipartisan interests in a community come together to craft solutions that will work for everyone. I especially want to thank the Oregon Natural Desert Association, Young Life, and Matt Smith for their role in developing this collaborative solution

that will benefit all Oregonians. The Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven Wilderness areas will help make sure that this rural area will enjoy the benefits that permanently connecting these disparate pieces of natural landscape will bring for generations to come.

Additionally the Oregon Treasures Act protects the Chetco River. For over a decade, I've advocated for protections for the Chetco and other threatened waterways in Southwest Oregon. Part of the Oregon Treasures Act of 2013 would withdraw about three miles of the Chetco River from mineral entry, while upgrading the designations for some portions.

This river is under persistent threat from out-of-state suction dredge miners. In 2010, the group American Rivers listed the Chetco as the seventh most endangered river in the country because of those threats. Withdrawing these portions of the river from future mineral entry will prevent future harmful mining claims and make sure that those claims that already exist are valid.

The Chetco is also hugely important for salmon habitat and local sport fishing. The passage of this legislation would mean protecting that habitat, and promoting the continued success of the fishing industry throughout the West Coast. I am pleased the Obama administration has taken some steps to protect this area, but the passage of this legislation is needed to ensure long-term protection for this important river.

Next, the Oregon Treasures Act of 2013 would add 60,000 acres of new wilderness to the existing Wild Rogue Wilderness. The Wild Rogue Wilderness expansion would protect habitat for bald eagles, osprey, spotted owls, bear, elk, cougar, wild coho, wild Chinook, wild steelhead, green sturgeon, and many others. The Wild Rogue Wilderness and the Rogue River that runs through it embody one of the nation's premier recreation destinations, famous for the free flowing waters which provide numerous rafting and fishing opportunities.

The headwaters of the Rogue River start in one of Oregon's other great gems--Crater Lake National Park--and the river ultimately empties into the Pacific Ocean, near Gold Beach on Oregon's southwest coast. Along that stretch, the Rogue River flows through one of the most spectacular canyons and diverse natural areas in the United States. The Rogue River is a world class rafting river, offering everything from one day trips to week long trips through deep forested canyons. On the land, the Rogue River trail is also one of Oregon's most renowned backpacking routes.

The legislation would also protect an additional 143 miles of tributaries that feed the Rogue River with cold clean water. Of that number, 93 miles would be designated Wild and Scenic Rivers and an additional 50 miles would be protected from mining. The areas receiving protection include Galice Creek, Little Windy Creek, Jenny Creek, Long Gulch and 36 other tributaries of the Rogue. The Rogue River is one of Oregon's most iconic and beloved rivers. It is a river that teems with salmon leaping up rapids to spawn, and finds rafters down those very same rapids at other times of the year.

I previously introduced legislation to protect the Rogue River tributaries in the last three Congresses. Since it was first introduced, I have worked with the timber industry and conservationists to find a compromise that protects one of America's treasures with additional wilderness designations and more targeted protections for the Rogue's tributaries. I am pleased that 95 local businesses--and over 120 organizations and business in total--support protecting the Wild Rogue, and that support grows every day. Many of those businesses directly benefit from the Wild Rogue and the Rogue River. As I often say, protecting these gems is not just good for the environment, but also good for the economy. These protected landscapes are powerhouses of the recreation economy that draws visitors from around the world to this region and the Rogue River is one of Oregon's most important sport and commercial fisheries. The Wild Rogue is the second largest salmon fishery in Oregon behind the Columbia. The Wild Rogue provides the quality of life and recreational opportunities that create an economic engine that attracts businesses and brings in tourists from around the world. The Rogue River supports more than 400 local jobs in nearby communities like Grants Pass.

By protecting the Wild Rogue landscape and the tributaries that feed the mighty Rogue River, Congress will ensure that future generations can raft, fish, hike and enjoy the Wild Rogue as it is enjoyed today and that the recreational economy of this region remains strong.

Lastly, there is another provision in the bill to designate segments of Oregon's Molalla River as Wild and Scenic. An approximately 15.1- mile segment of the Molalla River and an approximately 6.2-mile segment of Table Rock Fork Molalla River would be designated as a recreational river under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

Including these river segments would protect a popular Oregon destination that provides abundant recreational activities that help fuel the recreation economy that is so important to the communities along the river. The scenic beauty of the Molalla River provides a backdrop for hiking, mountain biking, camping, and horseback riding, while the waters of the river are a popular destination for fishing, kayaking, and whitewater rafting enthusiasts. This legislation would not only preserve this area as a recreation destination, but would also protect the river habitat of the Chinook salmon and Steelhead trout, along with the wildlife habitat surrounding the river, home to the northern spotted owl, the pileated woodpecker, golden and bald eagles, deer, elk, the pacific giant salamander, and many others. The Molalla River is also the source of clean drinking water for the towns of Molalla and Canby, Oregon. Protecting the approximately 21.3 miles of the Molalla River will provide the residents of these Oregon towns with the assurance that they will continue to receive clean drinking water.

I would like to reiterate my continued appreciation for the Molalla River Alliance--a coalition of more than 48 member-organizations that recognize that this river is a jewel and have set out to protect it. This Alliance made sure that irrigators, city councilors, the mayor, businesses and environmentalists all came together on this.

Oregon's wildlands play an increasingly important role in the economic development of our state, especially in traditionally rural areas east of the Cascades. Visitors come from thousands of miles away to hike, fish, raft and hunt in Oregon's desert Wilderness. Beyond tourism, the rich quality of life and the diverse natural amenities that we enjoy as Oregonians are key to attracting new businesses to Oregon. And with all these bills, I express my gratitude for the many groups and individuals who have worked diligently to protect these special places. I look forward to working with Senator Merkley, Representative DeFazio, Representative Schrader and other colleagues and the bill's other supporters to keep up the fight for these unique places in Oregon and get these pieces of legislation to the President's desk for his signature.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Paul, McConnell, and Merkley in introducing the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2013.

As some folks will recall, I introduced a similar bill as an amendment to the Senate Farm Bill last year in an attempt to empower American farmers and increase domestic economic activity. Unfortunately, this amendment didn't receive a vote. Doubly unfortunate is the fact that a senseless regulation that flunks the common-sense test is still on our nation's books.

Members of Congress hear a lot about how dumb regulations are hurting economic growth and job creation. The current ban on growing industrial hemp makes no sense at all, and what is worse, this regulation is hurting job creation in rural America and increasing our trade deficit.

If my colleagues take the time to learn about this outrageous restriction on free enterprise, I am sure most senators would say that what I am talking about is the poster child for dumb regulation.

The only thing standing in the way of taking advantage of this profitable crop is a lingering misunderstanding about its use. The bill my colleagues and I have filed will end this ridiculous regulation.

Right now, the United States is importing over $10 million in hemp products to use in textiles, foods, paper products, and construction materials. We are importing a crop that U.S. farmers could be profitably growing right here at home, if not for government rules prohibiting it.

Our neighbors to the north certainly see the potential for this product. In 2010, the Canadian government injected over $700,000 into their blossoming hemp industry to increase the size of their hemp crop and fortify the inroads they have made into U.S. markets. It was a good bet. U.S. imports have consistently grown over the past decade, increasing by 300 percent in 10 years, and from 2009 to 2010 they grew 35 percent. The number of acres in Canada devoted to growing hemp nearly doubled from 2011 to 2012. So it should come as no surprise that the United States imports around 90 percent of its hemp from Canada.

Now, I know it is tough for some members of Congress to talk about hemp and not connect it to marijuana. I want to point out that even though they come from the same species of plant, there are major differences between them.

You know, the Chihuahua and St. Bernard come from the same species, too, Canis lupus familiaris, but no one is going to confuse them. Also, the domestic dog is a subspecies of the gray wolf, Canis lupus, and no one is going to confuse those two either. So let's recognize the real differences between hemp and marijuana, and focus on the benefits from producing domestically the hemp we already use.

Under our bill, the production of industrial hemp would still be regulated, but it would be done by States, not the Federal Government.

Pro-hemp legislation has been introduced in eight states, and several others have already removed barriers to industrial hemp production. Under our bill, industrial hemp is defined as having extremely low THC levels: it has to be 0.3 percent or less. The lowest commercial grade marijuana typically has 5% THC content. The bottom line is that no one is going to get high on industrial hemp. To guarantee that won't be the case, our legislation allows the U.S. Attorney General to take action if a state law allows commercial hemp to exceed the maximum 0.3 percent THC level.

Hemp has been a profitable commodity in many other countries. In addition to Canada, Australia also permits hemp production and the growth in that sector helped their agricultural base survive when the tobacco industry dried up. Over 30 countries in Europe, Asia, and North and South America currently permit farmers to grow hemp, and China is the world's largest producer.

In fact, the U.S. is the only industrialized nation that prohibits farmers from growing hemp. This seems silly considering that we are the world's leading consumer of hemp products, with total sales of food, health and beauty products exceeding $52 million in 2012, with 16.5 percent growth over 2011.

My home State of Oregon is home to some major manufacturers of hemp products, including Living Harvest, one of the largest hemp foods producers in the country. Business has been so brisk there that the Portland Business Journal recently rated them as one of the fastest- growing local companies.

There are similar success stories in many states. One company in North Carolina has begun incorporating hemp into building materials, reportedly making them both stronger and more environmentally friendly. Another company in California produces hemp-based fiberboard.

No country is better than the U.S. at developing, perfecting, and expanding markets for its products. As that market grows, it should be domestically-produced hemp that supplies its growth.

I would like to share with colleagues an editorial by one of the leading newspapers in my state, the Bend Bulletin. Here's what they had to say about legalizing industrial hemp: ``producers of hemp products in the United States are forced to import it. That denies American farmers the opportunity to compete in the market. It is like surrendering the competitive edge to China and Canada, where it can be grown legally.''

The Bend Bulletin's editorial went on to say: ``Legalizing industrial hemp does not have to be a slippery slope toward legalizing marijuana. It can be a start toward removing regulatory burdens limiting Oregon farmers from competing in the world market.''

The opportunities for American farmers and businesses are obvious here. Let's boost revenues for farmers and reduce the costs for businesses around the country that use this product. Let's put more people to work growing and processing an environmentally-friendly crop, with a ready market in the United States. For all the reasons I just described, I urge my colleagues to join Senators Paul, McConnell, and Merkley and me by cosponsoring this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Geothermal Expansion Production Act of 2013. This legislation is the same as a bill reported favorably by voice vote by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources during the 112th Congress. This bill has bi- partisan support, with Senators Murkowski, Begich, Crapo, Risch, and Merkley, joining me as original cosponsors. The legislation will help to encourage the production of geothermal energy from public lands.

With limited exceptions, current law requires that all Federal lands to be leased for the development of geothermal resources be offered on a competitive basis. BLM must hold a competitive lease sale every 2 years. If bids are not received for the lands offered, BLM must offer the lands on a noncompetitive basis for 2 years.

This legislation extends the authority for noncompetitive leasing in cases where a geothermal developer wants to gain access to Federal land immediately adjacent to land on which that developer has proven that there is a geothermal resource that will be developed. This will allow a geothermal project to expand onto adjacent land, if necessary, to increase the amount of geothermal energy it can develop. It will also add to the royalties and rents that the project pays to the U.S. Treasury.

The reason for this legislation is to allow the rapid expansion of already identified geothermal resources without the additional delays of competitive leasing and without opening up those adjacent properties to speculative bidders who have no interest in actually developing the resource, only in extracting as much money as they can from the existing geothermal developer.

The bill is not a give away at taxpayer expense. The bill limits the amount of adjacent Federal land that can be leased to 640 acres. This lease on Federal land must be acquired at fair-market value. The bill also requires the lease holder to pay the higher annual rental rate associated with competitive leases even though this new parcel is not being competitively leased. Again, the purpose of this higher rental rate is to ensure that taxpayers will get the revenue due to them from the use of their public lands.

I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today for the fourth time to introduce or reintroduce legislation to settle the outstanding land claims of the Tlingit and Haida Native people, the first people of Southeast Alaska. I first introduced this legislation to speed up the conveyance of lands to the Sealaska Native Regional Corporation in 2008. Native residents of Southeast Alaska in 1971 were promised lands to settle their aboriginal land claims to all of Southeast Alaska. Under the motto that nothing of worth comes easy, I hope that the compromise bill I introduce today with my colleague from Alaska Senator Begich will finally settle those claims early in the 113th Congress, capping nearly six years of congressional negotiation and review on this issue.

The newly revised bill establishes where and how Sealaska may select the remaining 70,075 acres of land the Bureau of Land Management now says it is entitled to receive under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, ANCSA. In all, Sealaska, the regional corporation representing some 20,000 Alaska Natives, more than a fifth of all Native residents in Alaska, will receive about 68,400 acres of land for timber development, about 1,099 acres for other economic development such as hydroelectric generation, marine hydrokinetic activity and future tourism development near Yakutat, Kake and Hydaburg, and 490 acres that Sealaska can apply for to gain an additional 76 cemetery and historical places.

The bill provides a balance of old-growth and second-growth timber, allowing Sealaska's timber business to transition to second-growth harvesting. To address local concerns, the new bill does not contain some 26,000 acres of selections on northern Prince of Wales Island. This version of the bill also eliminates more lands near Kassa Inlet and Mabel Bay near Keete on Prince of Wales Island to meet wildlife concerns, buffer key fisheries and anchorage areas for fishermen, and revises selection areas to address the Forest Service's desire to retain more lands that will aid its young-growth timber transition strategy in the Tongass National Forest.

Frankly, it has taken years of frustrating talks and negotiations to reach this point. This bill contains more than 175 changes since the 2008 version, all designed to make the bill acceptable to all Americans. While the odds are that it still won't make absolutely everyone happy, the bill does address all of the major concerns voiced with the Sealaska bill during nearly a half dozen congressional hearings, 22 town hall meetings, and in hundreds of letters and media comments. It gives Sealaska its ANCSA selections, while it provides unprecedented public access to the lands Sealaska will be receiving, and meets the valid concerns of small communities, fishermen and timber workers and protects their industries while fully protecting the environment.

It is a compromise. Clearly there are provisions in the bill that I wish were different, but on balance, it is a fair solution to a most difficult matter that has been dragging on for more than four decades. It is certainly a balanced solution that allows Sealaska to finally take title to the last 70,000 acres it was promised by the land claims settlement--lands largely to be used for economic development in a region where unemployment often hits 25 percent--while at the same time protecting more than twice as many acres for environmental and fisheries protection in Southeast Alaska, an area roughly the size of South Carolina. The bill does the latter by creating 152,000 acres of new conservation habitat areas in the region in eight tracts.

The revised bill also requires Sealaska, by a conservation easement, to protect three major salmon spawning systems on lands it is gaining by imposing a 100-foot no-cut buffer, specifically, along the main stem of Trout Creek on Koscuisko Island, along Old Tom Creek at Polk Inlet and along Karheen and Tuxekan Creeks on Tuxekan Island. The State Forest Practices Act and buffer rules will govern the management of all other streams on state lands inside the new Sealaska selections.

The bill continues and strengthens all public access provisions contained in ANCSA. The bill contains a provision that guarantees public access to Sealaska's economic land selections for recreation, hunting and fishing both sport and subsistence, allowing closures only to protect public safety, to safeguard cultural properties, to promote educational efforts or to protect against environmental damage, while allowing the public to legally challenge any such closures. It also protects the rights of existing guides and tour operators to continue operations automatically on Sealaska lands for portions of two permit terms, or up to 20 years.

The revised bill also reduces the size of selection areas on Koscuisko and Tuxekan Islands to meet local community concerns, to protect, subsurface, karst formations, to protect old-growth habitat areas for sensitive species, and to protect anchorages for fishermen. The revised bill rearranges selection areas at 12 Mile Arm and Polk Inlet to protect Forest Service planning, facilities and research facilities, and increases the size of selection areas at Calder and the Cleveland Peninsula to offset the acreage reductions.

Sealaska, through this bill, will give up its existing selection rights to 327,000 acres of the Tongass National Forest, allowing that timber to return to full Forest Service planning control, and the bill will result in Sealaska selecting about 25,000 fewer acres of old- growth timber, traditionally the most sought after lands in the forest and about 50,000 fewer acres of inventoried road less lands than might have happened should Sealaska have stayed inside their original selection boundaries, lands that were designated for selection by the corporation in 1976. The problem with those lands, the reason why this bill is so important for the public good, is that if Sealaska had to select from those lands it would have had to select timber lands in the Situk River Valley, the home to the nation's foremost steelhead stream. It would have had to select lands in the Craig municipal watershed, key fisheries habitat near Hoonah and Hydaburg and some 64,000 acres of Old-Growth Habitat Reserves, four times more such land than the corporation is taking by this bill. Those selections would have been bad for the commercial and sport fishing industries, for tourism, and for the environment. Equally important from Sealaska's viewpoint, 44 percent of the lands it had to select from by the 1976 selection areas were located under water bodies, making the selection rights worthless.

Sealaska may use part of its entitlement to select 76 cemetery sites and historical places, but to address concerns from some stakeholders, the bill reduces the number and acreage of cemetery sites and historical places that Sealaska can file to receive. Acreage available to Sealaska was reduced more than six fold, from 3,600 acres in the original 2008 bill to a maximum of 490 acres. The total number of sites was reduced from 206 in the original bill and all parks and wilderness lands were placed off limits.

This bill also confirms that all cemetery sites and historical places will have to pass the existing historical review process before they can be conveyed. The bill, again, prohibits the selection of cemetery sites and historical places inside parks and conservation system units. Sealaska will be required to consult with local tribes before applying for conveyance of any sites, and the bill prohibits the transfer of such sites to third parties and protects them from loss of Native ownership in the event of any future financial claims against Sealaska--the lands reverting to the Federal Government in the event of financial issues. The bill also requires that Sealaska provide a 25- foot easement to allow anyone to sport fish along any salmon stream that crosses such new sites.

The bill allows Sealaska to receive nine small parcels of land that Sealaska may use to help spur cultural tourism, ecotourism, or, in two cases, renewable energy development near the communities of Yakutat, Kake, and Hydaburg. The number of sites, totaling 1,099 acres, is vastly reduced, considering more than 50 sites totaling 5,000 acres had been considered in earlier versions of the legislation. The small parcels all are within or near the so-called 10 selection boxes established by a 1976 amendment to ANCSA. Five sites are in the Yakutat area, where Sealaska currently owns no land on behalf of its tribal member shareholders. The sites in the Yakutat area are at Crab Island, North Dolgoi Island, Cannon Beach, Chicago Harbor and Redfield Lake. Two sites are in the Kake area: Turnabout Island and East Payne Island. There is a hydro site at Lake Josephine on Prince of Wales I and and a final site for marine hydrokinetic development, ocean current energy, on the northern tip of Dall Island at Turn Point-Tlevak Narrows' revised bill removes all sites that drew concern from commercial fishermen, small tour operators, environmental groups or local communities in the Alaska Panhandle.

The compromise bill conveys three non-exclusive access easements to Sealaska to use as traditional Native trade and migration routes in Southeast. The bill, as revised, renames the routes to honor Alaska's Tlingit and Haida Indians and the history of the region and provides generally for public access. The Yakutat to Dry Bay trail will be renamed ``Neix naax aan flax'' meaning, The Inside Passage; the Bay of Pillars to Port Camden trail will be renamed the ``Yakwdeiyl'' trail, meaning the Canoe Road; and the Portage Bay to Duncan Canal trail will be renamed ``Lingit Deiyl,'' meaning the People's Road.

The bill requires Sealaska to share use of all forest roads with the Forest Service and others, meaning that the government retains the right to use the roads to access other timber sales, as do the public. The bill maintains all of the access provisions granted by ANCSA and includes provisions to make access rights workable for all.

It has taken years of really listening to the requests about this bill and working through them one by one to find solutions, with the past nearly two years involved in frequent negotiations among the Forest Service, Democratic and Republican congressional staff, Sealaska, environmental groups and other interest groups such as commercial fishermen and timber operators. This is truly a compromise piece of legislation. But it finally gets Sealaska its lands, protects fisheries and wildlife, and helps maintain a timber industry in Southeast Alaska.

This compromise, the direct result of years of negotiation, has a host of good points. It will prevent ``high-grading'' of timber' the practice where companies cut only the best timber lands, leaving lesser quality lands behind. Sealaska's conveyances in the nine commercial tracts called for in this bill: Calder, Election Creek, Cleveland Peninsula, 12-Mile Arm, Tuexkan Island, Polk and MacKenzie Inlets, Koscuisko Island, Keete, and Kuiu Island include only about 20,700 acres of large old-growth trees just 3.8 percent of the forest's 537,451 acres of such trees. Already 437,000 acres of large old-growth trees, 81 percent, are protected in conservation areas within the 19.6- million-acre national forest.

The bill likely will save the government money. In additional to making Sealaska give up some $2 million of escrowed funds, the bill means Sealaska, by getting about 25,000 acres of less valuable second- growth, based on current timber prices, could be foregoing more than $10 million of timber value, compared to if it had received all old- growth trees--old-growth providing the most valuable habitat for species in the forest like Sitka black-tailed deer, the Queen Charlotte goshawk and wolves.

For Alaskans, the bill makes sure that more than 99 percent of the lands Sealaska will be receiving are open for public access. That is the opposite of what could happen if this bill does not pass, as then Sealaska would be free to prevent the public from trespassing across their new lands, like all other private land owners can post their properties.

The changes between this version and previous versions of the measure are far too many to list here. But briefly this bill reduces the number and acreage of small parcels for economic diversification, once called ``Future'' sites. It reduces the number of new Native cemetery and historical places that Sealaska could select, allowing only such sites outside national parks or wilderness to be selected. The bill increases public access provisions, prevents Sealaska from gaining potential federal grants for management of the cemetery sites, removes a host of questionable land selections on environmental grounds and revises timber lands to protect subsistence hunting areas and resource gathering spots.

As I say, I introduce this bill in a bipartisan manner with my Alaska colleague, Senator Mark Begich again as a co-sponsor. It is a reasonable bill and I hope it finally can pass both bodies of Congress, it passing the House of Representatives in a somewhat different form in 2012 and become law. Southeast Alaska's Natives, which while the largest group of Natives in Alaska in 1971, received the third smallest land entitlement in the claims act 42 years ago. That was mostly because much of the rest of the forest at the time was already dedicated to long-term timber sale contracts. Now that those contracts have been voided, it is only just and equitable that Alaska's first inhabitants get a chance to select a little more of the land first settled by their ancestors.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation to clarify Federal mining law and remedy a problem that has arisen from the extension process for ``small'' miner mineral claims.

Under revisions to the Federal Mining Law of 1872, 30 U.S.C. 28(f), holders of unpatented mineral claims must pay a claim maintenance fee originally set at $100 per claim by a deadline, set by regulation, of September 1st each year. Since 2004 that fee has risen. But Congress also has provided a claim maintenance fee waiver for ``small'' miners, those who hold 10 or fewer claims, that they do not have to submit the fee, but that they must file to renew their claims and submit an affidavit of annual labor, work conducted on the claim, each year, certifying that they had performed more than $100 of work on the claim in the preceding year, 30 U.S.C. 28f(d)(1). The waiver provision further states: ``If a small miner waiver application is determined to be defective for any reason, the claimant shall have a period of 60 days after receipt of written notification of the defect or defects by the Bureau of Land Management to: cure such defect or defects or pay the $100 claim maintenance fee due for such a period.''

Since past revisions of the law, there have been a series of incidents where miners have argued that they submitted their applications and affidavits of annual labor in a timely manner, but due to clerical error by BLM staff, mailing delays or for unexplained reasons, the applications or documents were not recorded as having been received in a timely fashion. In that case BLM has terminated the claims, deeming them null and void. While mining claim holders have argued that the law provides them time to cure claim defects, BLM has argued that the cure only applies when applications or fees have been received in a timely manner. Thus, there is no administrative remedy for miners who believe that clerical errors by BLM or mail issues resulted in loss or the late recording of claim extension applications and paperwork.

There have been a number of cases where Congress has been asked to override BLM determinations and reinstate mining claims simply because of the disputes over whether the claims had been filed in a timely manner. Congress in 2003 reinstated such claims in a previous Alaska case. Claims in two other incidents were reinstated following a U.S. District Court case in the 10th Circuit first in 2009 in the case of Miller v. United States and secondly earlier this year in a second Alaska case. Legislation to correct the provision to prevent this problem in the future actually cleared the Senate in 2007, but did not ultimately become law.

In the past two Congresses I have introduced legislation intended to short circuit continued litigation and pleas for claim reinstatement by clarifying the intent of Congress that miners do have to be informed that their claims are in jeopardy of being voided and given 60 days notice to cure defects, including giving them time to submit their applications and to submit affidavits of annual labor, should their submittals not be received and processed by BLM officials on time. If all defects are not cured within 60 days, the obvious intent of Congress in passing the original act, then claims still are subject to voidance. But this administration has opposed the legislation arguing that it would be too expensive to notify all small miners who fail to file their small miner waiver documents on time and giving them time to solve the defect prior to the loss of their claims. It has even been suggested that giving small miners simple due process would just encourage miners to ignore the deadline for filing for their fee waivers.

I find the cost complaint unpersuasive. Many Federal departments and agencies, the Federal Communication Commission, as one example, routinely sends out notices on permit and license applications. The FCC sends out hundreds of thousands of such notices to Americans who have small radio licenses expiring yearly, warning them that they need to file applications for license renewal. The Bureau of Land Management certainly should be able to afford a few hundred 50-cent stamps to perform a similar service. Given the value of claims placed at risk and the bother, inconvenience and fear of loss of claims, it is highly unlikely that miners would avoid filing their waiver paperwork on time just because a notification process was clearly in place before claims could be terminated.

So today I reintroduce legislation to solve the notification issue and include language to remedy an injustice to one of my constituents who has lost his rights to nine mineral claims on the Kenai Peninsula, near Hope, Alaska. The transition language would reinstate claims for Mr. John Trautner, who has lost title to claims that he had held from 1982 to 2004. Mr. Trautner suffered this loss even though he had a consistent record of having paid the annual labor assessment fee for the previous 22 years. The local BLM office did have a time-date- stamped record that the maintenance fee waiver certification form had been filed weeks before the deadline but just not a record that the affidavit of annual labor had arrived when he dropped it office in the Anchorage office at the same time.

This legislation, supported in the past by the Alaska Miners Association, will clarify that small miners do have a right to simple due process to be able to have a chance to file their small miner waiver applications in the event of mistakes in processing, rather than immediately lose their rights to patented mining claims without effective appeal or recourse. I appreciate that the Justice Department and BLM Jan. 22, 2013 reinstated claims owned by Alaskans Don and Judy Mullikins of Nome, finally reversing a decision that they should lose their claims following a 2009 application filing incident. But the legal expense, bother and uncertainty that the Mullikins went through in getting their claims reinstated are clear reasons why Congress should clarify past changes to the small miner waiver provision and permit claims to be retained in the event of clerical errors or honest mistakes by claim holders in missing the deadline for filings. Such a change would simply provide justice for small miners.

Mr. Speaker, the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2015 includes several small business sections, including Section 825 which was taken from my legislation H.R. 2452, The Women's Procurement Program Equalization Act of 2013. This bill was considered by the full Small Business Committee, of which I am the Ranking Member, and passed out by voice vote. This bill is an expansion of the Women's Procurement Program that was created as a result of legislation that I authored almost fifteen years ago and was passed by Congress in 2000. It increases the opportunities for legitimate women-owned small businesses to participate in the Federal marketplace and increase their share of federally awarded dollars. The legislation creates a level playing field between the existing small business government contracting programs under the Small Business Act by allowing contracting officers to award contracts to these businesses through a sole source mechanism, similar to those that exist for the HUBZone and Service-Disabled Veterans programs. Additionally, the language of the legislation eliminates the ability for businesses to self-certify for the Women's Procurement Program, thereby reducing the potential for fraud and increasing the dollars that genuine small businesses receive. As the author of the provisions, I would like to provide some background to be taken into consideration as we move forward to implement the legislation.

The number and economic contributions of women-owned firms continue to grow. For example, the rate of growth in the number of women-owned enterprises over the past 16 years remains higher than the national average. Between 1997 and 2013, when the number of businesses in the U.S. increased by 41%, women-owned firms grew by 59%--about 1\1/2\ times the national average. Furthermore, over the past six years, since the depth of the U.S. recession, privately held majority women-owned firms have provided a net increase in employment.

Yet, during this time women-owned small businesses continue to face challenges in the Federal marketplace. In 1994, the Federal government established a five percent procurement goal for women-owned businesses. However, twenty years later that goal has never been achieved. In FY 2013 year, women-owned small businesses received $15.4 billion, or 4.33 percent of contracting dollars, missing their goal by 3 percent--a loss of over $2.6 billion. It has been estimated that if women-owned small businesses received their 5 percent of the market, more than 673,000 jobs could be created; thus, not only helping their business but also the national economy.

One of the primary obstacles facing women-owned businesses that wish to do business with the government was the failure to implement for 10 years the section 8(m) of the Small Business Act, the Women's Procurement Program. That obstacle was removed in 2011 when the final regulations for the Program were released and implemented. Through this program, women-owned small businesses are eligible for contracts through restricted competition in eighty-three industries that have historically had underutilization of women-owned businesses. Nonetheless, three years after its implementation we have seen little improvement in awards to these businesses as the mechanisms currently at the disposal of contracting officers are limited compared to other programs. While other program participants regularly receive in the billions of Federal contracting dollars, since its implementation this program has seen awards only in the millions. In FY2013, the government only awarded 1,249 contracts worth $101.1 million, approximately 0.120% of small business dollars and 0.021% of all contracting dollars, through the Women's Procurement Program's existing mechanisms. Thus, changes are necessary to increase the participation of this group of businesses and ensure that they receive their fair share of contracting dollars.

The regulations of the program currently allow for either self- certification or third-party certification. Because of the lack of involvement in the certification, there is a high likelihood of fraud In numerous reports, GAO has highlighted these issues of fraud in other self-certification programs like the service-disabled veteran-owned small business program That program has seen several millions of dollars awarded to companies who self-certified they met program criteria when they were filing misleading or false statements to contracting officers in order to qualify for the contracts. This has made contracting officers weary of award to businesses as they are required to review self-certifications and determine their validity, taking them away from the other contracts they oversee. Also, in the implementation of the self-certification of the Women's Procurement Program, SBA requested only 1 million dollars to fund the document repository, eligibility examinations, as well as processing protests. Yet, the agency has not subsequently requested additional funds to maintain and provide oversight for these items further increasing the potential for fraudulent actions.

The bill, therefore, requires that businesses be certified by the Small Business Administration (SBA), among other entities. This ensures that the entity charged with determining the size of a business, SBA, has full control of the certification process. This provision puts the program on par with other small business contracting programs such as the 8(a) Business Development Program and the HUBZone program that rely on SBA certification. By having their own certification departments, the agency has been able to stop many ineligible businesses from entering their programs due to the vast amount of resources and manpower it has compared to other certifying entities. With these tools, SBA has the ability to provide greater oversight and quality control over the certification process.

Additionally, the bill eliminates the self-certification mechanism in the program. Removing this provision allows contracting officers the ability to focus on awarding contracts and limits fraudulent businesses from entering the program. While some may argue that the program will not function as a result of this change, this is not the case as the law still allows for certification from third-party certifiers.

The provisions in this subsection will increase the mechanisms available to contracting officers for awarding contracts through this program and equalize the small business programs by providing the ability for award of sole source contracts to women-owned small businesses. Currently, the Women's Procurement Program is the only small business contracting program under the Small Business Act that does not allow the award of sole source contracts. The provision would thus level the playing field between the small businesses groups and ensure equal participation when possible as well as more opportunities to award women-owned small business contracts than are currently available.

However, it is important to note that this bill and H.R. 2452 both retain the so-called ``Rule of Two'' in which sole source mechanisms can only be used if there is not a reasonable expectation that two or more businesses in the small business group will compete for award. The rule exists in all set-aside programs and while there have been calls by some to eliminate it, nothing in the language of this bill or

the underlying bill should be taken to support that proposition. The Rule of Two plays a vital part in not only allowing more small businesses to participate in the Federal marketplace but also by providing the government the best value from its vendors. Furthermore, this has been the lynchpin in guarding against challenges of the constitutionality of these set-aside programs.

This subsection requires for detailed reporting on contracts awarded by sole source contracts to women-owned small businesses. This is to increase the transparency of the award of these contracts, provide better oversight, and determine why certain industries do not receive these contracts so as to better focus outreach efforts.

In the implementation of these provisions, it is vital that there is no delay by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Regulations for the sole source provision should be enacted immediately and must be completed within 90 days. Additional regulations associated with this section should be released when ready and not held for completion of the entirety of the section's regulations. It is imperative that small businesses are involved in developing the regulations through outreach meetings and that their input is taken into consideration during the drafting process. Additionally, SBA should present draft regulations to the Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives arid the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate and have regularly briefings to update the Committees on the progress of implementation of this section. When the regulations are released, the SBA should conduct outreach with relevant stakeholders, such as contracting officers and Offices of Small Disadvantaged Business Utilization, about how the new tools can be used to maximize women- owned small business participation at individual agencies.

Regarding certification provisions, it is of the upmost importance and the number one priority to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in small business contracting and ensure only qualified women-owned small businesses enter the Women's Procurement Program. These businesses have been put at a disadvantage in the Federal marketplace for many years, and their ability to compete and receive their fair share of contracting dollars should not be diminished due to awards to unscrupulous businesses looking to cheat the system. Therefore, we fully expect the SBA to implement a robust certification program and to request full funding for such in their annual budget submission in February. The original intent of the authorizing legislation passed in 2000 for the Women's Procurement Program was to have the SBA conducting the certification process. However, the agency did not follow through with this intent. By statute, the SBA is the only entity capable of making a size determination. While properly approved third-party certifiers will play an import role in determining eligibility for this program, the agency should not rely solely on such entities to make certification decisions as to a business's eligibility. Therefore, the intent of this legislation is to reiterate that the SBA must create its own certification process to ensure a properly functioning program.

In the interim, the SBA should work with the other certifying entities to manage the increased number of applicants as a result of the loss of self-certification. Furthermore, SBA should approve and ramp in additional third-party certifiers in order to prevent a backlog of applications. In expanding the pool of certifiers, SBA should utilize the same process it used in selecting previous third-party certifiers. SBA must also create safeguard mechanisms in this certification process to limit the opportunity of fraudulent businesses to enter the program. In particular, protections should be put into place to prevent businesses from shopping around for a third-party certifier that will verify the company after they have already been determined to be ineligible for the program. Yet, after a reasonable time has passed, businesses should be allowed to reapply for the program to demonstrate that they have made corrective action on their eligibility requirements. SBA should also conduct random quality control checks on third-party certifiers to ensure that their process adheres to certification guidelines and has precautions to limit fraud, waste, and abuse.

However, it is important to note that while we are requesting additional third-party certifiers and safeguards to handle the influx of applicants to the program, these measures do not release SBA from its obligation to create its own program. As previously stated, we fully expect that the SBA create its own certification program within the agency within the next year.

Inclusion of Section 825 of the NDAA will ensure maximum and equal participation by women-owned small business in the Federal marketplace by providing a contracting mechanism available to other small business contracting programs and reduce the ability of fraud to enter the program by providing proper certification oversight.

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

I want to join with the chairman in urging the body to pass this important piece of legislation. This bill every year helps our military do its job. It provides pay increases for the people who serve in the military, it provides for military construction, and it provides for the necessary authorities that the men and women who serve in our military need to perform the missions that our country asks them to do.

This is particularly important as we continue to fight in Afghanistan and as we continue to try to figure out how to deal with the challenge in Syria and Iraq. I think this bill is of even more importance because it contains within it the train and equip authority to help deal with ISIS and Syria and Iraq.

I really wish to emphasize for this body that that train and equip mission is just that. It in no way, shape, manner, or form authorizes the use of military force, and I think it is the best approach.

I don't want U.S. troops fighting this war. We have learned that U.S. troops cannot win the battle against the evil ideology that al Qaeda and ISIS have promoted. We need local partners. That is what this bill helps us do: train and equip those local partners so that they can fight ISIS on their home turf locally and in a far more successful way.

I will say that this bill is deficient in one regard. We have a smaller defense budget than we ever anticipated that we would have. If sequestration comes to pass, it will be smaller still.

There are very difficult decisions in terms of what equipment to procure, what equipment to set aside, how to cut personnel costs. The Pentagon has wrestled with all of those issues and made a series of proposals to us about how to make those cuts. We rejected pretty much all of them.

That is not going to happen in the future. In 2016-2017 we are going to have to make some choices, because if we don't make choices, readiness gets hurt. It is the last thing that they can cut. They do not fix equipment. They do not train troops as much. They do not pay for ammunition and fuel to do the training. If we don't make the decisions on how to make rational cuts in the budget in light of how much that budget has shrunk, readiness gets hurt. So in the future, I hope we will make those decisions.

I applaud the chairman for his fine work. I want to thank him for an excellent working relationship. I wish him the best. He has been an excellent chairman. He has upheld the tradition of bipartisanship on the House Armed Services Committee as well as anybody. I really appreciate that working relationship. I thank you for the work on this bill, and I urge its passage.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), the ranking member on the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), the ranking member of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), the ranking member of the Military Personnel Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), the ranking member of the Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee.

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo), the ranking member of the Readiness Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the ranking member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

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

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

In closing, I want to, first of all, thank all the people who worked so hard to pull this bill together. The staffs on both the House and the Senate side do an amazing job that most people do not understand just how many long hours they put into this.

The process has been made more and more difficult in recent years by the fact that the Senate either doesn't pass a bill or waits until the absolute last minute to pass a bill, so then we have to work through the committee process. So there have been fits and starts back and forth, and the committee has done a fabulous job. This is a very lengthy, very complicated piece of legislation. Without the expertise of our staff, there is no way on Earth we would be able to accomplish it.

I also want to point out, again, how important this piece of legislation is. This is the 53rd consecutive year that we have passed an authorizing bill. I think that recognizes how important national security is and how it is one of the central duties of the United States Congress to make sure every year we give the authorities to our men and women who are serving in the armed services to do the jobs that we ask them to do. So I thank our staff for that. I really want to recognize their leadership.

I also want to particularly recognize the leadership of Chairman McKeon, as this is his last time as chairman and as a Member of Congress.

Our committee has tried to have two basic core principles: one, we get our bill done; two, we work in a bipartisan fashion. When you look around this body today, you have greater appreciation for how difficult those two things are. We are not naturally bipartisan, and we are not naturally inclined to pass legislation because there is always something about any piece of legislation that somebody would prefer to be just a little bit different. That is not any less true in our bill, but we recognize the necessity of getting it done.

The ability to do those two things starts with the chair of the committee. When I arrived here, Floyd Spence was the chairman of the committee, and he and everyone right up through Ike Skelton, who was Mr. McKeon's predecessor, have made it a priority to, number one, work with the other side. Buck, from the very moment he was elected and the moment I was elected as ranking, reached out to me and made sure that that bipartisanship started at the top and flowed down throughout the entire committee.

And the second piece of it is the absolute commitment to getting the bill done no matter what. Again, Chairman McKeon has just been outstanding in that regard. It has been a tough, tough, long 4 years. Many challenges have cropped up, but we have met every one of them and been able to get the bill done, so I thank him for his leadership.

I also want to thank Chairman Levin on the Senate side, as he is retiring as well. This is his last year as chairman. He showed a similar commitment, and he had an even more difficult time over there. In fact, he and Senator Inhofe had a conversation a couple of days ago as we were trying to figure out how to do this in which they were trying to explain to us the Senate rules. I said: Look, I am never going to understand them. Just don't explain them. There is nothing I can do about it. That is up to you. You guys figure it out as best you can. So Senator Levin has shown outstanding leadership as well.

On the whole, I think this is a very good piece of legislation. We have to remember that we face a wide variety of national security threats at this point. We still have troops in Afghanistan. We now again have troops in Iraq. We have North Korea, which is very unpredictable. We have the challenge of dealing with Iran and all of its levels. We have Russia and Vladimir Putin that are messing around in Ukraine and a variety of different other areas. This is probably as dangerous a time as we have had since the end of the cold war. Our national security strategy, funding, and the decisions we make could not possibly be more important.

At the same time, we have a huge budget challenge. We have sequestration, and we have this rampant desire to cut, cut, cut, cut everything from government, not contemplate any new revenue, not contemplate any possibility of spending more money; and our national security strategy has to try to wrestle with that, so that makes it very, very difficult.

I will say again what I think is going to be most important in the next few years. I don't think sequestration is going away. I am going to continue to argue that it should, but given the majorities in the House and the Senate and given the last election, it is unlikely to go away, which means that the military is going to have to live with a dramatically lower amount of money than they thought they were going to have. They are also going to have to live with all those national security challenges that I mentioned and, undoubtedly, a few that I didn't.

So how do we do that? Right now, unfortunately, Congress is doing it the old way, which is parochial. We all have an interest. We don't want our base closed. We have an airplane or a ship that is stationed in our district or a particular defense contractor that is invested in a particular piece of equipment. So whenever the Pentagon comes up and says, ``We need to cut this,'' you have a predictable group of people who will rally and say, ``Here is why we shouldn't''; and by and large, the rest of Congress has gone along with that group of people.

I am here to tell you that is just not going to continue to work. It is not. The very small minor personnel cuts that are in this bill are things that none of us would have liked to do. We

would love to have more money, but we don't. On the A-10, on the retirement of the cruisers and the amphib vehicles--I am sorry, not the retirement, the refurbishment, the layup of those vehicles--on the changes to the Guard and Reserve that have been proposed, all of these are things that we would prefer not to do. But we have the money that we have, and until this Congress decides to change that and provide more, it is the absolute worst thing we can do to reject every single change.

We have had things as minor as a guard unit wanting to move five C- 130s from a base in one State to a base in another and proposals on our bill to disallow them from doing that because the people in that State don't want them to be moved. I understand that, but that is not a sustainable defense strategy in this environment.

We are going to have to make some difficult choices that we don't want to make if we are going to properly protect our military because, again, what happens when we don't make those choices, money doesn't magically appear to pay for these things. The Pentagon has got to reshuffle the deck and make cuts elsewhere to try to figure out how to make it work, and the cuts always come from readiness.

We have always said that the worst thing that we can do is create a hollow force, a force that does not have the training and the equipment to do the missions that we ask them to do. That is precisely what we do when we reject reasonable cuts--we don't do a BRAC, for instance--and leave the military with no choice but to reduce training and equipment, because that is all that is left. That is the last thing on the table. So I hope that we will start making some of those tough decisions in the next year.

Again, I thank the chairman; I thank the staff; I wish Senator Levin the best in his retirement as well; and I urge passage of the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Ranking Member Smith.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of the FY15 NDAA.

As the ranking member of the Readiness Subcommittee, I appreciate that the bill provides our men and women in uniform with the resources they need to remain trained, equipped, and ready to execute the full range of missions and operations that face our modern military.

In particular, Mr. Speaker, the bill is a significant improvement over the House-passed measure and restores $818 million in cuts to the baseline operations and maintenance account. These funds will ensure that necessary repairs and upgrades to airfields and other mission- critical facilities occur. Among many other important provisions the bill also provides an additional $23 million for two additional combat training center rotations for the Army National Guard.

Mr. Speaker, this bill finally lifts the restrictions on the obligation and expenditure of Government of Japan direct contributions and U.S. military construction funds that directly support the realignment of Marines from Okinawa to Guam. Finally, Mr. Speaker, we can say that the military buildup on Guam is back on track, and this critical component of our rebalanced strategy will begin in earnest soon.

Over the past year there has been significant progress on the realignment, including the signing of a landfill permit by the Okinawan governor, the completion of a draft supplemental EIS document on Guam, and the delivery of a master plan to Congress. The actions we take in this bill fulfill the U.S. Congress' obligation to keep this progress on track. More importantly, we finally demonstrate to our allies in Japan that we value their leadership and role in moving this realignment forward on their end.

I cannot emphasize this enough: this bill moves the military buildup forward and is critical to our overall rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region.

I thank Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith, our readiness chairman, my chairman, Mr. Rob Wittman, and all the members of the committee

for their support. I thank committee staff, particularly Vickie Plunkett and Brian Garrett, for their hard work. I urge my colleagues to pass this very important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, which provides for concurrence to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3979, the text of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. I appreciate the efforts of Chairman Buck McKeon, Ranking Member Adam Smith, Chairman Carl Levin, and Ranking Member Jim Inhofe for their work to ensure we have a compromise package that keeps our 53 year streak of passing defense authorization bills alive. It is unfortunate that the Senate was unable to proceed under regular order to complete its defense bill, which would have allowed for a true Conference Committee to negotiate outcomes. Nevertheless, while this compromise package is not perfect, it does contain many elements that are critical for supporting our service members and our nation's defense posture.

This year's defense bill builds off the progress made last year on the realignment of Marines from Okinawa to Guam. The bill removes any restriction on the obligation and expenditure of Government of Japan and U.S. military construction funds for projects related to the realignment. Removal of the restrictions ensures that the realignment of Marines from Okinawa to Guam is back on track. While I have concerns about the precedence of putting a cost cap on the entire realignment program, the overall outcome in this bill is very positive. The U.S. is finally living up to its commitment under the Guam International Agreement, as amended in 2012.

Over the past year, there has been significant progress in Japan and in the United States regarding this relocation effort. Of greatest importance was the Okinawan Governor's signing of a landfill permit on December 27, 2014. The signing of the landfill permit, under the original agreement, signaled so-called ``tangible progress'' on the Japanese side for the development of the Futenma Replacement Facility in the Henoko area of Okinawa. It took decades to reach this milestone, but last December, the Governor signed the permit which allows for the beginning of construction of a new runway and replacement facility. Furthermore, the Department of Defense (DoD) released its draft supplemental environmental impact statement (DSEIS) for the Marine Corps main cantonment area and live-fire training complex on Guam earlier this spring. The DoD is now developing a final EIS with the intent of signing a record of decision early next spring. DoD also finally submitted a master plan to Congress that outlined the cost of the Marine realignment and provided the fidelity that Congress was seeking on a wide range of details about the relocation effort. All these together enabled us to prevail in Conference Committee and eliminate all the restrictions.

Our alliance with Japan is the cornerstone of peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region. We have shared values economically and in security matters. It was critical that we uphold our end of the agreement this year. The bill finally makes good on our commitment and helps to further strengthen our relationship.

Unfortunately, this bill does not provide authorization for operations and maintenance funds to support civilian infrastructure requirements on Guam. There is a historical context for DoD providing local governments with support for civilian infrastructure requirements, like at Kings Bay, Georgia and Bangor, Washington, and I fundamental disagree with the opposition to this funding because it will support our military servicemembers. It is important to ensure that local infrastructure is able to support and sustain the additional military presence on Guam, and I believe the time is right to make these investments now, so that when Marines arrive on Guam, the overall island infrastructure is ready. I will continue to work with my House colleagues and the Senate to advocate for authorizing previously appropriated funds in future years.

I also greatly support the additional $1.148 million in funding for the Sea Cadet Corps program. This funding is in addition to $1.7 million that was programmed by the U.S. Navy in the Fiscal Year 2015 budget. The Sea Cadet program facilitates professional development for almost 9,000 Sea Cadets aged 11-17, in 387 units across the country. The Naval Sea Cadet Corps instills in every Cadet a sense of patriotism, courage and the foundation of personal honor, and it has significance in assisting to promote the Navy and Coast Guard, particularly in those areas of the U.S. where these Services have little presence.

Finally, I have some concerns about the provision that changes how the Directors of the Army and Air National Guard are appointed in the Department of Defense. A cohesive leadership team is essential to the productivity of any military organization. The Conference version of this provision is an improvement but still leaves much to be desired and the possibility that this process will continue to be abused.

Currently, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau (CNGB) is not by statute or by regulation part of the selection process for his own leadership team and yet, the CNGB is the Department of Defense's official channel of communication regarding all matters relating to the National Guard, the Governors and State Adjutants General. As the National Guard Bureau is now a joint activity of the Department of Defense, the Chief's responsibilities within the Department of Defense and to the Secretary and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have grown. The CNGB should be allowed to create a leadership team that can provide unified representation of the National Guard within the Department of Defense and before Congress.

The provision will now only require consultation with the CNGB on the appointment of the Director and Deputy Directors of the Army and Air National Guard. There is a significant difference between consultation and giving the CNGB the authority he or she needs to have an effective and cohesive leadership team. We cannot neglect the importance of professional experience, knowledge, and understanding in our leadership positions. As a seasoned Guard member, the CNGB possesses a distinct perspective that can accurately identify the appropriate skill sets essential to fulfilling the requirements of senior level officers within the National Guard. We must remember that our National Guard fulfills a unique dual-hated role in meeting their Title 10 responsibilities for federal missions and a state role in supporting disaster relief and homeland defense. The CNGB is in the perfect position to best understand how to balance these sometimes competing paradigms and is best positioned to ensure that these Army and Air National Guard leadership teams can execute and balance these requirements in their role at NGB and in working with the Army and Air Force.

The reason this provision did not achieve our ultimate goals is routed in the antiquated way in which many senior leaders in DoD still view the role of the National Guard. When legislation asking for the Chief to be included in recommending his own staff meets such vocal opposition, it becomes easier to understand just how hard it is for the National Guard within the Service and Pentagon decision making processes and why there is discord on key initiatives. The Congress and both Presidents Bush and Obama have elevated the CNGB to a four-star position, also placing the Chief on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The empowerment of the National Guard was critical to ensuring that our nation's leaders had direct guidance and input on the capabilities that the National Guard can bring to the table in solving a wide range of national security challenges and allows for better coordination of federal and state homeland missions and response. However, the current process of choosing the Director and Deputy Directors of the Army and Air National Guard has been used to leave the CNGB out of the process and push personalities rather than individuals with the joint capabilities to make the entire organization function within its new roles and missions. As such, I will continue to work with my colleagues to watch implementation of this provision and ensure that it is not abused by each respective service and work to improve this provision in future years.

The defense bill is a year long process and is put together with the help and assistance of our outstanding staff. In particular, I appreciate the hard work and coordination of the entire House and Senate Armed Services staffs. I support this bill and urge my colleagues to pass this measure.