H.R. 3992House113th Congress (2013-2015)In Committee

Wildfire Disaster Funding Act of 2014

Legislative Activity

Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action

4 earlier actions

HouseDischarge Latest Action

Motion to Discharge Committee filed by Mr. Peters (CA). Petition No: 113-10. (Discharge petition text with signatures.)

July 11, 2014

View full timeline

HouseIntro Referral

Introduced in House

February 5, 2014

HouseIntro Referral

Referred to the Committee on the Budget, and in addition to the Committees on Agriculture, and Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

Budget Committee

February 5, 2014

HouseCommittee

Referred to the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation.

Federal Lands Subcommittee

February 6, 2014

HouseCommittee

Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and Forestry.

Forestry and Horticulture Subcommittee

February 12, 2014

HouseDischarge

Motion to Discharge Committee filed by Mr. Peters (CA). Petition No: 113-10. (Discharge petition text with signatures.)

July 11, 2014

Floor Debate

12 members

What members said about H.R. 3992 on the floor

5 Republicans7 Democrats

Rep. Louise McIntosh SlaughterD-NY-25 · Jul 10, 2014

Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today…

Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today we are breaking a record yet again for the most closed Congress ever. The majority has broken their own record for the most closed Congress in history. Again and again, they have wasted time, money, and energy on legislative proposals designed to distract us from the problems at hand. And that certainly is true today.

The American people are hoping that Congress will create jobs, expand educational opportunities, and support working families, but instead, we insist on spending millions of dollars on investigating made-up scandals and adding billions and billions to the deficit.

Today we have one rule for two bills: first, the bonus depreciation bill, and, second, the Financial Services Appropriations bill, two bills with nothing in common except to highlight the majority's insistence of choosing policy over people.

Now, H.R. 4718 would make bonus depreciation permanent. This is a policy that maybe you have never heard of, but it is a policy that used to be bipartisan and still would be on a 1- or 2-year basis, like the Senate has proposed. It is designed as a temporary measure, and I emphasize ``temporary'' because if it isn't temporary, it is not effective.

Bonus depreciation gives businesses an extra large immediate tax deduction for a portion of the cost of investments in equipment. Instead of spending more of the deduction over future years, it incentivizes purchasing equipment now in order to provide an immediate boost to the economy, instead of in the future when the incentive may not be available.

And that is how it has always temporarily worked. But if we make it permanent, then the taxpayers are simply subsidizing the cost of the equipment that businesses would need to purchase anyway.

My good friend from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), who is as good a businessman as he is a Congressman--and that is saying a lot--said yesterday that in 2003, his small business went out and bought $100,000 worth of computers specifically because he could take advantage of the bonus depreciation, which was in place and was a very smart thing for him to have done. And that is exactly how bonus depreciation is supposed to work.

Mr. Cole knew computers would be cheaper at that time than in a year or two, when the tax credit would have expired. So he spent the money on equipment. And that surely helped the economy, and I am sure it created some jobs.

But why would Mr. Cole buy the computers immediately if he knew the tax credit would be there forever? He wouldn't, I don't believe. We will talk about that later.

This tool was put in place between 2002 and 2005, at 30 percent and then at 50 percent. It was reenacted in 2008 and then extended four times, often as part of a larger stimulus package, most recently at 50 percent. That expired at the end of 2013.

Now, when enacted as a temporary measure, there has been bipartisan support. However, the bill we have before us intends to make it permanent, completely negating the purpose of the bonus depreciation as a temporary measure.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service looked into the change, and they said, ``Its temporary nature is critical to its effectiveness'' and that bonus depreciation ``was enacted for a specific, short-term purpose.''

Mr. Speaker, I would like to now insert the Congressional Research Service's report, ``Bonus Depreciation: Economic and Budgetary Issues,'' from March 24, 2014, into the Record.

[From Congressional Research Service,

Mar. 24, 2014]

Bonus Depreciation: Economic and Budgetary Issues

(By Jane G. Gravelle, Senior Specialist in Economic Policy)

Summary

The Tax Extenders Act of 2013 (S. 1859), which would extend

expiring tax provisions for a year, includes bonus

depreciation. The temporary provisions enacted in the past

for only a year or two and extended multiple times are

generally referred to collectively as the ``extenders.'' One

reason advanced for these temporary provisions is that time

is needed to evaluate them. Most of these provisions,

however, have been extended multiple times, and some suggest

that these provisions are actually permanent but are extended

a year or two at a time because permanent provisions would

significantly increase the costs in the budget horizon.

Historically, bonus depreciation has not been a traditional

``extender.''

Bonus depreciation allows half of equipment investment to

be deducted immediately rather than depreciated over a period

of time. Bonus depreciation was enacted for a specific,

short-term purpose: to provide an economic stimulus during

the recession. Most stimulus provisions have expired. Bonus

depreciation has been in place six years (2008-2013),

contrasted with an earlier use of bonus depreciation in place

for three years. Is bonus depreciation temporary or

permanent? The analysis of bonus depreciation differs for a

temporary stimulus provision, compared to a permanent

provision that can affect the size and allocation of the

capital stock.

A temporary investment subsidy was expected to be more

effective than a permanent one for short-term stimulus,

encouraging firms to invest while the benefit was in place.

Its temporary nature is critical to its effectiveness. Yet,

research suggests that bonus depreciation was not very

effective, and probably less effective than the tax cuts or

spending increases that have now lapsed.

If bonus depreciation is made permanent, it increases

accelerated depreciation for equipment, contributing to

lower, and in some cases more negative, effective tax rates.

In contrast, prominent tax reform proposals would reduce

accelerated depreciation. Making bonus depreciation a

permanent provision would significantly increase its

budgetary cost.

Compared to a statutory corporate tax rate of 35%, bonus

depreciation lowers the effective tax rate for equipment from

an estimated 26% rate to a 15% rate. Buildings are taxed

approximately at the statutory rate. Total tax rates would be

slightly higher because of stockholder taxes. Because nominal

interest is deducted, however, effective tax rates with debt

finance can be negative. For equity assets taxed at an

effective rate of 35%, the effective tax rate on debt-

financed investment is a negative 5%. The rate on equipment

without bonus depreciation is minus 19%; with bonus

depreciation it is minus 37%.

If bonus depreciation is permanent, estimates of U.S.

effective tax rates reflecting concerns that the U.S. rate is

higher than that of other countries overstate the effective

U.S. corporate tax rate; U.S. effective tax rates on

equipment would be significantly lower than the OECD average.

Moving to permanent bonus depreciation is inconsistent with

tax reform proposals made by the Wyden-Coats bill, the Senate

Finance Committee Staff discussion draft, and Chairman Camp's

proposal. All of these proposals would reduce the current

accelerated depreciation for equipment.

The usual extenders cost a fraction of the cost of

permanent provisions in a 10-year budget window, but bonus

depreciation is a smaller fraction because it is a timing

provision. A one-year extension costs $5 billion for FY2014-

FY2024, less than 2% of the cost of $263 billion for a

permanent provision.

What the majority is fond of saying is that this bill would bring in $10 billion in revenue. And I heard it over and over again at the Rules Committee last night, that we are going to have $10 billion in revenue. But what they fail to say is that over 10 years, it is going to cost us $287 billion, nearly $300 billion, which could buy us a lot of high-speed rail, a lot of bridge infrastructure, a lot of highway work. But what we are now doing is a permanent subsidy to make tax cuts to every business that wants to buy equipment.

Now, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation scored this at $287 billion over 10 years. We are not making that up. The majority is cobbling together a piecemeal approach, and it will not work. We would love to have tax reform, we cry out for tax reform, but this isn't it.

To cap it all off, this is another closed rule. And let me say what that means. Even if a Member wanted to offer an amendment to pay for the nearly $300 billion cost of this bill--which is the rules under which we operate, you know, PAYGO--they wouldn't be allowed.

There are so many better things to spend that $300 billion on, the things that we really need in this country. But the closed rule ensures that it would stifle the debate and hijack the process. And, more than that, we know the Senate will not take this up.

So, once again, we are doing a bill that might make some people feel good but not if they think about it a little bit. Because even the businesses who are going to be prospering from the tax decrease are going to be responsible for the loss of $300 billion.

So with the second bill, which is H.R. 5016, the Financial Services Appropriations, the majority is cherry-picking which agencies to fund and which to strangle for purely political purposes. They will continue chasing down the all-but-defunct IRS conspiracy rabbit, getting funding for the IRS but making it so that $2 billion worth of the tax revenue will not be collected because they have cut the budget of the IRS so much. So add that $2 billion to the $300 billion that we are voting on today for depreciation, and add that onto the deficit, too, since it is not paid for.

In addition, as the majority crisscrosses the country touting states' rights, they have also put forward legislation that obstructs, once again, the District of Columbia's home rule by restricting funding for constitutionally protected medical care. The majority insists on ensuring that women are second-class citizens, and they continue to chip away at our constitutional rights.

Furthermore, this bill continues to prevent multi-State policies under the Affordable Care Act from providing coverage for abortions under the Federal Employees Health Benefits program, except in the most desperate of circumstances.

We need to say over and over again that, of the women in this country who are using birth control, 58 percent--more than half of them--are using it for medical reasons. And they are being deprived. Mr. Speaker, 58 percent of the women in this country who are using prescription contraception are using it because they have medical issues, and it is expensive. But we will not let them get any help because we simply don't believe in providing health care for women.

Government workers deserve the same benefits and the same access to comprehensive health care as those in the private sector enjoy. It is, in fact, dangerous for the majority to target abortion care and require its exclusion from health insurance plans that include other important and necessary reproductive health services. Women expect and deserve the best health care and coverage that fits their needs.

And let's remember that 58 percent of the women who use oral contraceptives use them for medical purposes, not just for birth control.

I would like to be able to say that women should expect their government to be able to put their health and safety above election- year politics, but this is what we have come to expect here. Women deserve better. But I am afraid in the House, women's rights, again, continue to be undermined. Time and again, we have prioritized in this House--some of us--politics over people.

Let me mention the veterans, for example. Listen to this. This is really important to know. While those veterans who have served and sacrificed for our country are waiting months in line for medical care, the House majority will spend more money investigating and trying to debunk a nonexistent Benghazi scandal than helping our veterans get the care they need. That is right. The committee investigating Benghazi has a much larger budget than the Veterans' Affairs Committee. If that is not a political statement, I don't know what is.

And I need to point out that just yesterday, transcripts from the Armed Services Committee about Benghazi proved that everything that could have been done was done.

And I know that when I last did the rule on the floor on the special Benghazi committee that I received a call from the mother of one of the Navy SEALs that died, saying that she really wished the Congress would stop dragging their family back through that horror. They know what happened.

Instead of working on the real problems--and we have got them--they are finding time to sue the President for doing his job, to hold vote after vote to repeal ObamaCare. And let's remember the shutdown of the government that took $24 billion in that short time out of this economy.

So we come here to make things better. And with these actions and with this behavior, we make things worse.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 2 minutes.

May I inquire if my friend has any more requests for time?

We are going to call for the previous question, Mr. Speaker, and if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up the legislation that would treat wildfires like similar major natural disasters and ensure that money intended for managing public lands is actually used for that purpose.

It is time to make commonsense changes in the Federal wildfire budget.

Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal on wildfires, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Peters).

Mr. Speaker, if my colleague is prepared to close, I will close.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the majority continues to choose politics over people, create problems instead of solving them, and insist on silencing debate in the Chamber. It is time to consider the real problems facing the country, and with summer comes the destructive fire season that affects so many of my colleagues' districts.

I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and move to consider the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act to make the commonsense changes in the Federal wildfire budget.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, and vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Rep. Rob BishopR-UT-1 · Jul 29, 2014

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 693 and ask for its immediate consideration. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30…

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 693 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York by way of Kentucky, Ms. Slaughter, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which they may revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 4315, the Endangered Species Transparency and Reasonableness Act, and

makes in order four separate amendments for floor consideration.

In fact, this rule is generous in making all filed amendments which were germane and otherwise met the rules of the House in order. Only four were filed, and they are all made in order, so it is hard to see how anyone could vote against this resolution as not being fair.

The resolution also provides for 1 hour of general debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member from the House Committee on Natural Resources.

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

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

I want to introduce you to an individual in history by the name of John Gochnaur. John Gochnaur was the shortstop for the Cleveland Indians in 1902 and in 1903. In 1902, he played the entire year, and his batting average was .185, as he committed also 48 errors, but was still good enough to be the shortstop in 1903 as well, where he completed a second season, once again hitting .185, but this time committing a still record 98 errors as shortstop, which means one out of every five times he touched the ball, he threw it away.

John Gochnaur probably has the record now of being the most inept major league player we have ever had in history, never hitting above the Mendoza Line and setting the standard for errors. The worst major league player--which is still quite an achievement to be a major league player--but the worst major league player we have ever had in history hit .185. The Endangered Species Act batting average would be .010 if you round it up. They have had 1,500 species listed, only 12 have actually passed the test and been recovered, for an actual batting average of .008, or .010 if you really want to round up.

The Endangered Species Act, quite frankly, is the most ineffective and inefficient piece of legislation that we have in the history of this country. It does not work. It does not meet its goals. It never has and it never will. The sad part is, though, this act does not go into significant changes to the Endangered Species Act, which would change that batting average. Instead, Chairman Hastings has to be commended for getting a group of people to work together that did a study, got testimony, produced a report, and came up with the most basic of reforms that have to be necessary before anything significant can go on past that.

What these reforms are is simply saying, look, if you are going to have an Endangered Species Act, for heaven's sake, make sure that the data that is used to come up with the realization of the program you have is open to the people, it is transparent and it is public knowledge. They are paying for it. You might as well make sure that they have the opportunity to see it.

The President of the United States recognized this when he said in 2008:

Democracy requires accountability; accountability requires

transparency.

And then he quoted Justice Brandeis, who said that ``sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.'' That is the concept that is here. The data used to make these decisions should be available to the public, and presently, it is not.

One of the witnesses in the committee, when it was a full committee markup on this bill, was a long-time biologist by the name Mr. Ramey, who said:

What are the effects of this lack of transparency on the

public when data are not possible or accessible? Legitimate

scientific inquiry and debate is effectively eliminated, and

no independent third party can produce the results. This

action puts the basis of some ESA decisions outside the realm

of science.

We have the issue that if there is data making these decisions, people should know about it. It should be transparent. All of the data that they use to make these decisions should be transparent. That is not what is happening today.

In an exchange between the director of Fish and Wildlife and the ranking member, the ranking member asked:

Okay. But again, why would a scientist wish to withhold

that data? I mean, if we gave them the public funds, I guess

we could require they publish the data; right? I mean, we

could change. We could put that into the language.

The Fish and Wildlife official said:

Congress could do that.

The ranking member said:

Okay. That might be something we would want to do. I don't

understand why we would go down the path of withholding the

data.

That is what this bill does. There are two elements to it. The most significant part is the first of transparency. If there is data that is going to be used, we need to make sure that we have access to that particular data.

This is a bill that was passed almost four decades ago. This is a bill the last time it was addressed I was still wearing saddleback jeans and platform shoes and my hair had color and it was parted down the middle and it covered more than just my ears. We haven't touched it since that time. They didn't have iPods back then the last time we touched it. It is a new era that requires new information and new data, and there is no reason that should be withheld from the American people, and that is what this bill tries to do.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Daines), who has had to live with the realities of the Endangered Species Act.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) because he also is faced with the unique situation, because this is not just a Western issue. This is an issue that affects all of us.

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

I am pleased to talk about the Endangered Species Act here because we need to make sure that the purpose of the Endangered Species Act is not to make sure that the government is always funding the listing and the maintenance of these species, but to make sure that they are healthy enough so that the government doesn't have to do that, in which case, I am sorry, the batting average is still .008. The Endangered Species Act is failing in that effort.

The methods don't work. But we are not discussing the methods here today. We are discussing something that is simply a commonsense solution to how we move forward with the Endangered Species Act.

The Governors understand that as well. I received a letter from the Western Governors' Association, signed by the Governor from Nevada, as well as the Governor from my friend's home State of Colorado, urging us to have transparency in this action, transparency in the Endangered Species Act. It is important that we simply know what is or is not taking place.

The Endangered Species Act, unfortunately, has an impact on real people. It is a regulatory taking by the Federal Government. It impacts real people's ability to use their property, it impacts real people's ability to have jobs and maintain them. To say that talking about this impact on these people is not good enough, that this is not a high enough version, this is not raising to the level, we don't care enough about these people who are impacted by that act, is something we in Congress should never say. It is significant, it is important, and to make commonsense improvements to the Endangered Species Act should be the goal.

Let me explain a couple of different areas in which these reforms are going to be significant and important.

The first one is this tries to cap the amount of money we spend wasted on litigation costs that should be actually going to the enforcement of the Endangered Species Act and recovery of these species. This act tries to set a limit on what an attorney can get for engaging in a petition against the government for the Endangered Species Act. It is mind-boggling to me that in most of the agencies of the government we put caps on what can be obtained in attorney fees who sue the government, but we don't in the Endangered Species Act.

So in San Diego, the Jonas Salk Elementary School was postponed indefinitely. The firm that actually did that postponement so the kids didn't have their school charged the Federal Government six figures, and I promise you the first number in that six figures was not 1.

In the Clinton administration, they were averaging 20 petitions a year on this act. Today, we are averaging 1,200 petitions a year. So obviously, we have a problem, as no one has a total concept of what the total cost of this litigation is or how many full-time employees we are using simply for this litigation, although we do know that the Fish and Wildlife Service allotted in 2013 $21 million and 86 full-time employees just to handling the issue of litigation.

The Ag Department has told us that the litigation cost was the third- largest cost that they were running at that time. We don't have that data. We need to have that particular data, and we also need to put in caps so we are not wasting our money on litigation, we are putting the money in the program where it should be.

That is a significant commonsense element of this particular bill. But the most significant commonsense element is simply saying people should know what data is being used to reach the decisions. The bill itself says the Federal Government shall cooperate--shall cooperate--to the maximum extent practical with the States. That simply is not being done.

Let me give you a couple of examples.

First of all, the dunes sagebrush lizard--a wonderful little lizard, Mr. Speaker, in your home State of Texas--that is trying to be listed by the Federal Government, they were using data from the 1960s, determined that they were locally extinct, the lizard was locally extinct in an area where it flat-out was not extinct. Had they gone through with this listing, 47,000 jobs in this district in Texas would have been impacted by this particular listing, and the data was inaccurate.

The Governor of Idaho asked for a FOIA request dealing with the sagebrush. He got back the emails in the FOIA request, and to summarize those emails that dealt with the national technical team report, the emails basically said: This is our approach--does anyone out there have any kind of data we can use? And if there was no data, then their next step was to use the best guess of the elements of the members who were actually working in that particular department.

That is not the way you make decisions. You collect the data first, make it public, let people know about it, then you create the decisions on where you want it to go. In Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado, actually had to go to court to try to get the department to give them the data they were using for the decisions they were going to try to use on the endangered species in that county, and that simply is not an example of how you cooperate to the maximum extent possible with the States.

We have an issue with prairie dogs in southern Utah. The problem is the Federal Government only counts prairie dogs on Federal lands to determine if they are a viable species or not. Prairie dogs are very abundant on private lands and State lands, to the point that you can actually get a permit to hunt them on private lands. Notwithstanding the fact that there is an abundance of prairie dogs, the rural electric co-op down there had to spend $150,000 to airlift transmission lines to build a transmission line so they went over Federal habitat for prairie dogs, even though other people hunting prairie dogs happened to be on the private property.

This is silly, this is unrealistic, this should not take place if we were actually having a commonsense approach to it.

The bladderpod up in Franklin County, Washington, was threatened to be listed on the endangered species. A local university came up with its own study that proved the DNA of this bladderpod was no different than another flower that was not endangered in that area.

Nonetheless, the Fish and Wildlife Service rejected that particular piece of data. They ignored it. They said it wasn't peer-reviewed, but the sad part is that they ultimately refused to tell us the data that they were using to reach their own decision. Even when that data was subpoenaed, they refused to comply with that particular subpoena.

We simply have a problem here, in that decisions are being made on the Endangered Species Act without having public access to the data being used to make those decisions, and that is wrong.

That is not the way you run a government. That is not the way transparency has to be. The people of the United States are paying for all this data. They have a right to see what it is. They have a right to look at it. They have a right to question it.

All this bill does is simply make the data that is being used public--so people know exactly what you are making those decisions on-- and try to limit the amount that we are spending on needless litigation, so you put some kind of caps on them. That is the first step.

Does that solve all the problems of the ESA? Of course not, but it is the first and most important step. This is a commonsense approach that is rational. It is where we need to go. If we can't get this done, no other reforms of a system that is failing can possibly take place.

I urge adoption of this bill. I support the underlying bill. I urge the adoption of the rule that would do it.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to reiterate this is a fair rule, and it is appropriate to the underlying piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Rep. Tom ColeR-OK-4 · Jul 10, 2014

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 661 and ask for its immediate consideration. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30…

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 661 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration on two measures: H.R. 5016, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, and H.R. 4718, that would permanently extend the bonus depreciation.

The resolution provides a modified open rule for consideration of H.R. 5016 so that all Members have the opportunity to come to the floor and offer any amendment to the bill that complies with House rules on this important piece of legislation.

The resolution also provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 4718, and provides for 60 minutes of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. In addition, the rule provides for a motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, a little over 2 months ago, I was pleased to present the House the rule for consideration of the first two appropriations bills. This rule will provide for the consideration of the eighth appropriations bill by the House.

In the Appropriations Committee, we have already reported out 10 of the 12 required appropriations bills and are moving closer to finishing the two remaining bills. Contrast this with the other body, where they have yet to pass even a single appropriations measure.

Mr. Speaker, the Financial Services Appropriations bill maintains the fiscal discipline agreed to as part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 that this country desperately needs. While the President requested an additional $1.7 billion over fiscal year 2014-enacted levels, this bill actually funds these programs at $566 million less than last year's level.

In addition, this bill maintains a number of important funding restrictions over the IRS. Given their unconscionable targeting of conservative organizations and their deliberate stonewalling of legitimate inquiries by the Ways and Means and Oversight and Government Reform Committees, these funding prohibitions are necessary and appropriate.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 4718, which permanently extends bonus depreciation. During this extended time of sluggish economic growth, it is important for the Congress to pass legislation that will encourage our job creators to do just that--create jobs.

An analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation found that permanent bonus depreciation would actually grow the economy by 1 percent, adding $182 billion to the economy; increase the capital stock by over 3 percent; increase wages by about 1 percent; and create 212,000 new jobs.

Since its creation in 2002, this credit has routinely been extended on a bipartisan basis. It is important that we do so again today.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Rogers for making good on his commitment to ensure orderly and timely consideration of appropriations bills. I also want to commend Chairman Camp for examining the Tax Code, ensuring we can provide the tax certainty that so many businesses need in order to make investment decisions that benefit us all.

I urge support of the rule and the underlying legislation. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

As usual, my friend is a sharp and acute debater and makes points over a broad number of issues.

I do want to say, for the record, I am not such a great businessman, but I have a great business partner who has been my partner for 25 years. She is the managing partner. She made the call. And I have been very fortunate to be friends and partners with her for many, many years.

I think she probably moved as quickly as she did because she didn't think the government would have the good sense to keep this open. But the fact is, under both Republicans and Democrats, we have done bonus depreciation. When my friends were in the majority, they continued to routinely extend it themselves.

And after more than a decade, it has become, frankly, pretty much a permanent feature of our Tax Code. Now it is not so permanent that you can absolutely rely on it in the business sense. But I still accept the argument, after something that has been repeatedly confirmed by both sides, and both sides have repeatedly extended it and made it effectively permanent, we ought to go ahead and provide business with that certainty. Again, we will have a debate on that, and that is appropriate.

The second point I want to discuss, where I do differ with my friend a little bit: look, we always quibble no matter who is in the majority over how open the process is and how much the minority is allowed to participate in it. When we do that, we usually need to remember, if we are in the minority, what our record was when we were in the majority.

I want to remind my friends on the other side that throughout the 111th Congress, the final 2 years of their time in the majority, the House never considered a single bill under an open rule. That is the definition of a closed process. On the contrary, under Republican control, the House has returned to the consideration of appropriations bills under an open process, with 22 open rules.

Again, I was on the Appropriations Committee when my friends took the opportunity that every Member enjoys, to come down and participate in the appropriations process, away from everyone--their side and our side alike.

Additionally, the Congress has allowed under our control more than 1,000 amendments to be offered on the House floor, including a total of 488 amendments offered by Democrats and another 137 bipartisan amendments. Forty percent of all submitted amendments have been made in order. Compare that to our friends, who made only 17 percent in order under their majority regime in the 111th Congress.

So when you actually compare the record of the Republican majority to the most recent Democratic majority, any fair analysis would show that Republicans are running a far more open and transparent House. I think that is something that my friends need to recall when they raise this particular critique.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for my friend from the District of Columbia. She does a tremendous job representing her community, and she is an articulate and able Member of this body. It is true. We do have an unusual degree of authority as Congress over the Capital of the United States. That is a constitutional issue and an article I, section 8 issue.

Being the Capital brings great privileges and benefits to Washington, but it also, unquestionably, at times, brings some difficulties and some strains as well; so we all--whoever is in the majority--try to manage that as best they can.

In terms of the abortion issue, the language in this bill that applies to D.C., as I understand it, has been pretty routine under both Democrats and Republicans over the years, and so that is my understanding of that issue.

On the marijuana issue, the Federal prohibition here has existed for many years and was actually proposed in the President's budget. The amendment that was offered and adopted in the committee--and there was a very spirited debate about this by Dr. Harris--does add new language to prohibit local funds for recreational use of marijuana. The intent is to prevent D.C. from legalizing marijuana for recreational use.

D.C. has enacted a law which makes possession of small amounts of marijuana a civil offense, carrying a $25 fine, and that goes into effect later this month.

In November, D.C. may have a ballot initiative to legalize possession of

small amounts. I suspect this will be an ongoing discussion and concern between the Congress and the community.

I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman for the points that she made. I would just say that, again, this is going to be an ongoing source of tension--it has been.

To clarify, when I said the Capital benefits, I meant to imply in no way that citizens here don't have the same obligations, same responsibilities, and bear the same burdens. I happen to have two wonderful military bases in my facility. We think we are privileged to host them. We derive considerable benefit and employment from their presence.

I will note, just as the gentlewoman suggests, we pay taxes, too. We are American citizens, and those weren't put there for our benefit. They were put there for the purposes of defending the country, but we are happy to have them.

I suggest there is probably a lot of that same pride in this community for hosting the Capital of the United States, so that was my intent in that remark.

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

I do not.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by agreeing with the last two speakers, in terms of the substance of their argument. I happen to be a cosponsor of that legislation, which is proposed by

my good friend, Mr. Simpson, and I think they are discussing a very real and very important issue, and this is an issue where there is considerable bipartisan agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I probably will end up opposing the manner in which you are going to try and bring this to the floor, but I do think it needs to come to the floor. There is an orderly process to do that. There are discussions underway to continue to work on it; but, again, my friend makes a very good point.

I have tried consistently during my tenure here, no matter who is in control, to recognize that, when we have disasters, that people who are dealing with them need immediate help, and you need to vote accordingly and try and make that occur.

I sit on the Interior Subcommittee where we wrestle with this funding issue that both of my friends brought up, and they are precisely right. Since you can't predict a fire, you can't produce the amount, we end up treating fires differently than every other kind of disaster and we savage the normal budget process and actually drain a lot of accounts, accounts that in some cases would help us prevent future fires by helping us get rid of hazard fuel buildup in forests and things of that nature.

Again, I think my friends make a good point. I think we are going to continue to work on this in a bipartisan manner. I hope we will get there.

I will note for the Record that when we were actually considering the Republican budget, we were engaged on that committee, which I sit on as a representative from Appropriations, in discussions with one of our Democratic friends on the other side of the aisle about bringing an amendment and actually writing it in the budget. We had Republicans prepared at that point to vote for that amendment in sufficient numbers. The White House, I was told, was actually in favor of doing that. For whatever reason, the decision was made not to do that. Again, I cast no aspersions here, but I think we probably missed a more appropriate opportunity of actually cementing it down.

But I will say this: both of my friends have my commitment to continue to try and work with them and find an appropriate vehicle and appropriate time to get this done. I appreciate very, very much the fact that you came to the floor and brought it up and reminded us of how significant an issue this is. This is something we should be able to work across the aisle and accomplish. I thank my friend.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to say that one of the basic functions of Congress is to actually fund the government. This rule would continue that process for consideration of appropriations bills for fiscal year 2015. In addition, it would allow for consideration of legislation that makes bonuses depreciation permanent, a provision that has existed as part of our Tax Code under both Democrats and Republicans since 2002.

I have enjoyed the debate. As always, I appreciate exchanging views with my good friend from New York, by way of Kentucky, two States blessed, and I would urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Rep. Jared PolisD-CO-2 · Jul 29, 2014

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. To be clear, the goal of the Endangered Species Act doesn't exist just to get species off the list, it exists to keep species on the planet,…

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

To be clear, the goal of the Endangered Species Act doesn't exist just to get species off the list, it exists to keep species on the planet, and has a tremendous track record of success--99 percent effective at preventing the extinction of species that have been listed on the endangered species list.

There is strong precedent in passing bipartisan Endangered Species Act measures. Last Congress, I was very proud to be an original cosponsor of Mr. Bishop's Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act, which became law in January of 2013. The Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act facilitated the recovery of four endangered species native to the Upper Colorado River Basin. The bill ensures compliance with the Endangered Species Act for over 200 projects that use water from the Colorado River and provided enough water for agricultural and municipal water use as well.

I salute Representative Bishop's efforts to pull together a bipartisan group from Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming to work together on that successful modification to the Endangered Species Act.

What we have before us today is not an example of that same bipartisan spirit and open process of work that

can build upon, rather than take a step back from, protecting species that are an important part of our ecosystem.

This bill in its current form would not only waste taxpayer dollars and Federal Government agency time by creating additional red tape and bureaucracy, but it is also a waste of our limited remaining time in session. Here we are, Mr. Speaker, with a border crisis, crises breaking out across the Middle East, and yet we are debating a particular change to the Endangered Species Act, which, regardless of its merits, is simply not one of the top two issues, five issues, 10 issues, even top 100 issues that I have heard from my constituents about over the last year.

People wonder why this legislative body is as unpopular as we are, with an approval rating of 12 percent. One need look no further than what we are working on. Rather than addressing the budget deficit or restoring fiscal stability to our country, rather than securing the border and passing comprehensive immigration reform, we are instead discussing a bill that weakens the Endangered Species Act. And regardless of whether Members want to strengthen it or weaken it or modify it--Americans care about jobs, the economy, fiscal responsibility, addressing our border crisis--having problems with the Endangered Species Act is simply not on the minds of most everyday American families. I think most American families think the Endangered Species Act is a fine thing, maybe they think it should move this way or that way or be better or stronger or weaker, but that is not the issue that they want us addressing with our limited time in session.

This is our last week in session in the month of July. In the month of August, this esteemed body won't even meet once. In September, we will come back for 2 or 3 weeks. I don't know--are we going to be discussing endangered species for those 2 or 3 weeks as well?

It kind of reminds me of the historical precedent of Emperor Nero fiddling while Rome burned. Here we are in record deficits, war and threatened wars are enveloping the Middle East with the Islamic state and ISIS occupying much of Syria and Iraq, with the uncertainty in eastern Ukraine and separatists engaged in battle, with the precarious recovery of the economy, with things getting harder and harder for middle class American families to get by and support themselves and their family, and here we are with only 3 days left in session before September discussing relatively minor changes that add another bureaucratic layer of red tape to the Endangered Species Act. It is simply not what the people in my district hired me to fight for them on, and I don't think it is what the people in this country want Congress to do at this point.

There are so many issues that the American people, the people who sent us here to represent them, agree on, where there is common ground.

One example is immigration reform. Polls have shown that 87 percent of Americans support comprehensive immigration reform. Perhaps we found that last 13 percent of people who approve of Congress, maybe it is those same people who don't want to see immigration reform. The only people left who approve of these obstructionist tactics with regard to immigration reform, the tactics which are tearing families apart, hurting our economy, bloating our deficit, and preventing us from securing our border, are an ever-dwindling percentage of Americans.

Now that we are dealing with this Endangered Species Act, I hope that we can get back to addressing immigration reform. Let us have a vote on comprehensive immigration reform, a vote on raising the minimum wage, a vote on a comprehensive plan to balance the budget. Let's have a real debate and exchange real ideas to move our Nation forward.

There are a number of flaws in this modification of the Endangered Species Act which prevent it from being a true piece of bipartisan legislation with wide support from this body, like I had the opportunity to work on with Mr. Bishop last session. But I think even more importantly, Mr. Speaker, we just need to ask ourselves why, with days left before Congress adjourns for the summer, are we considering a topic that, while surely worthy of debate, hardly raises to the level of these pressing issues, like our budget deficit, the border crisis, or the Middle East, in which I hope that this body can have a substantive debate around resolving?

While we are here debating a partisan, politically charged bill that threatens to undermine the Endangered Species Act, 32 wildfires larger than 5,000 acres are burning in seven Western States. My district had several last summer, and we are worried about this summer. These fires cover a total of 1.4 million acres and are a serious threat to homes, lives, livelihoods, and health.

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act of 2014. Already 196 Members have signed a discharge petition to bring this legislation to the floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this rule or the underlying bill.

The Republicans are committed to partisan politics over progress for our country, and this bill is yet another example of that agenda.

In the last 3 days of legislative business before a summer recess of 1\1/2\ months, House Republicans are using this valuable time in the people's Chamber to simply pass a bill that obstructs the Endangered Species Act rather than deals with any of the critical issues facing our country.

Congress should be considering legislation to secure the border or deal with the crisis of unaccompanied minors on our southern border, to balance our budget, to reform our broken immigration system, to deal with wildfires, to raise the minimum wage, to protect workers. But instead, here we are debating partisan changes to a piece of legislation that has, frankly, served us well and our ecosystems well over the prior decades.

We do have an emergency on our southern border with regard to unaccompanied minors from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. We need to have a comprehensive strategy to deal with that and make sure that we are not overwhelmed by people from other countries.

Before we adjourn for recess, Congress could and should address immigration reform. The American people want us to pass bipartisan immigration reform. The bill passed the Senate with over two-thirds majority. That is very rare. Democrats and Republicans came together to pass a commonsense immigration reform bill that more than 80 percent of the American people support, and more than two-thirds of the Senate support it.

If we can schedule that bill for a vote this week, I am confident it would pass right here on the floor of the House of Representatives. We have a bipartisan House bill, H.R. 15, that is ready to come to the floor and be voted on, and I believe it would pass.

I am honored to be a sponsor of H.R. 15, the bipartisan immigration reform bill. The bill would create jobs here, reduce our budget deficit, ensure America is more competitive in the global economy, unite families, and secure our borders. Just as importantly, it will make sure that our immigration system reflects our values as Americans, a Nation of laws and a Nation of immigrants.

House Republicans have refused to allow a vote on immigration reform and it failed to bring forth a single bill to help improve our broken immigration system or our dire crisis at the border. Instead, we are left with time that we could use to debate minute changes that add bureaucracy and red tape to an already encumbered Endangered Species Act.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so that we can discuss the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act of 2014. It is so important to my home State and so many others in the West and Mountain West.

I also will oppose the rule and the underlying bill and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Rep. John GaramendiD-CA-3 · Sep 9, 2014

Mr. Speaker, I think we just heard a 1-hour audition for FOX News, but we did not hear a solution to what is a very real problem. We didn't hear a call for a vote, which we are going to have to take if we are to carry out our constitutional obligations, and that is going to be before us.

I don't want to carry on the discussion about the very serious problem of ISIL or ISIS. We have heard a lot of that already. We will have to come to grips with that by October 6 or 7, when the 60-day clock on the War Powers Act runs out and our constitutional obligation takes place.

There are many, many problems facing this Nation, and certainly, the international scene is one of them, but there is also a problem in our communities. I represent a large portion of California, the national forests on the Sierra side and the national forests on the coastal side of the Sacramento Valley. A lot of that is in the U.S. Forest Service, as well as in the Bureau of Land Management.

Over the last several years, those two agencies have been struggling to put out the fires that have raged in the Western United States and, indeed, in the Southeast of the United States. The way in which we have set up the budgeting and the appropriation for fighting fires has created an ongoing cycle of increasing the likelihood of new fires.

We need to change that. We need to get ahead of the century of fire repression and put in place policies and programs that will reduce the risks of fires. We need to manage our forests in such a way that the fire risk is reduced, the forests are thinned, trees appropriately harvested, the undergrowth reduced and eliminated, firebreaks put in place, and protect our communities by the proper management of the forest, reducing the fuel, reducing the load of fuel that these forests have.

We have been unable to do that, principally because we have seen an enormous increase in the number of fires, and the Federal budget to fight these fires is a 10-year rolling average that has not been able to keep up with the increase each year in the megafires, California most recently facing the rim fire in the Yosemite area.

That fire gobbled up not only the forest, but gobbled up the money that was set aside to prevent fires to manage the forest. Instead of having that fund available to do that kind of work, the money was transferred from those programs into the firefighting.

Now, this is an ongoing problem. My colleague from California, Scott Peters, has addressed this problem with a motion to bring to the floor legislation that would set up a new mechanism for appropriating funds for fighting fires. I will let him discuss that and why he has this before us.

Mr. Peters, if you would join us.

Thank you, Mr. Peters, for your leadership in bringing to the attention of the entire Nation, and certainly to the 435 Members of this House, that there is a way to manage our forests and to deal with the fires that have plagued us so extensively over these many years.

I think all of us have seen this before. It is Smokey the Bear. ``Only you can prevent forest fires.'' We need to add to it, ``But Congress can help.'' And Smokey turns to us and says: How can you help? Well, we can help by changing the way in which we budget for the fighting of fires. Instead of a rolling 10-year average and putting that money up every year and in 9 of the last 12 years blowing through that budget and then reaching back and taking the forest management funds that would allow us to reduce the risk of fires in our forests and in your public lands, instead of doing that, we would have a different system, as Mr. Peters just described. It is H.R. 3992.

H.R. 3992 is a bipartisan bill, Democrats and Republicans. Democrat Mr. Schrader from Oregon and Republican Mr. Simpson from Idaho, the authors of the bill, say there is a better way of doing it. Set aside a special reserve, just like we do for tornadoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, floods; a special reserve that could be tapped when we exceed the average and blow through that 10-year average with a megafire or a series of fires.

We expect more than 38,000 fires this year in the United States. We are going to blow through that budget. Just this last month in August, the chief forester of the U.S. Forest Service sent a letter out to every part of the U.S. Forest Service saying: Hold on. No more contracts. Save the money. We are going to need to transfer some of your maintenance money. Your fire prevention money, the money that you are using to thin the forests to reduce the fuel load, the money that you are using to carry out logging practices, hold that. We are going to need to hold that

because we anticipate once again blowing through that fire budget and having to reach back for the prevention budget.

So Smokey is right. We can prevent forest fires if Congress acts on H.R. 3992. A discharge petition that Mr. Peters has brought to the floor is before us. It has 196 Members of Congress that have signed on. When we get to 218, that bill will automatically be brought to the floor for a vote.

Democrats and Republicans already support it, so bring it to the floor for a vote. Let us put in place a sensible, commonsense way of appropriating money to fight fires and to manage our forests. Let's get ahead of next year's fire. Let's get to prevention not just by not throwing out cigarettes and leaving campfires unattended, but by making sure that our forests are healthy so that they are able to sustain small fires that burn slowly along the floor of the forest, which is the natural ecological way in which forests have for a millennium been able to deal with fire. We are in a different situation now. We have allowed the forests to grow and to be in a position where a fire becomes huge. It is no longer along the floor but gets up into the crown of the trees and destroys the forests.

So we can get back to where we were by properly managing the forests, but we can't do it without money. The Forest Service needs to have that money. The Bureau of Land Management and the National Parks all need to have a different way of appropriating and budgeting. And that is what this bill does.

By the way, it doesn't cost any more. It simply rearranges how that money is going to be spent. That reserve fund would only be available when you have the megafires and you blow through the 10-year rolling average of how much we spend on fighting fires.

It is sensible. It makes a lot of sense. The administration wants it, and, therefore, I suppose my Republican colleagues are opposed to it simply because the administration has proposed a better way of dealing with this budgeting for fires.

So our plea tonight is simple. Just for a few moments, like 12\1/2\ minutes thus far, it is to allow us to take up H.R. 3992 and help Smokey prevent forest fires. We only need a few more Members of this House to sign on. More than 50 members of the Republican Party are already coauthors, but none have yet signed the discharge petition. So let's do it. Let's get on with it.

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

Show 8 more

Rep. Doug CollinsR-GA-9 · Jul 29, 2014

Mr. Speaker, as we come here today, one of the things that strikes me--and, of course, I support the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 4315, because it really strikes a balance and, as part of the working group that has been meeting under Chairman Hastings and others, including Mr. Bishop, dealing with this, as my friend from Utah said, it is an issue that has not been touched in many, many years. There is nothing that really, from our perspective of government, should not be looked at every once in awhile, and especially when you get things such as the Endangered Species Act, which has grown and multiplied and just really expanded to where not only does it affect Western States, but it affects States like Georgia.

To come to the floor today to take issue with a bill that simply permits the concept--and my friend from Utah said we could have actually gone after a lot more than this. We could have taken on the Endangered Species than this. We could have taken on the Endangered Species Act and said: Let's make it better for the 21st century. Instead, we went to targeted reform, targeted aspects of it. We said: Let's look at transparency. Let's look at capping attorneys' fees. Instead of paying pockets of attorneys, it is okay to still sue. We are saying it is okay if you want to sue, but we are not going to pay unlimited amounts just so you can sue for maybe dubious data or devious wins. This is an issue of transparency.

Wouldn't we want to put that money into protecting actual endangered species? Is that not what the Endangered Species Act is about? Is it actually protecting endangered species?

The problem with the Endangered Species Act, however, is that it has expanded to where now the Endangered Species is jobs. It is people. It is the people who are affected by the Endangered Species Act, and all we are saying is let's shine a little light on it. That is a song from back when the ESA was first passed. Let's shine a light. ``This little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine.'' Well, let's shine a little bit of light on this as we go forward.

A ``no'' vote on this legislation to me is simply a ``no'' vote, whether it is the rule or the bill. It is a ``no'' vote for the status quo. If there is anything that this country is screaming, whether it is Republican or Democrat, they are tired of the status quo, and especially in something like this, because when they hear about it, they don't understand it.

I am going to tell a little story that comes from Georgia, and it involves the Indiana bat. The Indiana bat is on the endangered species list. A few years ago--oh, oh, be quiet. A few years ago, a transmitter went off. It was a little beep. Oh, oh. You might hear it on your phone. It was a beep in southern Tennessee. It only went off one time from everything that we can gather, but that transponder hit said the Indiana bat is moving south.

Well, we expanded the net and said nothing north of Atlanta. All of a sudden we have to start checking for the Indiana bat. We checked. We have looked. I have it on my phone here. I brought one to the floor today. I have a compass. I have a map. I asked this before and nobody stepped forward, but I will take my compass. I will take my map, and if you help me, come to northeast Georgia and find the Indiana bat, there is probably a prize. I will take you to the Waffle House and buy you whatever you want, because so far it hasn't been found. In fact, the last time the Indiana bat was actually seen in Georgia was in Athens in the 1940s.

Now, Athens is home to a wonderful, fine, upstanding institution called the University of Georgia. Go Dawgs. But it was probably found or seen maybe after one of the celebrations of our great victories on Saturday on the gridiron when everyone is partying, and they may have seen the Indiana bat and said, ``There's the bat,'' but we haven't seen it since.

So I am not sure what we are looking for, but I tell you what we are doing. We are paying almost $100,000 on every road project over and above the cost for hard-earned taxpayer dollars on the Federal and State level looking for a bat that may have existed in a fraternity party in Athens 45, 50, 60 years ago because nobody knows. But it came because, listen--those in the gallery, those watching on TV, listen-- the transponder may go off, and we may just block off all kinds of areas and say ``pay more'' because the transponder went off.

Now, many times our friends across the aisle say we on our side, we just want business and we don't care about endangered species, we don't care about the environment. There is no other Republican, and when you come to the Ninth District of Georgia--and I know my friend from Colorado feels that his State is beautiful, and it is. It is great. But the Ninth District of Georgia is pretty nice, too. And I want clean water and I want good roads. I want the things that matter because the environment in north Georgia is great. But what I do not want is an overreaching regulation that is not addressed when we are simply asking for transparency. We are simply asking for transparency. When you are asking for transparency, my question not only is where is the bat, but where is the problem. Where is the bat? Where is the problem?

The problem with this bill is nothing. The problem with this bill is it begins to shine light on the things that need shining light on. Disinfectant, I am not sure what we are doing here because right now there is no disinfectant. We need transparency to shine a light. ``This little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine.'' I am going to let it shine on something that protects taxpayer dollars, that protects transparency and does the things that it is supposed to do.

And by the way, if you happen to be coming by, the problem with this is simply transparency. It protects taxpayer dollars and protects endangered species by using the latest in science and being open to the public.

But let me ask all who may be watching: if you are driving through the great State of Georgia, if you are in north Georgia in the Ninth District, I have got a lot of places for you to come, but when you get there bring your binoculars, bring your compass, bring a map, and if you find the bat I will see you at the Waffle House.

Rep. Doug LaMalfaR-CA-1 · Sep 16, 2014

Madam Speaker, last night, in the town of Weed, California, which is in my own First Congressional District, over 100 of my constituents' homes were destroyed or damaged by fire, along with an…

Madam Speaker, last night, in the town of Weed, California, which is in my own First Congressional District, over 100 of my constituents' homes were destroyed or damaged by fire, along with an elementary school and a timber mill, one of the area's largest employers. Thousands of my constituents are under evacuation orders, and the fire is not yet contained.

Aside from this tragedy, hundreds of thousands of acres of northern California forests have burned so far this year. In fact, the combined impact of the fires is already larger than last year's Rim Fire near Yosemite.

Unfortunately, while the Rim Fire received nonstop coverage, most of America is probably unaware of this year's calamities. The unfortunate truth is that rural California and much of the West experience massive wildfires like these every year. Over the past decade, wildfires have only grown in size and severity.

Madam Speaker, it doesn't have to be this way. We know why our forests are burning. It is because of decades of mismanagement caused by Federal bureaucracies and excessive regulations and red tape. They have an attitude at the Forest Service in many cases of just let it burn.

We suffer from road closures, inaccessibility to our forests, poor management, and, certainly, the ability to stop fires once they are started because of these policies.

The simple fact is our forests are not just mismanaged or even poorly managed. They are entirely unmanaged. As a result, they are overgrown, unhealthy, and ready to burst into flames at any time. I am supporting several measures to address the crisis in our forests, and last night's events create even more urgency for Congress and this administration to act.

Chairman Hastings' bill, H.R. 1526, which was passed in this House and I am a cosponsor of, would restore common sense to forest management, requiring the Forest Service to actively manage public forests to reduce fuel loads and improve forest health.

It is high time that the Senate act on this measure or, at the very least, produce its own forestry measure in the Senate so we can negotiate a final product. This would be part of the now 384 House bills that are languishing over in the Senate that need action.

Chairman Simpson's bill, H.R. 3992, another measure I am supporting and cosponsoring, will end the diversion of forest management funding to firefighting by treating fires like other disasters, allowing flexible wildfire disaster funding.

The Forest Service's increasing use of forest management funds for wildfire suppression means that we are no longer in the business of managing forests and, instead, just putting them out--or trying to-- when they burn. This measure deserves a hearing in

committee and action on the floor before this session ends.

Madam Speaker, without action on these bills, our forests will continue to burn. Our constituents will continue to see their homes and livelihoods destroyed, and rural communities across the West will continue to suffer.

In the House this year, we hear about this being a do-nothing Congress and how it has been the least productive. The House of Representatives has been doing its job.

When we have 384-plus bills sitting over in the Senate languishing, waiting for action, then it is a misnomer that action is not going on in this House; indeed, it is a do-nothing Senate.

The people of the West in the line of these fires are suffering and demand action of their government. When they are not getting it, they are the victims.

Madam Speaker, before the end of this year, we need to take serious action on the management of our forests by allowing timber to be cut and processed in order to achieve forest health. We have an overload. We have an inventory in our forests.

There is much more that can be sustainable, on the number of trees per acre, on what is safe and healthy for the trees as they compete for limited water supply underground, therefore, stressing the trees, causing them to be susceptible and more in danger of insects that weaken and kill the trees; it is, thereby, a self-perpetuating prophesy of forests that are weak and then burn.

Madam Speaker, my constituents in Siskiyou County and last night in Weed, California, have suffered from this mismanagement--the nonmanagement--the incompetence and even what some people feel is criminal treatment they are getting from their Federal Government because of inactivity.

Madam Speaker, it is high time we pass these measures and do what we need to do to make our forests healthy and safe, as well as help the economy for those people. Certainly, in Congress and our government, we use a lot of wood and paper products. Why should they not come from California or from our Western States?

Rep. Eleanor Holmes NortonD-DC · Jul 10, 2014

I want to thank my good friend from New York for yielding and for her work on this rule. Mr. Speaker, A Congress controlled by Members trying to reduce the Federal footprint at every turn ought to be…

I want to thank my good friend from New York for yielding and for her work on this rule.

Mr. Speaker, A Congress controlled by Members trying to reduce the Federal footprint at every turn ought to be the first to reject two amendments in the Financial Services appropriation, which fly in the face of their own core philosophy.

First is the abortion amendment that would keep the District of Columbia from spending its own local funds on abortions for low-income women.

Mr. Speaker, 17 States that are represented in this House spend their own local funds in this way, and we are determined to fight until the district's low-income women have the same reproductive health rights as the women who live in those 17 States.

There is a second bill--a second amendment that targets the District of Columbia and its marijuana decriminalization law at the same time that the States are rapidly moving in the same direction.

Eighteen of them, before the District even got there, have decriminalized marijuana. Two States have legalized marijuana, 23 States have legalized medical marijuana, and a recent Pew Research poll found that more than half of the American people support marijuana legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment that targets the District of Columbia is authored by Representative Andy Harris of Maryland. Maryland is one of the States that has decriminalized marijuana.

Now, he couldn't convince his own State, where the voters are accountable to him, not to decriminalize marijuana.

I appreciate the generosity of the ranking member.

He wants to come to this floor and try to convince this body, where not a single Member is accountable to the residents of the District of Columbia, that it should not allow the District to decriminalize its marijuana laws. I don't know why the Members from those 18 States have decriminalized, but let me tell you why they were decriminalized in the District of Columbia. They were decriminalized for racial justice reasons. We discovered, through a scientific study, that African Americans were eight times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than Whites, even though Whites and Blacks in the District of Columbia and in the United States of America use marijuana at the same rate.

Forty years ago, this Congress passed the Home Rule Act leaving local matters to the District of Columbia, just like your local matters are left home. We demand the same respect for local control for the District of Columbia residents who are full American citizens, like everybody else who represents people on this floor.

We demand that our American citizens have the same respect for their local control that on this floor, that every day, you demand for your own residents.

I thank the ranking member.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the generosity of the gentleman for yielding.

First, let me set straight that the District of Columbia gets not one single benefit that any other Member who pays taxes--except we pay taxes without representation--not one single benefit that is any different from what other members get.

Secondly, on marijuana decriminalization, I respect the differences we have there, and the States are experimenting now. The District has only decriminalized marijuana, and recently, a member of the council introduced an amendment--which I bet you the other 18 States have not done--to educate our young people about marijuana, so that they don't go off and try it.

Nobody is for smoking marijuana--I wish we hadn't smoked all those cigarettes, there would be millions of people alive if we hadn't--but we really don't want to see people go to jail for possessing marijuana, and we don't want to live in a city where the only people who get arrested for possessing marijuana are people who look like me.

This is a city full of college students. They don't get arrested. Those who get arrested are African Americans because the police patrol those areas more sternly than others. We are asking for racial justice, but above all, we are asking for local control.

I want to say one thing about your citing of the Constitution. You are absolutely right. The Constitution gives the Congress control, but Congress passed, 40 years ago, the Home Rule Act, and that Home Rule Act was Congress' understanding that there ought to be no Members of this House who don't have total control over their own local money and over their own local affairs.

We ask for the same respect, and I thank the gentleman.

Rep. Scott H. PetersD-CA-52 · Sep 9, 2014

Thank you, Congressman Garamendi, for helping to raise awareness about the pressing need to change the way the Federal Government deals with funding wildfire response and prevention. As you well…

Thank you, Congressman Garamendi, for helping to raise awareness about the pressing need to change the way the Federal Government deals with funding wildfire response and prevention.

As you well know, the devastating effect of wildfires in 2003 and 2007--we had massive, massive loss of property and dislocations in Scripps Ranch, Tierrasanta, Rancho Bernardo, and Poway.

Right now, as I am speaking--and you mentioned this as well-- firefighters in Yosemite National Park continue to battle a wildfire that has burned more than 2,600 acres and required 120 firefighters and 11 aircraft to combat.

It is no secret, in addition, that California is facing a prolonged drought that places us at increased risk for wildfires. So we are in the midst of what is expected to be one of the longest and hardest wildfire seasons in recent memory, certainly in any of our memories.

Wildfires are extremely expensive for States and localities to fight. There is an urgent need for Congress to pass a solution that funds firefighting without stealing from prevention, which is a crazy thing to do. I think we all acknowledge that.

Earlier this summer, as you mentioned, I led the discharge petition with 196 signers to demand a vote on the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act of 2014. That bill has real bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate--71 Democrats and 60 Republicans have cosponsored in the House--and that is very unusual around here. It was also included by the President in his budget request.

So you have both parties in the House and the President of the United States all on the same page on this issue. It seems like an area where we ought be able to make some progress, and we ought to have a vote.

The bill allows firefighting agencies to access funds from the natural disaster contingency fund while fighting catastrophic fires, not take money from prevention because, of course, what that does is it makes the following year's fires even more severe and even more costly and dangerous.

So it is fiscally responsible to treat wildfires like the natural disasters that they are, like an earthquake, flood, or hurricane. Instead of stealing funds from prevention efforts to pay for immediate responses, we should be adequately funding both.

I join my colleagues here tonight to call on the Speaker to bring this truly bipartisan bill to a vote immediately so that fire-prone regions like the two we are dealing with in California--mine in San Diego--don't suffer from Washington's dysfunction.

Ladies and gentlemen, we started this fire season this year in May. We are used to having fire seasons. It is natural to have fire seasons in September or October, but the fact that we started in May just underscores what we are up against. We do not want to leave for our October election activities without having dealt with that and exposing these communities to risk.

I thank my colleague, Mr. Garamendi, for helping to raise awareness about this. Thank you for your continued commitment and leadership on the issue. We look forward to bringing it home.

Rep. Peter A. DeFazioD-OR-4 · Jul 10, 2014

I thank my good friend for yielding that time. Mr. Speaker, sometime in the end of July or, at the latest, very early August, the inadequate budget for forest firefighting for the Department of the…

I thank my good friend for yielding that time.

Mr. Speaker, sometime in the end of July or, at the latest, very early August, the inadequate budget for forest firefighting for the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service will be exhausted-- that's right, exhausted.

We are going to be at a point where there will be fires raging across the West. We are looking at record drought, record dry fuels, and you will be able, probably, to smell or see the smoke across a lot of the country.

Mr. Speaker, we should be doing everything we can to prepare for this and prevent this in the future, and that is the crux of this argument. We are not going to stop fighting fires. They can't because the forests will burn and people will die. No, we are going to stop it, but they will borrow from and decimate every other account in their budgets.

Forty percent of the Forest Service budget goes to fighting fires on an annual basis, which means every year we repeat this little Groundhog Day thing. They have to suspend the programs that would prevent future forest fires--that is fuel reduction programs, forest health programs.

They have to cut into the recreation budget and all of the other activities and things that they must do--cut into their timber management program, everything gets decimated--and the money just goes to fight fires.

We have the rarest of rare things here: a bicameral, bipartisan bill that is supported by the President of the United States. What else in this town is bipartisan, bicameral, and supported by the President?

Mr. Speaker, this should be a no-brainer. I have asked for hearings in the committee on the coming catastrophe this summer. No hearings have been held. We have legislation with 100 cosponsors--no action, no hearing, and no action on that bill.

We need this funding this month, and that way, the Forest Service won't have to decimate the programs that would prevent or mitigate future forest fires. So, come on, guys, let's wake up, smell the smoke, and do what is right and needs to be done--an adequate budget to fight the catastrophic forest fires across the Western United States.

Rep. Scott H. PetersD-CA-52 · Jul 10, 2014

Mr. Speaker, San Diego and the entire State of California are facing a prolonged drought that is placing us at increased risk for wildfires. We are currently in the midst of what is expected to be…

Rep. Louise McIntosh SlaughterD-NY-25 · Jul 29, 2014

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for yielding me the time. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today is actually a package of four…

Rep. Steve DainesR-MT · Jul 29, 2014

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for his leadership on this important issue. I rise in support of the rule and H.R. 4315, the 21st Century Endangered Species Transparency Act. My home State…

Show 1 more

Rep. Ruben HinojosaD-TX-15 · Jul 29, 2014

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 458, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Bill Text

Latest available legislative text

Reading Mode

Raw Text PDF XML

Introduced in HouseIssued February 5, 2014

113th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 3992

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 5, 2014

Mr. Simpson (for himself and Mr. Schrader) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Budget, and in addition to the Committees on Agriculture and Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To provide for wildfire suppression operations, and for other purposes.

Short title

This Act may be cited as the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act of 2014.

Wildfire disaster funding authority

(a)

Adjustments to discretionary spending limits

Section 251(b)(2) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

(E)

Flame wildfire suppression

(i)

If a bill or joint resolution making appropriations for a fiscal year is enacted that specifies an amount for wildfire suppression operations in the Wildland Fire Management accounts at the Department of Agriculture or the Department of the Interior, then the adjustments for that fiscal year shall be the amount of additional new budget authority provided in that Act for wildfire suppression operations for that fiscal year, but shall not exceed $2,689,000,000 in additional new budget authority in each of fiscal years 2014 through 2021.

(ii)

As used in this subparagraph—

(I)

the term additional new budget authority means the amount provided for a fiscal year, in excess of 70 percent of the average costs for wildfire suppression operations over the previous 10 years, in an appropriation Act and specified to pay for the costs of wildfire suppression operations; and

(II)

the term wildfire suppression operations means the emergency and unpredictable aspects of wildland firefighting including support, response, and emergency stabilization activities; other emergency management activities; and funds necessary to repay any transfers needed for these costs.

(iii)

The average costs for wildfire suppression operations over the previous 10 years shall be calculated annually and reported in the President’s Budget submission under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, for each fiscal year.

(b)

Disaster funding

Section 251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(D)) is amended—

(1)

in clause (i)—

(A)

in subclause (I), by striking and and inserting plus;

(B)

in subclause (II), by striking the period and inserting ; less; and

(C)

by adding the following:

(III)

the additional new budget authority provided in an appropriation Act for wildfire suppression operations pursuant to subparagraph (E) for the preceding fiscal year.

; and

(2)

by adding at the end the following:

(v)

Beginning in fiscal year 2016 and in subsequent fiscal years, the calculation of the average funding provided for disaster relief over the previous 10 years under clause (i)(I) shall include any additional new budget authority provided in an appropriation Act for wildfire suppression operations pursuant to subparagraph (E).

Prompt requests for supplemental appropriations for Department of the Interior and Department of Agriculture wildfire suppression operations

If the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture determines that supplemental appropriations are necessary for a fiscal year for wildfire suppression operations (as defined in section 251(b)(2)(E) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(E))), such Secretary shall promptly submit to Congress—

(1)

a request for such supplemental appropriations; and

(2)

a plan detailing the manner in which such Secretary intends to obligate the supplemental appropriations within 30 days after the date on which such supplemental appropriations are made available.