H.Res. 515

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The legislation we have to consider today is flawed on many levels-- it is flawed on process; it is flawed on policy; and it is flawed in claiming that it protects States' water rights. H.R. 3189 does not solve the problem--it creates more problems--because it is so broadly written and has no chance of being enacted into law.

The majority introduced the Water Rights Protection Act as a way to protect private property rights. It is not about protecting private property rights. It is not about protecting States' water rights. It goes in the opposite direction, that of creating a new Federal definition of a ``water right'' when we have not had a hearing on that particular point.

Water rights have, for more than four centuries in American law, been defined as a matter of State law. If the majority is really concerned about Federal overreach, creating a sweeping new Federal definition of a ``water right'' without even a single hearing is not the best choice. H.R. 3189 only had a hearing, and it was held during the government shutdown, during the sequestration. As a result, the agencies affected were not able to provide expert analysis because they were not able to be at the hearing to talk to the bill's impacts. The bill's incomplete legislative record was worsened by the committee markup, whereby a clumsily drafted savings clause was added. This only added to the confusion as to the purpose of the bill, negating the purpose of the legislation, which I understand now makes it a broader bill in addressing some of the issues, as have been stated by my colleague, that it is overreach by the Obama administration, thus negating the water rights.

Today, the manager's amendment, with four additional savings clauses, continues to show the magnitude of the unintended negative consequences that H.R. 3189 would have on various activities that require a Federal permit.

There is some agreement on this bill. We both agree that the starting point of this legislation involves a conflict between the Forest Service and the ski resorts, which was the focus of the hearing. Unfortunately, the Forest Service issued a declaration, a release, that mandated certain things that are objectionable to my colleagues, and they are now having to set out a new policy directive that is under consideration by the OMB. We have not waited for the results of the OMB. We can't tell until after the comment period is given to the general public, and then it can be published.

There are currently 121 ski resorts located in 13 States that are operating on Federal Forest Service land. That is public land that belongs to the general public. It doesn't belong to the ski resorts, and it doesn't belong to this body. It belongs to the people. Through long-term special use permits, these resort companies are operating on public--taxpayer--land, belonging to the American people, for private profit. In many cases, these companies purchase water rights in order to operate the resort.

The Forest Service is currently struggling with what happens with the permitting of sales of water rights.

How could the agency find a new operator if there is no water to go with that land and if it is not available, if there is no water for the land? The Forest Service issued a directive in 2011 requiring that, as a condition of these special use permits, the applicant must place its water rights in the name of the United States. Who is the United States if it isn't the American taxpayer?

To be clear, this was not because President Obama is mad with power and wants to own water rights, as some have alluded to. Rather, it was so that the Forest Service could include those water rights as part of the package when seeking a new operator and issuing a new contract for an existing ski area on public--taxpayer--land.

The court validated that directive on procedural grounds, and the Forest Service is currently working on a new directive, as they have stated in the letter to this committee. One, they have said, will not involve permit applicants transferring their water rights to the Federal Government. It would be appropriate to consider legislation that really pinpoints and clarifies that ski area permits may not be conditioned on the transfer of water rights to the government. New legislation devising a real solution to this problem would not only be welcomed, it would be a necessity. This is why we support the Polis amendment, which addresses the narrow conflict between the ski resorts and the Forest Service, which is the real conflict.

This bill would prevent the entire Department of Agriculture and the entire Department of the Interior from conditioning any use of public property on the impairment of any water right. This bill goes well beyond ski resorts and well beyond the Forest Service to fundamentally alter public--taxpayer--land management, including the management of all units of the National Park System.

If this bill were to become law, grazing permits could no longer require that some water be left in the streams for the cattle, and bypass flows would be impacted. Any and all uses of public lands which touch on water would be affected. Without the ability to condition permits or authorizations on reasonable protections for water-dependent resources, such as habitat, timber, or recreation, agencies will not be able to comply with the conservation and multiple-use mandates required currently by law. The bill is so broad and so irresponsible that, if it were to be enacted, it would mean the very end of the public lands activities it is supposed to protect, because those activities could no longer be managed responsibly.

Congress should get out of the way, respect States' rights, and allow the Forest Service to issue its new directive, which is not the taking of anyone's property. Rather, it is placing responsible conditions on a permit allowing private companies to profit from their use of public-- taxpayer--lands.

Finally, Madam Chair and Members, it is unfortunate that we are dedicating time and energy to this aspect of water management when our constituents and our communities are facing so many more important water challenges. Most of the U.S., especially the Western U.S., is suffering from drought. While 53 percent is facing moderate to exceptional drought, the entire State of California, my State, is in drought. We certainly have more fish to fry than talking about a bill that is limited to ski resorts and the Forest Service.

I do urge my colleagues to worry less about these resorts and more about the drought that is ravaging our West, the wildfires that are threatening our lives and property, and climate change, which, if we continue to fail to act or accept, makes snow skiing a thing of the past. Some would say that this goes far beyond ski resort issues and affects nationwide entities. I say let's deal with the ski issue and the Forest Service separately, and let's support the Polis amendment.

Madam Chair, I submit for the Record a letter dated February 11, 2014, from the National Ski Areas Association. In the very first sentence, they are including:

I am writing on behalf of the ski industry to express the

reasons ski areas strongly support passage of the bipartisan

Water Rights Protection Act, H.R. 3189/S. 1630, and to

advocate changes to the bill to narrow its scope.

I oppose the legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and to support the Polis amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

National Ski Areas Association,

February 11, 2014.

Re: Support for Water Rights Protection Act

Rep. Scott Tipton,

Cannon HOB, Washington, DC.

Rep. Jared Polis,

Longworth House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Sen. John Barrasso,

Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Sen. Mark Udall,

Hart Office Building Suite,

Washington, DC.

Gentlemen: I am writing on behalf of the ski industry to

express the reasons ski areas strongly support passage of the

bipartisan Water Rights Protection Act, H.R. 3189/S. 1630,

and to advocate changes to the bill to narrow its scope. At

the outset, the ski industry would like to express our deep

appreciation of your effort to protect ski area water rights

from federal encroachment over the past couple of years. Your

leadership on protecting water rights and your commitment to

working in a bipartisan fashion to solve this problem on

behalf of ski areas and other permittees on federal land have

had very positive and real effects to date. While ski areas

have enjoyed a long and successful partnership with the

Forest Service spanning almost eight decades, Forest Service

water policy is an issue on which we simply do not agree. We

have invested too much in water rights to simply hand them

over to the federal government.

As you are well aware, the Water Rights Protection Act

would stop the federal government from illegally seizing

water rights from private parties that develop them, such as

ski areas, in violation of State water law and 5th Amendment

property rights protections. The intent of the bill is

narrow--to protect valuable assets of ski areas and other

permittees that use federal land from seizure without

compensation by the federal government. Essentially everyone

agrees on the need for this protection, given recent (and

past) Forest Service policy that demands transfer of valuable

water rights to the U.S. without compensation. This policy

threatened to rock the foundation of over a hundred years'

worth of water law in the West, and again, thanks to your

intervention, beneficial changes are expected in the future.

The intention of the Water Rights Protection Act is not to

impact stream health or aquatic species in any way. Some

conservation groups contend that HR 3189 has a broader effect

than simply protecting water rights, and in fact would hinder

federal efforts to protect stream health and fish. Ski areas

and other stakeholders strongly disagree with this

interpretation of the bill and would never support a bill

that had this result. In fact, a ``savings clause'' was

included in the bill to explicitly state that the measure had

no other impacts than to protect permittees' water rights

from forced transfers. More importantly, the bill does not

alter in any way the minimum stream flow protections that are

set and enforced by the states on virtually every river and

stream. Ski areas support and abide by these minimum stream

flow requirements and would never take action to undermine

them.

However, to make it abundantly clear that ski areas have a

narrow and pointed agenda with respect to this legislation

and that we are committed to maintaining stream and aquatic

species health, we are now advocating changes to the bill to

narrow its scope even further. These changes include

narrowing the scope of the bill to apply just to the U.S.

Forest Service, and clarifying that the bill prohibits forced

transfers of ownership of water rights to the United States

by inserting the term ``title'' into the bill. We offer these

changes to demonstrate emphatically our unwavering commitment

to maintain stream health and aquatic species, and our narrow

focus of simply protecting our valuable water rights assets.

These changes are directed at solving the concrete problem at

hand, which is overreaching policy by the Forest Service that

requires a forced transfer of ownership of water rights from

permittees to the United States. The bill will continue to

benefit all permittees on Forest Service lands, not just ski

areas.

The release of a new water policy is expected from the

Forest Service sometime in 2014. Ski areas welcome this new

policy change, which we understand will not require a forced

transfer of ownership of water rights. The release of this

policy will not change the need for federal legislation

however. First, the new policy is expected to apply

prospectively, such that existing water rights subject to

past Forest Service water clauses could continue to be in

jeopardy of a taking by the Forest Service. Ski areas are

proposing an amendment to the bill to protect against the

implementation of such clauses beginning with the effective

date of this bill. Ski areas have experienced four changes in

Forest Service water policy in the last ten years. Only

Congress can help stop the pendulum from swinging and provide

ski areas the kind of stability they need to grow and succeed

in the future.

After prevailing on our challenge of the Forest Service's

water rights takings policy in federal court in 2012, ski

areas offered an alternative approach for the Forest Service

to consider that would not involve forced transfers of water

rights. We offered this alternative in the spirit of

partnership, and as

a way for the Forest Service to work cooperatively with ski

areas to support their viability, and the viability of

mountain communities, over the long term. The alternative

offered by ski areas was to require resorts to provide

successors in interest an option to purchase water rights at

fair market value upon sale of a ski area. We continue to

support this approach as a viable alternative that meets the

needs of the agency, provides ski areas needed flexibility,

and respects state water law.

Ski areas are great stewards of water resources. It is

important for everyone to remember that only a small portion

of water that is used for snowmaking is consumed. Most of the

water diverted from streams for snowmaking returns to the

watershed. Although it varies from region to region, studies

show that approximately 80 percent of the water used for

snowmaking returns to the watershed. Since the majority of

water used for snowmaking is water purchased by a ski area,

brought onsite through diversions, stored on-slope, and

typically released more slowly back into the watershed with

the seasonal melting of the winter snowpack, snowmaking

typically benefits the watershed in which it is taking place,

as well as downstream users, and can help counteract the

harmful effects of drought. In addition to using a whole

array of conservation measures, many resorts impound or store

water in reservoirs for use during low flow times of the year

without affecting fish or aquatic habitat. The ability to

control our water assets and investments--which will be the

outcome of passage of the Water Rights Protection Act--will

enable us to continue this stewardship in the future. It will

also allow us to continue to provide a high quality

recreation opportunity for millions of people on the National

Forests.

In closing, we thank you for your work to date on this

issue, and we look forward to continuing to work together in

cooperation to ensure the bill's passage.

Sincerely,

Michael Berry,

President.

Madam Chair, there is opposition to this bill from 90 conservation, recreation, and sportsmen groups, including the Grand County Board of Commissioners, Summit County Board of Commissioners, Eagle County Board of Commissioners, besides the other agencies.

Letters in Support of H.R. 3189

Hinsdale County; Rio Grande Watershed Association of

Conservation Districts;

Conejos County Board of County Commissioners; Colorado River

District; National Cattlemen's Beef Association; National

Association of Conservation Districts; National Ski Areas

Association; National Water Resources Associations; Western

Governors Association*

*WGA has taken a neutral stance on H.R. 3189.

letters in Opposition to H.R. 3189

U.S. Department of Interior; U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service; Grand County Board of Commissioners; Summit

County Board of Commissioners; Eagle County Board of

Commissioners.

90 conservation, recreation, and sportsman's groups including:

California Environmental Groups; Alabama Rivers Alliance;

American Bird Conservancy; American Rivers; American

Whitewater; Appalachian Mountain Club; Atlantic Salmon

Federation; California Sportfishing Protection Alliance;

CalTrout; Chesapeake Bay Foundation; Clean Water Action;

Connecticut River Watershed Council; Deerfield River

Watershed Association; Defenders of Wildlife; Earthjustice;

Foothill Conservancy; Friends of Butte Creek; Friends of

Merrymeeting Bay; Friends of the Rivers of Virginia; Friends

of the White Salmon River; Gunpowder Riverkeeper; Hydropower

Reform Coalition; Idaho Rivers United; Lower Mississippi

River Foundation; Maine Rivers; National Audubon Society;

National Parks Conservation Association; Native Fish Society;

Natural Resources Defense Council; Northwest Resource

Information Center; Rivers Alliance of Connecticut;

Shenandoah Riverkeeper; Sierra Club; Stewards of the Lower

Susquehanna, Inc.; Tennessee Clean Water Network; Upstate

Forever; Utah Rivers Council; WaterWatch of Oregon; Yadkin

Riverkeeper Inc.

I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time remains?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, I will include in the Record a list of amendments proposed that the Rules Committee did not find in order that are asking to exempt Allegheny National Forest, Delaware River Watershed, and Delaware Water Gap from the effects of the bill.

We also have the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, the Long Island Sound Watershed, the Puget Sound Watershed, and Olympic National Park Watershed. They all want to be excluded from this bill.

Summary of Amendments Submitted to the Rules Committee for H.R. 3189--

Water Rights Protection Act

summaries derived from information provided by sponsors

[Listed in Alphabetical Order]

Cartwright (PA): No. 1--Exempts the Allegheny National

Forest, Delaware River Watershed, and Delaware Water Gap from

the effects of the bill.

Connolly (VA), Van Hollen (MD), Sarbanes (MD), Scott, Bobby

(VA), Edwards (MD), Cartwright (PA): No. 13--States that no

provisions of the bill shall affect water rights agreements

within the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

Holt (NJ): No. 5--Exempts the Delaware River watershed from

this Act.

Israel (NY), DeLauro (CT), Esty (CT), Crowley (NY), Engel

(NY), Tonko (NY), McCarthy, Carolyn (NY), Bishop, Tim (NY),

Courtney (CT): No. 8--Exempts the Long Island Sound watershed

from any provision in the legislation.

Kilmer (WA), Heck, Denny (WA), Larsen, Rick (WA), Smith,

Adam (WA): No. 9--Clarifies that nothing in the legislation

would affect or apply to the Puget Sound watershed.

Kilmer (WA): No. 10--Affirms that nothing in the

legislation would affect or apply to the Olympic National

Park watershed.

Kilmer (WA), Huffman (CA): No. 11--Clarifies that nothing

in the legislation would impact or diminish the treaty rights

of federally recognized tribes and nothing would impact water

rights of federally recognized tribes.

Langevin (RI), Cicilline (RI): No. 7--Exempts the

Nanagansett Bay watershed and the Wood Pawcatuck watershed.

Lujan (NM): No. 2--Notification requirements for the

implementation of water settlements.

Mullin, Markwayne (OK): No. 4--Ensures that the federal

government cannot make Native America tribes, apply for or

acquire water rights under state law for the federal

government rather than acquiring the rights for themselves.

Prohibits the federal government from using permits,

approvals, and other land management agreements to take the

water rights of Native American tribes without just

compensation. Ensures that nothing in the Act limits or

expands the reserved water rights or treaty rights of

federally recognized Native American tribes.

Polis (CO), DeGette (CO), Perlmutter (CO), DelBene (WA),

Kuster, Ann (NH), Cartwright (PA), Huffman (CA): No. 5--

SUBSTITUTE Requires the U.S. Forest Service to issue a new

draft water directive within 60 days that does not condition

ski area permits on the transfer of title of any water right

or require any ski area permittee to acquire a water right in

the name of the United States.

Speier (CA), Miller, George (CA), Lee, Barbara (CA): No.

6--Excludes the California Bay Delta system from the

provisions of the bill.

Tipton (CO): No. 12--MANAGERS Makes several clarifying

technical changes to the bill, and clarifies that the Act

will have no effect on Bureau of Reclamation contracts,

implementation of the Endangered Species Act, certain

existing federal reserved water rights, and certain

authorities under the Federal Power Act.

Tonko (NY): No. 14--LATE Ensures that nothing in this Act

will affect or apply to the Hudson and Mohawk River

watersheds.

Tsongas (MA): No. 3--States that Nothing in this Act shall

affect or apply to the Lowell National Historical Park and

Minute Man National Historical Park.

Madam Chair, I now yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).

Madam Chair, may I ask how many speakers my colleague from the other side has?

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, there is no taking of anybody's water rights in this case and the majority knows it. Claiming this is a taking is misleading and irresponsible.

The only way State or private water rights could, I repeat, could be transferred or diminished in any way is if the owner of those rights volunteers to a transfer or a limitation to a portion of those rights as part of a deal to receive the permission to use Federal land.

Volunteering to limit your water rights in exchange for the use of Federal land, taxpayer land, is the opposite of taking.

The various court cases the majority has thrown around deal with legitimate, I repeat, legitimate water rights issues; cases where there are overlapping or conflicting claims over the same water. This is not that type of a case.

I defy my colleagues to produce any case law holding that a decision to give up a water right, voluntarily, in order to get another Federal benefit is a taking. There are no such cases.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, the base bill actually creates all kinds of uncertainty, and allows a ski area owner to sell their water rights.

If you are a local business owner in that area who depends on the ski resort business, let's say you own a restaurant or an equipment store or have a hotel, H.R. 3189 means that you have no idea, from one year to the next, whether the resort, which brings people to town, will still be operating if it has water.

If the water rights are not tied to the resort in any way, which is what H.R. 3189 wants to ensure, there is no guarantee that the owners won't sell the water, leaving the Forest Service holding a ski resort that cannot operate without that water because the water rights have been previously sold.

It is the Forest Service that is trying to create some minimal certainty that the resort would have current water rights to keep running, even if the current owners were to leave.

It is H.R. 3189 that is trying to prevent that certainty.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, H.R. 3189 turns the status quo on its head in order to provide a certain class of users a new advantage over all other users of our public lands.

It strikes me as interesting that I have heard farmers and ranchers mentioned a couple of times, although this, apparently, also affects grazing lands, which I believe farmers and ranchers

do use; and unfortunately, I am sure they have not looked at it well enough to understand what really could happen.

The status quo is that Federal land managers have to try to balance multiple competing uses of our public/taxpayer lands--recreation, timber, grazing, conservation, energy production, and the list goes on.

Under the status quo, one of the tools land managers use to achieve this balance is the ability to condition certain uses of public lands-- taxpayer lands--on an agreement to transfer or limit water rights.

If you want the ability to graze or cut timber or build a dam on public lands, you have to agree to leave some water in the river for other uses, like recreation, habitat protection, et cetera.

If that authority is taken away, as the bill would do, then certain kinds of users of our public lands get to take all the water they want, leaving everybody else literally hanging high and very dry.

The status quo is balanced. H.R. 3189 tips the scale all the way in favor of a certain class of users and turns the status quo into chaos.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My colleague is right, but then let's hold a hearing on the water rights themselves and bring the impacted and affected parties to the table, so that there is a fair hearing which is open, transparent, and fair, but we haven't done that.

We are talking about H.R. 3189, which essentially was set up to deal with the differences between the ski resorts and the Forest Service.

Water belongs to the State, and the State gives people the right to use it. It is owned by the people of the United States.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado, Congressman Polis.

Madam Chair, I am certainly grateful for the opportunity to have this dialogue, and I

think it is very important for the American people to listen in and understand that one bill that was meant to cover a specific issue has been turned into a gigantic--I would say--mess.

We understand the reasoning behind it, to some extent, and we trust that our colleagues understand and are prepared to vote on something that may have unintended consequences in their own backyards.

This bill is flawed. It is flawed on process, on policy, and in claiming that it does protect State water rights. The Governors Association has indicated that they wanted to ensure that the states' water rights remain protected.

We welcome legislation that devises a real solution to a targeted problem, which the amendment that Mr. Polis has on the floor will address. We are supportive of that amendment and hope others will support his amendment, which was made in order.

We, unfortunately, feel that H.R. 3189 does not solve the problem. It creates more problems and has no chance of being enacted into law, and I trust that we will do the right thing by the people because we are talking about protecting the U.S. public, their lands, and their water.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, the amendment doesn't fix the bill because the bill cannot be fixed.

The savings clause in the base bill and the savings clauses that will likely be added by the manager's amendment are symptoms of the problem with the initial bill, not the solution.

If you have a 4-page bill and you need to insert five different savings clauses, you have a problem, my friends. The need to insert layer upon layer of text trying to explain that you don't mean for the bill to do this or that proves beyond any doubt that the bill is a massive and dangerous overreach.

We have no idea how these savings clauses operate in the context of the bill, but what we do know is that, even with the five savings clauses, you haven't caught all the problems.

The only responsible policy is the one offered by Mr. Polis in his substitute amendment which focuses, again, strictly on the main issue that brought this to the forefront, and that was the Forest Service and the ski resorts. Everything else is just a failed attempt to fix the bill.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Madam Chair, I know I have said it before, the ski resort association wants to focus on this bill, so I am suggesting that we do approve the Polis amendment and then hold a hearing--an open hearing and a transparent hearing--for those agencies that are impacted so they may have the ability to have a word and be able to move this forward. I might add that the savings clause does not include the national parks. So all the units, Grand Canyon and others, are impacted.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, when we considered the bill in committee, the majority claimed the bill had nothing to do with the ESA or the bypass flows or FERC or reclamation projects, which we pointed out that it did. Now they have a savings clause for each one of those issues. Now they admit their mistakes. Sadly, when a bill has this many holes in it, no amendment can fix them all, so this bill cannot be saved by this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, this amendment does not fix the bill because the bill cannot be fixed.

The savings clause in the base bill and the savings clause that Mr. Mullin's amendment includes are symptoms of the problem that we pointed out before in this bill, not the solution. The amendment would be the sixth savings clause added to this 4-page bill.

I do support Representative Mullin's and Representative Cole's efforts in protecting our Native American communities' water rights. As the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) mentioned at the Rules Committee last night, Native American water rights are the oldest water rights in the system. They are time immemorial, and yet we choose to ignore them.

I remember Congressman Kildee repeatedly saying, under the Constitution, they hold the first water rights in the United States, and yet we do not recognize them. Yet, since Republicans took the majority 4 years ago, there has been no legislation, no oversight hearings on any Indian water rights settlements.

If we want to support Native American water rights, Congress should consider tribal water rights legislation, enact tribal water rights legislation, and fund tribal water rights legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, this bill is so badly written we really have no idea--I repeat, no idea--what impact this may have on tribes. Yes, Mr. Mullin, I totally support water rights for Native Americans. We have been working on that for at least 8 years in my subcommittee, as well as other water rights owners. We don't oppose your amendment, and we honestly really truly hope this will offer adequate protection to tribes. They deserve it. It is a long time coming. But, as we have said, the bill is beyond repair. Even if we were to adopt the amendment, H.R. 3189 is dangerous legislation that must be defeated.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment; although, I don't oppose the amendment, but I do oppose the bill, H.R. 3189.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I thank Mr. Polis for yielding.

I must say that, again, I must direct attention to the fact that the February 11 letter from the ski resorts focuses on narrowing the bill, not the bill in total, but narrow focus.

Mr. Polis joined Mr. Tipton on this bill in an attempt to seek a reasonable solution to the problem facing ski resorts in the West, but when Mr. Polis tried to work with the majority and when we on the committee tried to work with the majority to make reasonable, responsible changes to the bill, we were told no.

We were told the majority wanted a big, broad bill that goes way beyond the resorts and way beyond the Forest Service. We pointed out that when you start drafting big, broad bills that go beyond the original issue, you will have unintended consequences, but they would not listen.

Mr. Polis' amendment is the last chance to make this a narrow, bipartisan bill that can actually pass, and we should adopt it.

Again, we don't want a job killing. We don't want a water grab. We don't want specific people to favor. I think the people need to understand it is the farmers and ranchers who benefit.

The six savings clauses the bill needs is not needed. It is in the Polis amendment because the amendment narrows the scope only to ski resorts and National Forest Service.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 515 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 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, House Resolution 515 provides for consideration of H.R. 3189, the Water Rights Protection Act, under a structured amendment process, making in order three amendments and providing for extra time for debate for the substitute amendment, which will be offered by Mr. Polis.

The rule also provides for the consideration of H.R. 4015, the SGR Repeal and Medicare Provider Payment Modernization Act of 2014 with one amendment, offered by Chairman Camp from the Ways and Means Committee, being self-executed in order to ensure that the legislation has a valid pay-for.

This is necessary so that the bill before us does not run afoul with the majority's rule on CutGo. As is customary, the rule allows the minority to offer a motion to recommit on each bill. Finally, the rule provides for the customary district work period authority.

H.R. 3189, the Water Rights Protection Act, addresses a concern of a number of our Western State colleagues who have experienced the Federal Government threatening to take over the private water rights of businesses and private citizens held on public lands.

The bill, sponsored by Representative Scott Tipton from Colorado, is a bipartisan effort to protect water supplies and property rights designated for recreation, agriculture, local conservation, and municipal use from Federal Government overreach.

The bill protects water users and upholds State water laws by prohibiting Federal agencies from extorting water rights through their use of permits, leases, and other land management arrangements.

If the floor debate on this bill is anything like the debate which members of the Rules Committee observed last night, this discussion will be spirited, as this issue deeply affects Western States, where so much of their land is controlled by the Federal Government.

The second bill, H.R. 4015, the SGR repeal legislation, is an issue that I have worked on my entire congressional career. It reflects years of bipartisan, multicommittee, bicameral discussions and negotiations, bringing together Members of all ideological stripes, as well as those from the outside, to coalesce around a policy to help patients and to help their care providers get out from under the constant threat of payment cuts under the current sustainable growth rate structure for Medicare payments.

Everyone agrees, Mr. Speaker, that the Medicare sustainable growth rate has got to go; but today, we are considering an actual framework to realistically accomplish that goal.

This formula--the sustainable growth rate formula--was enacted as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 in an ultimately misguided means by which to restrain Federal spending in Medicare Part B.

The formula consists of expenditure targets, which are established by applying a growth rate, which is designed to bring spending in line with the expenditure targets over time.

Since 2002, this formula has called for a reduction to physician reimbursement rates. However, every Congress has consistently passed legislation to override this formula. This has led this body to find over $150 billion with no solution out of this annual mess.

If Congress were to let the SGR go into effect, physicians would face a 24 percent reduction in reimbursement rates in just a few weeks' time. This unrealistic assumption of spending and efficiency have plagued the health care profession and our Nation's seniors.

The bill before us repeals the SGR--let me repeat that because it is so important--this bill repeals the sustainable growth rate formula, avoiding potentially devastating across-the-board cuts slated for 2014 and does so at a cost far lower than what Congress has already spent or would likely spend over the next 10 years' time.

The bill provides for 5 years of payment transition, essential to allow us to ensure continued beneficiary access, to allow medicine to concentrate on moving to a broad adoption of quality reporting, and allow Congress to move past the distraction of this formula to identify Medicare reforms that can further benefit beneficiaries.

This bill will also allow providers the time to develop and the time to test quality measures and clinical practice improvement activities, which will be used for performance assessment during other phases of this bill. During the 5-year stability period, physicians will receive annual increases of \1/2\ of 1 percent.

I know, I can hear it already. That is not very much. Correct, it is not; but it is more in aggregate than what has been provided over the last several years. More importantly, it provides that stability so physician offices can plan and plan ahead on how to take care of their patients.

The quality measures implemented in what is called the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System will be evidence-based and developed through a transparent process that will seek input from provider groups, from patient groups, and from other stakeholders.

Quality reporting will involve a provider's being judged against its practice rather than a one-size-fits-all, generic standard of care that does not take into account the unique practices of various specialty providers.

Providers will also self-determine their measures. We consolidate three reporting programs into the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System, easing the administrative burden on doctors while retaining the congressionally established goals of quality, resource use, and meaningful use.

The new reimbursement structure ensures continued access to high- quality care while providing physicians with certainty and security in their reimbursements. Physicians will be aware of the benchmarks they are competing against, and unlike current law, all penalties assessed from those not meeting the benchmarks will go to those who are. This keeps the dollars

in the Medicare system, and that, ultimately, drives the quality, which benefits Medicare patients.

Standards against which providers will be measured will be developed by professional organizations in conjunction with existing programs and will incorporate ongoing feedback to doctors, thus further ensuring that optimal care is ultimately provided to the patient.

Realtime feedback will be gained through registries and performance data, and doctors are encouraged to participate in the process through data reporting. For eligible professionals who choose to opt out of the fee-for-service program, alternative payment models will be available. These alternative models may include patient-centered medical homes, whether they are primary or specialty models, and bundles or episodes of care. By encouraging alternative payment models, care coordination, and disease management, our proposed solution will inspire innovation. Qualifying practices that move a significant number of their patients into one of these alternative payment methods will see a 5 percent quality bonus. The bill will also take affirmative steps to improve the accuracy of relative values and misvalued services.

But even though we are taking these important steps toward ensuring quality care, the bill specifically states that these quality measures are not creating a Federal right of action or a legal standard of care or a duty of care owed by the health care provider to the patient.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a lot of discussion. I know my friends on the other side of the dais may disagree with having to pay for new spending, but this is an important reform that Republicans put in place when they reclaimed the majority after the 2010 elections. If you want to increase mandatory spending, you should reduce mandatory spending elsewhere. This is a simple concept, and I know that my constituents and many Americans agree with this.

The Democrats' substitute highlights the difference between the parties on this issue. Democrats have embraced a budget gimmick to offset their bill, a gimmick that even the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said is not scorable. There is no way that it will pay for anything, because the score is zero.

Republicans want to reform Medicare and the payment system in a responsible way and do so in a way that is paid for. If my colleagues on the other side can find a legitimate offset, I am happy to review it. In fact, this is exactly what we are asking of the United States Senate. You don't like our offset. Offer one of your own, and let's work together to pass these much-needed reforms.

This bill is consistent in its themes throughout. We provide payment stability, reduce and streamline the administrative burden, increase predictability in doctors' interactions with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, build transparency into systems, encourage innovation and the delivery of services, and keep providers in the driver's seat.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bills.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to some of this, just to put things in context on a timeline.

H.R. 4015 was introduced on February 6, 2014. The bill has been available to all Members and the public for more than a month. The bill is cosponsored by the bipartisan chairs and ranking members of the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and the Senate Finance Committee.

We are recommending no changes to the underlying substance of H.R. 4015, which has been negotiated on a bipartisan basis.

I do believe that providing offsets for new spending is an appropriate course of action. Therefore, the Camp amendment saves almost $170 billion over the next 10 years, and this rule ensures that we aren't making future generations foot the bill.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time that remains.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I yield myself 2 minutes.

I wanted to just list some of the exemptions from the individual mandate--those passed in a bipartisan manner by the House of Representatives and those instituted by executive action by the President:

July 17, we delayed the individual mandate until 2015. Twenty-two Democrats voted in favor of that.

March 10, 2014, delayed the individual penalty for individuals who fail to have health care coverage. Twenty-seven Democrats voted in favor.

March 11, H.R. 1814, exempted individuals with certain religious beliefs. Passed by a voice vote. Not a single dissenting vote.

March 11, we exempted volunteer firefighters and emergency responders from the individual mandate. The vote was 410-0. 186 Democrats voted in favor.

March 11, we exempted individuals who receive health coverage under TRICARE, VA, from being counted towards the employer mandate under the ACA. 183 Democrats voted in favor of that exemption.

This is not something that is exclusive to the House of Representatives.

Just last week, the administration quietly excused millions of people from the requirement to purchase health insurance or else pay the tax. Now all you need to do is fill out a form attesting that your plan was canceled and you believe that the plan options available in the marketplace in your area are more expensive than your canceled insurance policy. You believe that to be true. You don't have to prove it. You believe it to be true. It is self-attestation. So the President has already delayed the individual mandate for another 2 years' time.

This is a reasonable proposal, what is out there today. Yes, doctors do need relief, but we need to pay for that. I believe the proposal before the Congress today will do just that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, again I remind the body that this language, this compromise, this bipartisan, bicameral compromise has been available for all to see since February 6. During that time, what response have we gotten from the United States Senate as the responsible way to pay for this legislation? Crickets. Zero. Nothing.

We are offering this bill today with the pay-for that has been embraced by both sides in a bipartisan fashion, as I have demonstrated to you already. This would not be necessary if the Senate had provided us feedback on what their approach to a method of paying for this legislation would be, but they did not.

We know the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, the Finance Committee in the other body, the chairwoman has now gone to a different occupation, so there is a new chairperson in the other body on the Finance Committee, but that shouldn't have been an obstacle. There was a way forward to provide the discussion, a preconference conference, if you will, because we had all agreed on the policy. This was not a mystery. This was not something that one body had done in secret. This had all been done out in the open for the past 2 years. So that pathway was available.

But for whatever reason, the other body said no deal. We don't want to deal with the House. We want to jam the House at the last minute and get them to accept something. Or better yet, let's just do another patch and get us past our Election Day. That is a very cynical approach.

Mr. Speaker, today before us on the floor we are taking a responsible approach. And guess what. Because we have taken this approach, the Senate is now talking once again about their way forward, which, ultimately, I think is a good thing.

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

As the gentleman from Colorado knows, I am capable of filling whatever volume of time remains on my own, but, no, I don't see other speakers seeking recognition.

I would inquire of the gentleman from Colorado his status of additional speakers.

I am prepared to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do want to direct Members' attention to yesterday's Wall Street Journal, the article entitled ``ObamaCare's Secret Mandate Exemption,'' which goes into some detail about the self-attestation for the so-called hardship exemption, which the administration included as part of an unrelated rule last week.

As a consequence, there is an exemption from the individual mandate for the next 2 years for anyone who simply wants to go and say: I am sorry; this is too tough for me to do.

Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of two important bills, one dealing with critical water rights and the other addressing the serious problem in the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate.

I certainly want to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton) on H.R. 3189, as well as thank the chairmen and the ranking members of the House Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means, as well as the Senate Finance Committee, for coming together for our Nation's doctors and seniors.

As I close, I would like to note that each committee's work is represented in H.R. 4015. H.R. 4015's base policy has the backing of the House and Senate negotiators and all three committees of jurisdiction. The original cosponsors of the bill include the chairmen and the ranking members of the full committees of jurisdiction, as well as their health subcommittees.

The bill has gained support from the GOP Doctors Caucus, as well as many physicians on the other side of the aisle. We have over 100 bipartisan cosponsors. The bill's policy has been embraced by organized medicine, with well over 700 State and national groups in support of the bill.

From primary care to specialists to surgeons to organized nursing and everyone in-between, we have support for this policy. We will not be able to accomplish this goal without substantive and immediate bipartisan dialogue seeking agreement on reforms to offset the costs associated with the policies in H.R. 4015.

While the delay of the mandate has received bipartisan support, I understand the problems that arise and the opposition that arises.

These reforms must receive the necessary majority support, not only of the House and Senate, but also be agreed to by the White House. However, no one Chamber can negotiate on such an important task in a vacuum.

This action by the House is a means of clearly demonstrating that the legislative policies contained within H.R. 4015 and S. 2000 not only have the support of the committees of jurisdiction and organized medicine, but can gain the necessary support to pass the House.

Mr. Speaker, this is clearly not the end of this conversation. It is another step--another step of many that have been taken in demonstrating to both sides of the Capitol that the committees of jurisdiction have produced significant policy that can serve as the solution to the sustainable growth rate formula that most of us have sought throughout our congressional careers.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to take a moment to thank some of the staff members who have done so much work. I really wanted to start with Dr. John O'Shea, who no longer is on the staff, but now works at the Brookings Institute.

Dr. O'Shea, a physician from New York, was hired by committee staff for the express purpose of helping develop the policy for repealing the sustainable growth rate. In addition, James Decker

on my staff assists me with rules issues.

J.P. Paluskiewicz, known affectionately by his friends as J.P., has put in extraordinary hours on this project, as have Sarah Johnson and Adrianna Simonelli on my personal staff.

On the committee staff, Clay Alspach and Robert Horne have additionally put in hours well above and beyond what ordinarily would be required of committee staff in order to see this project come to fruition.

I certainly want to thank Chairman Upton for making this a priority during his chairmanship of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and I thank all of the staff--staff on Ways and Means and staff on Senate Finance--who have worked on this issue and will continue to work on this issue until it is solved.

Every success we have had at every point in this process was further than we have ever come before, and that involved a lot of working weekends; but ultimately, if we use this action to springboard to full bicameral engagement on the package that can go to the White House and get signed by the President, indeed, I think all involved would agree that it would be worth it.

I look forward to passage. I look forward to continuing the process with this Chamber and the other Chamber to embrace the underlying policy and ultimately identify the offsets that can get this badly needed policy into law. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and both underlying bills.

[From the Hill, March 13, 2014]

ObamaCare's Secret Mandate Exemption

ObamaCare's implementers continue to roam the battlefield

and shoot their own wounded, and the latest casualty is the

core of the Affordable Care Act--the individual mandate. To

wit, last week the Administration quietly excused millions of

people from the requirement to purchase health insurance or

else pay a tax penalty.

This latest political reconstruction has received zero

media notice, and the Health and Human Services Department

didn't think the details were worth discussing in a

conference call, press materials or fact sheet. Instead, the

mandate suspension was buried in an unrelated rule that was

meant to preserve some health plans that don't comply with

ObamaCare benefit and redistribution mandates. Our sources

only noticed the change this week.

That seven-page technical bulletin includes a paragraph and

footnote that casually mention that a rule in a separate

December 2013 bulletin would be extended for two more years,

until 2016. Lo and behold, it turns out this second rule,

which was supposed to last for only a year, allows Americans

whose coverage was cancelled to opt out of the mandate

altogether.

In 2013, HHS decided that ObamaCare's wave of policy

terminations qualified as a ``hardship'' that entitled people

to a special type of coverage designed for people under age

30 or a mandate exemption. HHS originally defined and

reserved hardship exemptions for the truly down and out such

as battered women, the evicted and bankrupts.

But amid the post-rollout political backlash, last week the

agency created a new category: Now all you need to do is fill

out a form attesting that your plan was cancelled and that

you ``believe that the plan options available in the

[ObamaCare] Marketplace in your area are more expensive than

your cancelled health insurance policy'' or ``you consider

other available policies unaffordable.''

This lax standard--no formula or hard test beyond a

person's belief--at least ostensibly requires proof such as

an insurer termination notice. But people can also qualify

for hardships for the unspecified nonreason that ``you

experienced another hardship in obtaining health insurance,''

which only requires ``documentation if possible.'' And yet

another waiver is available to those who say they are merely

unable to afford coverage, regardless of their prior

insurance. In a word, these shifting legal benchmarks offer

an exemption to everyone who conceivably wants one.

Keep in mind that the White House argued at the Supreme

Court that the individual mandate to buy insurance was

indispensable to the law's success, and President Obama

continues to say he'd veto the bipartisan bills that would

delay or repeal it. So why are ObamaCare liberals silently

gutting their own creation now?

The answers are the implementation fiasco and politics. HHS

revealed Tuesday that only 940,000 people signed up for an

ObamaCare plan in February, bringing the total to about 4.2

million, well below the original 5.7 million projection. The

predicted ``surge'' of young beneficiaries isn't

materializing even as the end-of-March deadline approaches,

and enrollment decelerated in February.

Meanwhile, a McKinsey & Company survey reports that a mere

27% of people joining the exchanges were previously uninsured

through February. The survey also found that about half of

people who shopped for a plan but did not enroll said

premiums were too expensive, even though 80% of this group

qualify for subsidies. Some substantial share of the people

ObamaCare is supposed to help say it is a bad financial

value. You might even call it a hardship.

HHS is also trying to pre-empt the inevitable political

blowback from the nasty 2015 tax surprise of fining the

uninsured for being uninsured, which could help reopen

ObamaCare if voters elect a Republican Senate this November.

Keeping its mandate waiver secret for now is an attempt get

past November and in the meantime sign up as many people as

possible for government-subsidized health care. Our sources

in the insurance industry are worried the regulatory loophole

sets a mandate non-enforcement precedent, and they're

probably right. The longer it is not enforced, the less

likely any President will enforce it.

The larger point is that there have been so many unilateral

executive waivers and delays that ObamaCare must be

unrecognizable to its drafters, to the extent they ever knew

what the law contained.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill H.R. 3189.

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

President Obama has made no secret of the fact that he is willing to act unilaterally to impose new laws and regulations on the American people, declaring that he has ``a pen and a phone.''

Over the last 5 years, there have been numerous examples of what has become an Imperial Presidency. Under the administration, the reach of the Federal Government has extended into nearly every sector of our economy and ensnarled it in new red tape and regulations.

An egregious example of this is the Federal Government's concerted effort to take water away from individuals and businesses. Water is the lifeblood of communities and essential for a strong economy. Cities, ranchers, farmers, businesses, along with the jobs

they support, all depend on a stable supply of water to survive.

For over a century, there have been established laws upholding a State's right to manage its water and its water laws, but now, this administration is threatening to undermine those laws and seeks to take away private property rights--or private water rights governed under State laws.

Madam Chairman, that is why we are here today, to consider H.R. 3189, the Water Rights Protection Act. This bipartisan bill would protect private property rights from Federal overreach that threatens to take water supplies away from water users, such as ski areas, ranchers, cities, towns, and local conservation efforts.

This bill is responding to a very real threat as the Obama administration has sought to extort water from individuals and businesses through the permitting process.

Now, how is this done, Madam Chairman? Federal agencies are threatening to withhold permits needed to operate on Federal lands, unless private water rights are turned over to the Federal Government.

Put more simply, the Federal Government is holding necessary permits hostage unless water rights are relinquished; and they are demanding that water rights be signed over without payment, which of course is a violation of the Constitution's guarantee of just compensation.

Unfortunately, these businesses that are affected need both the permits and the water in order to operate, so what the Federal Government is doing is forcing them into an impossible situation where either choice puts them in danger of losing their livelihood or their businesses.

During today's debate, we will hear specific examples of businesses and families, including ski resorts and ranchers, who have experienced this heavy-handed tactic of the Federal Government's.

It is important to be clear about the risk posed by the Federal Government's action. This is not simply a threat to ski resorts and to ski areas located on Federal land as, I am sure, some will argue on the floor here today. The known problem is much greater. We have heard testimony in our committee to that fact, and the threat is not limited to one part of the country.

If a Federal agency can demand that a ski resort in Vail or that a rancher in Utah has to hand over his water to get a Federal permit, then a Federal agency can certainly do the same thing in other States-- Ohio, Florida, West Virginia. Water may be more plentiful in these regions of the country than in the arid West, but the Federal Government's appetite has no geographical limits when it comes to expanding its regulatory control and its disrespect for private property and the livelihoods of American citizens. This is a threat being felt first by the West, but the risk is real, and it exists for the entire country.

Madam Chairman, regardless of where the Federal Government seeks to take water and from whom it is trying to take it, it is simply wrong, and it must be stopped. That is why H.R. 3189 is necessary, and it is why the bill is endorsed by numerous national and regional groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Ski Areas Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Cattlemen's Association, the Natural Water Resources Association, and others.

Now, in the course of the debate, there will be claims and assertions made today that this bill is overly broad and that it will have a whole range of unintended consequences. Madam Chairman, I certainly don't blame those who support the Federal takings of private water rights from wanting to change the subject, but this bill is very focused. It has only one consequence, and that consequence is absolutely intended. It stops the Federal Government from taking the water of American citizens without paying for it. It does nothing else.

In fact, this bill carefully states that this prohibition will not affect irrigation water contracts, FERC licensing, endangered species recovery, national parks, or any other legal authorities. Important environmental restoration, wildlife protection and conservation work that has been occurring for years in a positive, cooperative manner-- and that is whether it is in Puget Sound, which is in my State, in the Chesapeake Bay, nearby here, or in the Florida Everglades--will all continue, and all are protected. Such efforts will not be changed by this legislation.

Madam Chairman, I want to thank and recognize the sponsor of this legislation, our colleague from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), for all of his hard work in advancing this important, commonsense, bipartisan legislation.

It is time for the legislative branch to exert itself on behalf of the American people and rein in the imperial overreach of the executive branch and this administration. No law gives Federal agencies the authority to take private property rights as the administration is seeking to do. In fact, the Constitution prohibits such takings. It is time to put an end to such tactics, so I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and send a strong signal to this administration--to leave private property rights alone.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the sponsor of this legislation.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlemen from California (Mr. McClintock), another member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), a member of the House Natural Resources Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, I have at least four others, besides myself, that want to address this very important issue.

I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith)

another member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner), who I think was a member of the committee but is not anymore.

Madam Chair, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), a former member of the House Natural Resources Committee.

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), a member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Chair, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Madam Chairman, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I will advise my friend from California that I am prepared to close and will reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of the time.

Madam Chairman, let me just comment on a few points here that were made by my friends on the other side of the aisle. There was some concern about the timing of the hearing and the people who were invited.

I just want to make this point: when the hearing was held, we have to have advance notice. We had witnesses coming in from across the country, so we are going to have the hearing on the day we said because of the expense incurred by those private citizens who wanted to come here and testify to help protect private water rights.

The second point is this was a bipartisan bill, as my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Polis) admitted. He was an original cosponsor of the bill. Maybe that was a reason why my friends on the other side of the aisle did not call a witness for or against the original legislation.

I just wanted to make that point. The hearing was scheduled, and it had to go through because of the expense of the private citizens coming in to testify.

I want to make another point, too, that some of my colleagues have made. Several of them have said that this legislation redefines Federal water rights.

Madam Chairman, that is simply not true. If they read the bill, they would see that the definition is for the purpose of this act only, meaning that the definition is only for this act, so that doesn't hold up either.

Just about all of my colleagues on the other side that talked about the Federal lands and so forth--I will acknowledge that this is about Federal activity on Federal lands, but nowhere--nowhere did my colleagues suggest or say that the Federal Government had the water rights.

Why? Because that is states' rights; and as my colleague from Wyoming said: Yes, it is Federal land; but it is State water, and you have to mesh those together.

And finally--I think this is probably more important than anything else, and frankly, a debate like this has been going on for some time.

We agree--we agree, both sides--that ski resorts have been potentially compromised by the threat of the Federal Government saying ``no permit unless you give up water.'' Both sides agree on that. The question is, What is the remedy?

The big difference I think between the two sides is this. Their remedy is, well, the rulemaking isn't over. Let's find out what the rulemaking is, and then we will respond to it. Our side takes a different approach. Our side says wait a minute. We are the House of Representatives. We are part of the Congress. We make the law.

That is what this legislation does. It makes the law saying the Federal Government cannot extort, through the permitting process, State water rights. It is as simple as that. And so if we are going to continue to have the debate in this House on divisions between the two parties and what their philosophy is, frankly, I welcome this, because it appears every time we have a debate similar to this, their side says let the bureaucracy write the laws. We say wait a minute. That is not the way it is supposed to be. We are the Congress. We write the laws. That is what this debate is about here today, and I look forward to the amendment process.

In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It has been characterized as a Western piece of legislation, but as Mr. Woodall says, indeed, it is not. It affects all water rights which are the province of the States.

It is good legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for his work on the underlying bill and his amendment.

I support the amendment.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to commend the gentleman from Oklahoma for his hard work on behalf of Native Americans.

American Indian tribes rely on their water rights to provide critical supplies to their people and to promote and expand their local economies. These rights must be protected from Federal regulations that are designed to take water without paying for that water, and this amendment does just that.

This forward-looking amendment simply allows tribes to have the same protections that are afforded to others in the bill by prohibiting the Federal Government from using routine permits to extort private water rights. It also preserves the water rights guaranteed to tribes by treaty and by Federal reservation. Although this bill already does the latter, we believe it is important to clarify this important protection, so I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment. I commend the gentleman for offering it.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado for recognizing that the Federal Government's taking of water rights and economic collateral of ski areas is wrong. His amendment also acknowledges that Congress must act to provide long-term certainty rather than rely on vague assurances from bureaucrats that are subject to change at any time.

I also appreciate the gentleman's initial support for the bill as introduced. His attention to this matter and willingness to fight for the ski areas in his district is commendable and has certainly been noted by colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

However, the amendment he offers today completely undermines the bill he originally added his name to in support. The bill, as introduced and in its current improved form, protects private property rights for all--Madam Chairman, all--water users across the country, not just ski areas. By limiting the bill's scope to ski area permits by the Forest Service, the Polis amendment transforms the bill so that it favors one special group at the expense of all others. Ski areas under his amendment would be protected, but any other water owner or user anywhere in the country would be subject to Federal extortion. It frees the Federal Government to continue targeting the water rights of family farms and ranches and municipalities.

Madam Chair, it is not just wrong for the Federal Government to take water away from ski areas, it is wrong to do it to anyone. There should be no discrimination in this manner. The Polis amendment would eliminate protections for farms and ranches, our Nation's food suppliers. That is why the American Farm Bureau opposes this amendment and supports the underlying bill. The Farm Bureau's members have already been victimized by this Federal overreach, and this amendment would allow that to continue.

Because the Polis amendment is a complete substitute text for the underlying bill, it would strike out all of the protections currently in the bill. The Polis amendment would even eliminate the protections for the Indian treaty rights and Indian water rights that the House just adopted a moment ago with the Mullin amendment.

It is true that the ski areas have suffered greatly at the hands of this Federal overreach. For this reason, the underlying bill does fully protect ski areas, along with every other water

user. How many times do we have to say that? It protects ski areas and all water users, and that is why, as has been mentioned several times, the National Ski Areas Association wrote in February after the committee markup that it strongly supports the bill.

When it comes to protecting the water and private property of American citizens, the Congress shouldn't be picking winners and losers; and Congress should be making the law for that protection, not the bureaucrats. The legislative branch should act to protect all citizens of the executive branch.

It is for these reasons I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Polis amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the sponsor of the underlying legislation.

Madam Chairman, I am prepared to close. I have the right to close, so I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

I have to say, the debate on the underlying bill in this amendment I find rather interesting--no, maybe bizarre is better than that.

The issue here is whether we should protect the State's responsibility to write water law or allow the Federal Government to extort from private individuals that water. That is what the issue is all about here.

He had bipartisan support when the bill was heard in committee, but then it changed for some reason. Now, we have in front of us the Polis amendment, which would very narrowly put this protection only to ski areas and not to everybody else that has private property rights.

The consequences if this were to become law--which it is not going to, I am convinced, with this amendment--but the effect of this would be this: okay. Ski areas are protected this year. Next year, it will be a rancher that is abused, so we will come back, and we will write a law to protect the rancher.

Next, it will be a water conservation district someplace that will be affected because of the directive, so we will come back and fix that. Then it will be some municipality someplace that will be affected because they don't have water rights because it was extorted by the Federal Government, so we will have a fix for that.

Madam Chairman, there is a better way to do that. Let's just simply respect states' rights to regulate water law and to codify that with this language.

Finally, just let me make this observation. The effect of adopting this, as I mentioned in my opening statement, as it relates to tribal rights, what this amendment really does more than anything else is it puts ski resorts' water rights above tribal rights. That is really what the adoption of this amendment does.

So I would say that the underlying bill is a bill that is the responsibility of us as the legislative branch in this Congress. It deserves our support. This amendment does nothing to advance that at all and should be defeated.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we have two bills before us under this rule, which I will briefly discuss before getting into the more important topic of what bills are not being considered on the floor of the House this week.

Notably, despite comprehensive immigration reform's having passed the Senate with more than two-thirds support, despite the fact that there are more than 10 million people here in this country illegally, despite the fact that our borders are porous and that people are sneaking across, as well as illicit goods, despite the fact that we have no meaningful workplace enforcement, despite the fact that farmers and the faith-based community are crying out for reform--the business community, the tech community, labor--there is no immigration bill on the floor of the House today. Instead, we are discussing two bills.

We are discussing one SGR fix. Now, that sounds obscure to people, ``SGR fix.'' What is that? This is the reimbursement rate for doctors under Medicare, and there is a budgetary fiction that long predates me in this place. I assume that, at the time, Republicans and Democrats created this elaborate budgetary fiction together as this degree of budgetary fiction requires both parties' most creative thoughts to possibly put it together. So we pretend every year that there are going to be large cuts to Medicare. I think Republicans and Democrats know that that is not likely to happen. Those cuts would completely gut Medicare. Doctors would drop Medicare patients if those cuts were to occur.

So each year and sometimes shorter than a year--sometimes 6 months, sometimes 3 months, sometimes 2 years--Democrats and Republicans have to come together to figure out how to avoid those automatic cuts that otherwise occur. That discussion is about how to pay for avoiding those cuts each time.

Democrats have suggestions to pay for it--let's eliminate oil and gas loopholes; let's use the overseas contingency fund. Republicans have ideas about how they want to pay for it--in this case, the 52nd repeal of ObamaCare. By the way, they want to keep all of the taxes from ObamaCare; they just want to get rid of some of the benefits. So they are going to keep all of the taxes from ObamaCare--those Republicans love those taxes--but they are getting rid of some of the benefits. That is the secret of what they are using to pay for it, just so you know.

The real discussion is how to do it, but in this case, the Republicans are presumably so embarrassed about their pay-for--the fact that they are using the ObamaCare taxes to pay for Medicare--that they are slipping it into the rule in what is called the ``deem and pass'' language, or what is characterized by some as the ``demon pass'' language.

This rule says:

The amendment printed in part B of the report of

the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall

be considered as adopted.

That means there is not even going to be a vote on the actual way to pay for avoiding the Medicare cuts. It is in the rule, itself. This is the most costly rule I have ever seen. This rule costs $138 billion of ObamaCare taxes that the Republicans want to use. This is an expensive rule, Mr. Speaker. If there is a real desire to talk with Democrats about ways to pay for the Medicare SGR fix, also called the ``doc fix,'' we are happy to do it. We were hoping that you would allow a Democratic pay-for sponsored by Mr. Tierney, who will talk about the previous question. Our idea is to use the Overseas Contingency Fund to avoid any cut to Medicare beneficiaries, but this rule does not allow us to do that. This rule doesn't even allow the House to vote on using ObamaCare taxes to pay for SGR. It includes the ``deem and pass'' language in the rule, itself--a rule, itself, that includes self- executing language that costs $138 billion. That is one expensive rule, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly hope my colleagues vote ``no.''

This rule also includes H.R. 3189, the Water Rights Protection Act. As my colleague said, those of us in the West feel that whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting about. I think the debate on the Rules Committee last night and the upcoming debate here on the floor will probably reflect that old adage. The genesis of this particular bill is something that Mr. Tipton and I and, I think, many Members of this body agree on. We wanted to address a narrow dispute between the U.S. Forest Service and ski permit holders that directly impacts my district and impacts Mr. Tipton's district.

I support Mr. Tipton's efforts in that regard, and I was hoping we could have gotten the bill to a point where it would have passed near unanimously or unanimously. Instead, this bill has become a job-killing Republican water grab that even the counties that it was designed to help oppose. The counties in my district that have ski resorts--Eagle, Rand, Summit County, famous resorts like Winter Park, Vail, Arapahoe Basin, Breckenridge, among others--now oppose this bill because it will destroy jobs in their counties by destroying recreational opportunities like white-water rafting, fishing, year-round tourism opportunities, which are

critical to the economic success of my district.

These changes to this job-killing Republican water grab have caused this bill to snowball into an effort that will hurt our rivers' health, destroy recreational opportunities, and the underlying bill jeopardizes the agreements that leave waters in streams and rivers, which allow our tourism industry to be so vibrant. Even some of the counties, as we mentioned in the Rules Committee yesterday--certainly not all of those counties--like Pitkin County and the home of Aspen and Mr. Tipton's district, also oppose this bill. Again, there was an overreaching decision by the U.S. Forest Service that required ski area permittees to transfer the ownership of water rights to the Federal Government. In 2012, that water directive was overturned by a U.S. District Court judge.

It is important to note that I believe in the purpose of this bill, and I hope that we can address it through the amendment that I have offered, which allows for 20 minutes of floor debate under this bill. This bill can still be saved by this body's endorsing the amendment that I have offered as part of this bill, which is also supported by ski area representatives from across the Mountain West, along with my colleagues from Colorado Ms. DeGette and Mr. Perlmutter.

Unfortunately, this job-killing Republican water grab bill uses the ski area directive as a pretense for making wholesale job-killing changes. Look, ski areas have been a punching bag for U.S. Forest Service's misguided policies for the last decade. I think we can find common cause around a narrow solution. In that time, the Forest Service has changed the ski area water policies four times. It has inconsistently enforced others' water clauses. It has left ski areas subject to the agency's whim. They are very capital-intense ski areas. They are the major economic driver of the mountain areas of my district, but they have been at the whim of sometimes arbitrary Federal actions. Ski areas collectively hold water rights worth hundreds of millions of dollars that are critical for their businesses.

Now, my colleagues might wonder what kind of improvements a ski area might want to make. In 2011, this body unanimously voted to support the Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act, which allowed ski areas to expand summertime activities, like zip lines and mountain biking. Amongst some of those other summertime activities that ski resorts benefit from are white-water rafting, fishing--the very kinds of recreational opportunities that will be impacted by this job-killing Republican water grab.

I entered several pieces of testimony into the record in the Rules Committee yesterday--statements from water districts and from counties--with regard to how this bill will impact recreational opportunities in Colorado. Along with Ms. DeGette, Mr. Perlmutter, Ms. DelBene, Ms. Kuster, Mr. Cartwright, and Mr. Huffman, I was proud to offer an amendment that would fix and address the issues in H.R. 3189 and return the bill to its original purpose.

The amendment ensures that any U.S. Forest Service directive will not condition ski area permits on the transfer title of any water right or require any ski area permittee to acquire a water right in the name of the United States. The amendment ensures the long-term viability of ski areas, and it makes sure that this bill is not the job-killing Republican water grab that it has become.

It is important to note that the narrow dispute that was the genesis of this bill could have been solved with a suspension measure. We have offered language repeatedly to Mr. Tipton and his staff, to the committee and its staff, but we were not taken up on that offer, sadly. Instead, we have before us a job-killing Republican water grab bill that would devastate my district.

Instead, the manager's amendment was offered, as well as additional language in committee.

This bill is riddled with problems that are not addressed. The bypass flows issue is not solved in the manager's amendment, which does address the Endangered Species Act component but does nothing to address the issues around the Forest Service, BLM, Interior, and Agriculture agencies that also have relevant authority under a number of statutes, including the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, Forest Service and Park Service Organic Act, and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, to impose bypass flows.

Simply put, the manager's amendment doesn't make the necessary improvements to make this a bipartisan measure--they are simply window dressing for a job-killing Republican water grab.

Let's talk about some of the issues in the underlying legislation.

In the West, water rights are State-based, and any challenge to a right or to the system itself is a very delicate proposition to years of precedence and claims, subordinate and senior, with regard to water.

As a result, this legislation only serves to cast doubt on the complicated laws and authorities that make up our Nation's and State water laws, and that companies, individuals, and counties have made decisions on and already have economic investments in.

In addition, this bill, absent my amendment, muddles the message of disapproval over the 2011 decision.

What exactly are we saying with regard to this bill? A bill that was meant to address the needs of ski areas because of the 2011 directive instead has become an all-encompassing, job-killing Republican water grab, which is not even a clear signal of our unhappiness with the original directive.

I think not only would there be a much cleaner path to actually become the law of the land if we were to consider a targeted approach encompassed by the amendment that I have offered, but it also, even absent becoming law, would send a clear and unambiguous message to the U.S. Forest Service of congressional disapproval of the directive.

Instead, I think they will just shrug their shoulders and say, That is that crazy House of Representatives.

This bill is not going to become law. This bill will not have any impact--and the message is lost with regard to the 2011 directive.

If they think this is the House's reaction--muddled, job-killing, water-grabbing--to this sort of thing, what is to stop them from doing this again? What is to stop them from targeting ranchers? What is to stop them from targeting recreation areas?

When this kind of thing occurs, we need a targeted reaction that can become law or a clear and unambiguous message that the House will not stand for it.

In summary, this rule contains $183 billion in ObamaCare taxes that are spent for another purpose and allows two bills to come to the floor, both of which could be negotiated in good faith with the Democrats, and both of which have not.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), to further discuss the rule that allows for the debate of the job-killing Republican water grab and the bill to keep ObamaCare taxes and remove the benefits.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

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

The Republicans are getting worse and worse on these ObamaCare votes. You would think that you would get better with practice, after 52 times they would be better at repealing ObamaCare. That is because this body, the House of Representatives, has voted to repeal ObamaCare, in whole or in part, 52 times.

Those votes started out where it was very simple. The votes were to repeal everything that was in the Affordable Care Act. That is how those votes started. Now they have gotten to the point where the Republicans want to keep the taxes from ObamaCare and get rid of the benefits. I don't think anybody wants that.

I mean, if you are talking about repealing the Affordable Care Act, you still have people that are split on that. You might have a few more people that

agree with you or a few more that agree with us, but the American people have different opinions about that. But if you offered any of them keep all the taxes and get rid of the benefits, I can't imagine anybody wants that.

I would hope that, after so much practice, the Republicans would be quite good at this. It seems to be the core competency they are developing. Almost every week, in fact, this body repeals ObamaCare, but now they are repealing it in a way that keeps all the taxes and gets rid of the benefits; so I am quite surprised that the old adage of ``practice makes perfect'' is far from true with regard to the Republican approach to this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 45 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentleman if he has any remaining speakers.

I am prepared to close. I have 6 minutes, and I wanted to yield to the gentleman if he has remaining speakers who wanted to speak before I close.

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

Mr. Speaker, sadly, with these two bills, while the Republican job- killing water grab bill and the ObamaCare tax bill are both not going to become law, they both have a genesis in a real issue, one that calls for bipartisan cooperation, one that affects the water rights of ski areas that we have offered language in an amendment that would address, the other, my colleague, Mr. Kind, addressed.

This body has a long tradition of coming together around figuring how to pay for SGR. Now, the gentleman mentioned February 6 the language was available. The language regarding the SGR fix is not what is in dispute. The way of paying for the SGR fix is what is the topic of debate between Democrats and Republicans. That language was not seen February 6. That language is not even going to be voted upon under this rule. It is contained in the rule itself.

Sadly, while we take up our time on these bills that are not going to become law, we continue to avoid action on the pressing issue of reforming our immigration system. In August, a number of us sent a letter to Speaker Boehner saying that he should introduce comprehensive immigration reform legislation. If he failed to do so, we would work with a diverse group of our colleagues to introduce a bill for comprehensive immigration reform in the House. There were crickets, and so my colleagues and I, in October, introduced H.R. 15, comprehensive immigration reform, a bill that has bipartisan cosponsors, over 200 sponsors from both sides of the aisle.

Immigration reform is supported by an unprecedented coalition, including business and tech companies, faith leaders from across the country, police, security specialists, but most importantly, the American people, who are sick and tired of having over 10 million people in our country illegally.

We need to restore the rule of law. We need to allow American families to succeed in our country and to live their dreams. We need to have control of our border. We need to implement mandatory workplace authentication to ensure that people who are here illegally cannot work. Every day that passes is a failure of this body to address these issues, and the solution to all of these issues, workplace authentication, securing our border, uniting families, those are all in

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, but I regret to say unsurprisingly, the Republicans continue to play politics with Medicare, politics with water that is the lifeblood of the American West and the economic lifeblood of the counties that I represent in Eagle and Summit County. And all we have here to vote on today is, once again, an attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act, to keep the taxes and remove the benefits, and an attempt to grab the water from those who would use it for fishing and recreation in the Mountain West.

I hope that we can do better.

If we can reject this $183 billion rule, I think it will send a message to the Speaker that we are ready for immigration reform.

We are ready to reach out our hand on the SGR, on the doc fix, and figure out the best way to pay for it, taking the best ideas that Republicans and Democrats have to offer, working with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and others to bend the cost curve, so that we can deliver a better quality of services to American seniors and contain costs more effectively.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question and vote ``no'' on the underlying bills.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Madam Chair, I want to make it clear that I was an original sponsor of this bill. Like my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), I wanted to address the 2011 directive as it affected ski resorts.

However, this bill, in markup and through the manager's amendment, became worse. We were unable to get the improvements that we needed to narrow the scope; and it became a Republican job-killing, water- grabbing bill, which was not the original intent.

Even the areas where the intent was to help the ski areas--in Summit County and Eagle County in my district, in Pitkin County in Mr. Tipton's district--the counties have all come out against this very bill.

It is a Republican water-grabbing, job-killing bill, and absent the amendment that I proposed, it is not something that I can support. I encourage my colleagues on my side of the aisle who value recreational opportunities, like fishing and white-water rafting, to join me in opposing this bill, unless the Polis amendment is incorporated into the bill.

We will soon begin a debate on that amendment. This debate would focus the actual bill to fulfill its purpose, and I hope that this body will adopt it.

Madam Chair, I want to be clear that the concerns are by no means limited to the Endangered Species Act. The Republicans may care about endangered species, but they don't care about jobs. The Forest Service, the BLM, Interior, and Agriculture agencies all have relevant authority with regard to bypass flows. None of those are mentioned under this particular manager's amendment.

What this manager's amendment shows is Republicans care more about endangered species than they do about jobs in our mountain resort areas. This manager's amendment added the term ``impairment of title.'' We wanted this limited to ``transfer of title'' because ``impairment of title'' actually expands the scope of the bill from the original bill. In addition, the so-called savings clause actually appears to negate the very bill that it appears in.

This takes a bill that we had offered language to the committee and to Representative Tipton to make this a bipartisan bill. I think it could have very closely unanimously passed the House, certainly enough to pass a suspension, and instead they made a bill that even the very ski areas that they are claiming to help--actually, all the counties that I have that have ski resorts actually oppose this job-killing Republican water grab bill.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), mentioned the National Ski Areas Association, and I include their February 11 letter for the Record. It states here, in part:

However, to make it abundantly clear that ski areas have a

narrow and pointed agenda with respect to this legislation

and that we are committed to maintaining stream and aquatic

species health, we are now advocating changes to the bill to

narrow its scope even further. These changes include

narrowing the scope of the bill to apply just to the U.S.

Forest Service, and clarifying that the bill prohibits forced

transfers of ownership of water rights to the United States

by inserting the term ``title'' into the bill.

I believe that my amendment is consistent with the position of the National Ski Areas Association.

I am a strong believer in the original purpose of this bill. Yes, the U.S. Forest Service overstepped its authority by issuing a policy that requires ski area permittees to transfer ownership of their water rights to the Federal Government.

Ski areas are the lifeblood of our mountain communities in Colorado and many communities across the Nation. Their economic viability and strength is extraordinarily important for working families. Ski areas have invested hundreds of millions of dollars of capital, and they can't be simply required to hand over their water rights to the Federal Government. This harmful policy hinders ski resort growth and expansion and harms the economy. My amendment fixes it.

There is a legitimate issue here, and Congress could be solving it in a bipartisan manner. We agree that the 2011 U.S. Forest Service directive is a problem. This could have been a suspension bill, but H.R. 3189, despite our best efforts from my side of the aisle, does not reflect a bipartisan agreement to the water rights issue.

There is not one comparable Federal water rights directive like the U.S. Forest Service directive, but the Republicans couldn't help themselves here, and they have, instead of fixing an issue, created a job-killing, water-grabbing Republican bill that will destroy jobs in Colorado and in mountain resorts across the country.

This process has become convoluted and the bill overly broad. This legislation only serves to cast doubt on the complicated laws and precedents and authorities that make up our Nation's and States' water laws, and that it is critical to remain stable and predictable over time. This expansive legislation undermines jobs and recreational opportunities, from white-water rafting to fishing. Sportsmen's groups oppose this legislation. Ski counties in my district oppose this legislation.

It was brought up in committee yesterday, could the opposition be ``political.'' Well, I want to be clear, one of the ski counties in my district, all three of the commissioners are Republican. Grand County, they oppose this bill unanimously, as do Summit County and Eagle County. Rafting and paddling groups oppose this legislation because it impacts our world-class, white-water runs.

I hope we can fix this bill. We have tried hard throughout this process to offer language in the committee that would make this a bipartisan bill, to offer language to the chief sponsor, Representative Tipton. Up to this point, we have been rebuffed. This is our last hope to fix this bill and create something that actually responds to the flawed Forest Service directive of 2011. Without this change, this bill has nothing to do with the 2011 directive. It is just talk. It doesn't even respond to the issue it is designed to solve, which is why some of the very same ski communities that wanted a response to the 2011 directive don't even support this bill at this point.

Since ski area water rights are a valuable asset that need to be protected, I am proud to have offered this amendment with Representative Kuster, Representative DeGette, Representative Perlmutter, Representative DelBene, Representative Cartwright, and Representative Huffman that would fix H.R. 3189, return the bill to its original purpose, lead to a strong House vote, and ensure that any U.S. Forest Service directive will not condition ski area permits on the transfer of title of any water right or require any ski area permittee to acquire a water right in the name of the United States.

I reserve the balance of my time.

National Ski Areas Association,

February 11, 2014.

Re Support for Water Rights Protection Act.

Hon. Scott Tipton,

Cannon HOB,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Jared Polis,

Longworth House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Barrasso,

Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Mark Udall,

Hart Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Gentlemen: I am writing on behalf of the ski industry to

express the reasons ski areas strongly support passage of the

bipartisan Water Rights Protection Act, H.R. 3189/S. 1630,

and to advocate changes to the bill to narrow its scope. At

the outset, the ski industry would like to express our deep

appreciation of your efforts to protect ski area water rights

from federal encroachment over the past couple of years. Your

leadership on protecting water rights and your commitment to

working in a bipartisan fashion to solve this problem on

behalf of ski areas and other permittees on federal land have

had very positive and real effects to date. While ski areas

have enjoyed a long and successful partnership with the

Forest Service spanning almost eight decades, Forest Service

water policy is an issue on which we simply do not agree. We

have invested too much in water rights to simply hand them

over to the federal government.

As you are well aware, the Water Rights Protection Act

would stop the federal government from illegally seizing

water rights from private parties that develop them, such as

ski areas, in violation of State water law and 5th Amendment

property rights protections. The intent of the bill is

narrow--to protect valuable assets of ski areas and other

permittees that use federal land from seizure without

compensation by the federal government. Essentially everyone

agrees on the need for this protection, given recent (and

past) Forest Service policy that demands transfer of valuable

water rights to the U.S. without compensation. This policy

threatened to rock the foundation of over a hundred years'

worth of water law in the West, and again, thanks to your

intervention, beneficial changes are expected in the future.

The intention of the Water Rights Protection Act is not to

impact stream health or aquatic species in any way. Some

conservation groups contend that H.R. 3189 has a broader

effect than simply protecting water rights, and in fact would

hinder federal efforts to protect stream health and fish. Ski

areas and other stakeholders strongly disagree with this

interpretation of the bill and would never support a bill

that had this result. In fact, a ``savings clause'' was

included in the bill to explicitly state that the measure had

no other impacts than to protect permittees' water rights

from forced transfers. More importantly, the bill does not

alter in any way the minimum stream flow protections that are

set and enforced by the states on virtually every river and

stream. Ski areas support and abide by these minimum stream

flow requirements and would never take action to undermine

them.

However, to make it abundantly clear that ski areas have a

narrow and pointed agenda with respect to this legislation

and that we are committed to maintaining stream and aquatic

species health, we are now advocating changes to the bill to

narrow its scope even further. These changes include

narrowing the scope of the bill to apply just to the U.S.

Forest Service, and clarifying that the bill prohibits forced

transfers of ownership of water rights to the United States

by inserting the term ``title'' into the bill. We offer these

changes to demonstrate emphatically our unwavering commitment

to maintain stream health and aquatic species, and our narrow

focus of simply protecting our valuable water rights assets.

These changes are directed at solving the concrete problem at

hand, which is overreaching policy by the Forest Service that

requires a forced transfer of ownership of water rights from

permittees to the United States. The bill will continue to

benefit all permittees on Forest Service lands, not just ski

areas.

The release of a new water policy is expected from the

Forest Service sometime in 2014. Ski areas welcome this new

policy change, which we understand will not require a forced

transfer of ownership of water rights. The release of this

policy will not change the need for federal legislation

however. First, the new policy is expected to apply

prospectively, such that existing water rights subject to

past Forest Service water clauses could continue to be in

jeopardy of a taking by the Forest Service. Ski areas are

proposing an amendment to the bill to protect against the

implementation of such clauses beginning with the effective

date of this bill. Ski areas have experienced four changes in

Forest Service water policy in the last ten years. Only

Congress can help stop the pendulum from swinging and provide

ski areas the kind of stability they need to grow and succeed

in the future.

After prevailing on our challenge of the Forest Service's

water rights takings policy in federal court in 2012, ski

areas offered an alternative approach for the Forest Service

to consider that would not involve forced transfers of water

rights. We offered this alternative in the spirit of

partnership, and as a way for the Forest Service to work

cooperatively with ski areas to support their viability, and

the viability of mountain communities, over the long term.

The alternative offered by ski areas was to require resorts

to provide successors in interest an option to purchase water

rights at fair market value upon sale of a ski area. We

continue to support this approach as a viable alternative

that meets the needs of the agency, provides ski areas needed

flexibility, and respects state water law.

Ski areas are great stewards of water resources. It is

important for everyone to remember that only a small portion

of water that is used for snowmaking is consumed. Most of the

water diverted from streams for snowmaking returns to the

watershed. Although it varies from region to region, studies

show that approximately 80 percent of the water used for

snowmaking returns to the watershed. Since the majority of

water used for snowmaking is water purchased by a ski area,

brought onsite through diversions, stored on-slope, and

typically released more slowly back into the watershed with

the seasonal melting of the winter snowpack, snowmaking

typically benefits the watershed in which it is taking place,

as well as downstream users, and can help counteract the

harmful effects of drought. In addition to using a whole

array of conservation measures, many resorts impound or store

water in reservoirs for use during low flow times of the year

without affecting fish or aquatic habitat. The ability to

control our water assets and investments--which will be the

outcome of passage of the Water Rights Protection Act--will

enable us to continue this stewardship in the future. It will

also allow us to continue to provide a high quality

recreation opportunity for millions of people on the National

Forests.

In closing, we thank you for your work to date on this

issue, and we look forward to continuing to work together in

cooperation to ensure the bill's passage.

Sincerely,

Michael Berry,

President.

Madam Chair, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), the ranking member of the committee.

Madam Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster), a cosponsor of the amendment.

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

Ski area water rights are valuable assets that must be protected. Rather than disguise that in a catchall Republican job-killing water- grabbing bill, we have the opportunity through the Polis-DeGette- Perlmutter-DelBene-Kuster-Cartwright-Huffman amendment for this House to come together

around something that helps the economy grow in our ski resort areas across the country.

As so many times on issues of even greater importance, there is a fork in the road for this House, a decision to make, between the partisan-charged route of job-destroying Republican water-grabbing legislation or the opportunity to fix this bill and come together to make sure that our ski resort communities are secure in their water rights and can continue to justify their capital investments and grow. That is the choice we have with the Polis amendment.

This amendment improves the bill. It helps turn the bill from a controversial bill into something that I think the vast majority of this body can and will agree on.

The amendment ensures that any U.S. Forest Service directive will not condition ski area permits on the transfer of title of any water right or require any ski area permittee to acquire a water right in the name of the United States.

That is the issue from the directive on 2011 that gives us a reason to even have the bill; but instead of addressing that issue in a focused way, this bill has tried to essentially rewrite centuries of water law in a superficial 2-page bill that has the impact of destroying jobs in Colorado and other mountain resort communities across the country.

We can and we must do better--better for my district in Colorado. Many of the ski resort counties--like Pitkin County represented by Mr. Tipton, and Eagle, Summit, and Grand Counties that I represent--that benefit directly from the ski resort economy have come out opposed to this bill because it actually hurts their economy rather than helps it.

If the very folks that this bill was supposedly written to help oppose this bill, what on Earth are we doing here?

Thankfully, we have an amendment right now that can fix this bill. We tried in committee, we tried through the manager's amendment, and now, we are trying on the floor. Let's do it. Let's fix the bill.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and, unless it is incorporated, oppose the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.