GO Act

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 289) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to issue permits for recreation services on lands managed by Federal agencies, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed proud to present my bill today, H.R. 289, the Guides and Outfitters Act of 2017, also known as the GO Act. I would like to thank the Natural Resources Committee for its overwhelming support of this bill, which happened on June 27 of this year.

Mr. Speaker, I expect that nearly every Member of this body has fond memories of being on our public lands, whether it be fishing as a kid or with your kids, hunting with friends, hiking, on a horse, or camping with the family. Outdoor activities generate not just memorable moments and a love and respect for the great outdoors but also important, considerable economic activity, which is especially important for our rural areas of northern California, where my district is, and all across our Nation.

The Outdoor Recreation Association estimates that recreational activity in the United States contributes nearly $900 billion to our GDP annually, supporting about 7.6 million jobs.

Unfortunately, public access to public lands is too often hindered by costly and complex permit requirements that vary from agency to agency, sometimes even crossing from agency to agency what the requirements are to seek a permit.

The GO Act enhances and protects access to our public lands by streamlining Federal agencies' special recreation permit process, moving the permit process online, and providing joint permits for activities across a combination of National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Forest Service land.

In rural America, where rural economies often depend on annual outdoor events--some events, this might be their only event of the year, a big part of their local economy. We have that in northern California in some areas. The GO Act provides greater assurance that such activities on public lands will continue into the future.

This bill also authorizes agencies to use categorical exclusions to grant annual events a streamlined review, ensuring such events don't need expensive and duplicative studies year after year. Really, there is no need to reinvent the wheel each year for an existing permitted activity.

Getting more American families and groups and clubs outdoors can only be accomplished by building a permit process that doesn't deter outdoor enthusiasts from enjoying public lands but, indeed, makes them feel welcome and encouraged to enjoy these lands that belong to all of us.

The idea behind this bipartisan bill is simple: getting more Americans outside, on their lands, for less cost, less

money, less headache of permits, less red tape; that is really what this is about. There is no need for some of the process that people have to go through to get a permit when it is especially an already- known activity with very minimal or no impact.

Mr. Speaker, let's make recreating in our public lands an open and simple experience. Once again, I urge swift passage of this bill, H.R. 289, the Guides and Outfitters Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Natural Resources,

Washington, DC, July 10, 2017.

Hon. K. Michael Conaway,

Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: On June 27, 2017, the Committee on

Natural Resources ordered reported as amended H.R. 289, the

Guides and Outfitters Act, by voice vote. The bill was

referred primarily to the Committee on Natural Resources,

with an additional referral to the Committee on Agriculture.

I ask that you allow the Committee on Agriculture to be

discharged from further consideration of the bill so that it

may be scheduled by the Majority Leader. This discharge in no

way affects your jurisdiction over the subject matter of the

bill, and it will not serve as precedent for future

referrals. In addition, should a conference on the bill be

necessary, I would support your request to have the Committee

on Agriculture represented on the conference committee.

Finally, I would be pleased to include this letter and any

response in the bill report filed by the Committee on Natural

Resources to memorialize our understanding.

Thank you for your consideration of my request and for the

extraordinary cooperation shown by you and your staff over

matters of shared jurisdiction. I look forward to further

opportunities to work with you this Congress.

Sincerely,

Rob Bishop.

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the input from my colleague from Virginia, and we certainly want to have this be a process that works well. By delineating some of the categorical exclusions, we just seek to make it more usable, more user-friendly in that sense. So I thank you for the support on that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), my neighbor.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the input by my colleague, Mr. McClintock, as well, who has lived this in some of those same Sierra counties we are talking about, and other areas in the West. So we, again, are very encouraged by the bipartisan support, the strong support coming out of committee, and that H.R. 289, the Guides and Outfitters Act, is something that will open the gateway to more enjoyment of our public lands without the constraints, such as exorbitant, extraneous fees and permits that really don't yield any additional care for the environment or care for the area with people that are already good stewards.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 289, the Guides and Outfitters--or GO--Act, offered by my Natural Resources Committee colleague and my California neighbor, Congressman Doug LaMalfa.

For many years, we have seen increasingly severe restrictions on the public's use of the public's land. One of the most galling aspects of this exclusionary policy is the use of exorbitant fees to prevent many group events and small business services that have often been the economic mainstay of small mountain communities like those in my district in the Sierra Nevada.

This abusive practice was made possible by the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement--or FLREA--Act in 2004. It unleashed a flood of complex rules, regulations, and court decisions that have gradually increased the cost of permit administration for the Forest Service and for the Bureau of Land Management, which these agencies, in turn, have used as an excuse to raise fees on the public to cost-prohibitive levels.

For example, the California Endurance Riders Association have been using the El Dorado National Forest for many years. In 2009, when they sought a simple 5-year, 10-event permit to continue doing exactly what they had been doing without incident for decades, the Forest Service demanded $11,000 in fees.

Well, they paid those fees. But the El Dorado National Forest management, nonetheless, pulled the approved permit and halted the process on utterly specious grounds. It then demanded an additional $17,000 fee, causing the Endurance Riders Association to cancel what had been a long-term civic tradition that had been a boon to the local economy.

In 2010, this outrage was repeated after the group spent $5,800 for the Fool's Gold endurance run that had been an ongoing event for more than 40 years.

Hardest hit are guides and outfitters, the folks who make it possible for visitors to fully enjoy our national lands. They are the small businesses that provide specialized knowledge, skills, and equipment that new visitors just don't possess. Both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management have used FLREA to require these small businesses to pay for permit processing and environmental analyses that require more than 50 hours.

These fees, along with complex planning requirements, have virtually shut down so many legitimate and traditional public events and uses. Efforts to encourage the agencies to modify and streamline the process have failed, even when those efforts were supported by agency policy.

The GO Act is a long-overdue relief of these practices. It amends FLREA to streamline the recreation permitting process and allow for increased public access to recreational opportunities on the Federal lands. The GO Act was crafted in consultation with a wide variety of recreation groups throughout the country, and it aims to reduce the cost and complexity of these permits.

Mr. Speaker, I commend and personally thank Congressman LaMalfa for listening to his constituents, the people of the Sierra Nevada, and to the thousands of recreation service providers across the country who have been begging Congress to make these changes.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill is an earnest effort to improve the availability of recreation permits on Federal lands. Public lands support the thriving outdoor recreation economy, and many small businesses partner with the Federal Government to provide a range of visitor services.

The stated purpose of the bill is to reduce permitting time and administrative hurdles faced by permit applications. We are open to the idea of approving the permit process to ensure timely and transparent access to public lands for recreation activities and other special events. However, we are concerned that some of the methods used by the bill could lead to more problems than they solve.

For example, section 2 creates a categorical exclusion for permits related to activities that have been previously considered through the National Environmental Policy Act process. Categorical exclusions are reserved for types of activities that are determined to have limited environmental impacts. They are most commonly developed through a rulemaking process which provides for public comment and provides the agency with the flexibility to determine when they are appropriate.

The Forest Service already stresses the use of existing categorical exclusions for special recreation permits and does what it can with available resources to speed up permit processing times. It is unclear why this section is necessary or appropriate.

If current categorical exclusions are insufficient, Congress should encourage a rulemaking process to address the inadequacies. While we have some concerns, this bill is a good first step, and we would hope our concerns can be addressed in the Senate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers to speak to this issue, so I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this week, in the Natural Resources Committee, we passed my bill, H.R. 289, the Guides and Outfitters Act, called the GO Act. It will help people be able to access public lands, national parks, U.S. Forest Service land, and BLM land for recreational activities without the litany and long wait of having to get permits. This will streamline that process.

A couple of aspects include getting all the different agencies to work together to have a one-stop permitting process and shorten the length of time it takes to get these permits so that people can have events that are compatible with the use of these public lands and enjoy them. Indeed, no one is trying to hurt the environment, and we don't need a 6-month study every time somebody wants to have a bikefest or a jog through their public lands.

We think the GO Act will be a very important, helpful tool, especially during the summertime, when people like to get outdoors and enjoy their public lands.