Reconstruction Era National Historical Park Act

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

Mr. Speaker, when I became chairman of this committee, I vowed never to do this kind of a package. I thought that each bill deserved to be debated and to be moved as a standalone.

Basically, we in the House did that. Unfortunately, the Senate did not, which is why there are at least 63 House-passed bills in this package, 62 of which were passed on suspension, that have been sitting in the Senate, languishing for up to a year and a half.

If somebody says they don't have time to look at all the stuff that is in here, there have been months that they have been able to look at this stuff as it has been sitting over in the Senate.

Much of it is of parochial significance, which means it solves local challenges.

The very basis of all the bills that are in here is to put people above government. If indeed we are going to have public lands, there should be access to those lands.

That is one of the reasons why, for the first time in years, we have had some sportsmen's activities that are put into this particular bill. So the sportsmen can assume if they are on public land, it is going to be open for recreational hunting and fishing and shooting and all kinds of outdoor recreation, unless it is specifically closed.

And a land manager cannot be arbitrary with that. If they are going to close it, there has to be a public process they go through that mandates consultation with local officials.

It is extremely important that bow hunters get some protection. Even duck hunters get some certainty in here. For the first time, we are going to have special days for duck hunting, for youth and veterans, as well as those who are on Active Duty.

For the first time, there are real reforms of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. When that program was established a half century ago, 60 percent of all the land was supposed to go into the State and local funds.

Those are the programs that your constituents are calling you and saying: These are the good things on why this program should be reauthorized.

But when that cap was taken off, the amount of money going to State and local programs was reduced. In the time of the Obama administration, it was down to 12 percent. Everything else was for land acquisition.

This bill reforms that permanently by saying no less than 40 percent has to go to those State and local funds that your constituents like.

No less than 3 percent has to go to fulfilling facility recreation access. That means that we are, for the first time now, really empowering people and communities, State and local governments, as well as sportsmen.

I have always said that I want to shrink the Federal estate. This bill finally does shrink the Federal estate, in my State as well as nationwide.

We create four new monuments in this bill, but the right way; not expecting the President to make a declaration but, actually, for the Congress to pass a bill, to debate the bill, and then to pass the bill at the same time.

This administration actually did use the Antiquities Act on one of these monuments--nice and cute--but we are going to do it the right way in this particular bill.

We are going to do wilderness the right way. No longer should an agency simply create wilderness by dicta or fiat. Congress will make those decisions of what is wilderness and what is not going to be wilderness.

Let me talk for just a second about wilderness, because it has some controversy in here.

Over half the wilderness that is established in this section of bills is in my home State of Utah, but, as Mr. Curtis will tell you, the county commissioners, the local officials, endorse this action. They are happy with it because they gain access to other areas that can promote recreation and economic development, which they have been trying to get for several decades.

A quarter of this is also in California, in one district. So we create wilderness in the national park, but, at the same time, we are taking wilderness study areas and releasing those at the same time. We are making exchanges so that some of the lands go into trust funds for education purposes, to fund the education of our kids--something that the East doesn't need, but those of us who live in the Federally controlled West, we desperately need to do that.

For the first time we are taking EAJA, and we will actually have some transparency so we will really know what it costs for environmental litigation.

These are all issues we have been talking about for years in the House. These are issues that we repeatedly passed in the House. But, for now, we have a chance of actually making it happen.

Is this bill perfect? No. It is too big to be perfect.

Is the process for creating this perfect? Hell, no. But I am perfectly satisfied and willing to vote for this, because without this there will be no progress. The status quo will be maintained, and that is bad.

Senator Graham used to say: If I am going from Washington back to Houston and I get as far as Memphis, that is not bad. If I end up in Boston, it is bad, but for Memphis, that is not necessarily bad.

We have been complaining for years about elements that are in this package of bills, and now we have a chance to actually be positive, to get to Memphis and beyond, and to actually get something done.

And if someone says: ``It is not good enough; I am holding out for something better,'' we are holding out for something that never has been and never will be.

And it puts to the lie the complaints that we have exaggerated in the past. Congress is finally ready to act.

We should not refuse the solutions that are in front of us right now. This is a step forward, and this, obviously, is better than the alternatives.

I urge adoption of this package of compromise bills that have been worked out in advance, and I appreciate my colleagues on the Democratic side who have worked so hard to try and come up with a package of bills that we can all support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the dean of the House, someone who has forgotten more about public lands than the rest of us will ever know.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Curtis), my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), one of the senior members from Kentucky who can talk about how you do a monument the right way.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from

Oregon (Mr. Walden), someone who used to be on our committee but went over to the dark side and is now former chairman somewhere else.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), one of the hardworking members of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), a gentleman who has never been on our committee, but we have appreciated his friendship and helping to move this package.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse). We are sending out our members all over the place. He used to be a member of our committee. He has moved on to lesser roles now.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Gianforte), who worked very hard, especially in December, for the passage of this package.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), a former member of our committee, but also a leader in the sportsmen's community.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

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

Yes, I have a couple speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I appreciate those who have come down and spoken on this particular bill, especially when you can say the word ``Oglethorpe'' all the time. It is one of the great names in American history.

This is a good piece of legislation that will make some solutions and move this forward. It is not perfect, but it actually solves some problems. Many are parochial, but significant, local concerns.

That is why this package is here. It passed the 63 bills that we have passed in the House but were sitting in the Senate. This has a chance of actually bringing some kind of cloture to all of that.

Mr. Speaker, I urge favorable adoption of this piece of legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 47) to provide for the management of the natural resources of the United States, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that debate under clause 1(c) of rule XV on a motion to suspend the rules relating to S. 47 be extended to 50 minutes.

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 measure under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today on behalf of a significant bipartisan benefit for conservation in the United States.

S. 47, the lands package, is the product of many months of negotiation and many years of committee process.

The bill benefits all Americans.

By protecting ecosystems, preserving our cultural heritage, and connecting the people to their lands, we demonstrate this Congress' commitment to public lands that serve all Americans.

I am particularly proud that this package will permanently authorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a program that supports recreation access and conservation in all 50 States.

LWCF works for the people at no direct cost to the taxpayer. It enhances Americans' enjoyment of public lands across this Nation. It is time to guarantee the future of this very important program.

In addition to LWCF, the package would add over 1 million acres of wilderness, designate new national monuments, and expand three national parks, to name a few of the over 100 provisions.

I am proud to support LWCF; I am proud to support S. 47; and I hope my colleagues will similarly support this bipartisan effort.

I want to offer my sincere thanks to my fellow collaborators on the legislation: Congressman Bishop and Senators Murkowski, Manchin, and Cantwell. Their willingness to work and to compromise was crucial in turning this bill into a reality. I congratulate them on their efforts.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), a member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal), chair of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources of the Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Haaland), chair of the National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands Subcommittee on the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

I yield the gentlewoman from Michigan an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Schrier).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for her comments.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may inquire if the gentleman from Utah has any additional speakers.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank everyone who voiced their support for S. 47.

Before we close and turn to a vote, I again express my thanks to my colleagues who helped bring this bill before us today. It is a major win for conservation across the United States, and I strongly encourage all my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.

The American people need to know from this Congress that there are opportunities to produce bipartisan wins, whether it is for conservation or public lands or, more importantly, for the people of this country. I think this bill represents that.

I extend my appreciation and my thanks to respective staffs on both sides of the aisle, for their hard work in bringing this together.

As my friend from Utah said at the outset of this conversation today, it is not a perfect bill, but it is an effort on the part of many of us who came to this with disparate views, different opinions, and opposition to some of its content. It was an effort to try to do something that reflected common ground. I think this bill reflects common ground. I think it is a win for all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to vote in support of S. 47, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to support S. 47, the Natural Resources Management Act.

This legislation includes important provisions for public lands across our Nation, but specifically for three national parks in the State of Georgia. One of those includes my own piece of legislation, a boundary expansion for the Fort Frederica National Monument in the First Congressional District of Georgia.

Designed by General James Oglethorpe in 1733 on St. Simons Island, Fort Frederica was built to defend the young colony against attack from the Spanish in Florida. Nine years later, in 1742, General Oglethorpe's design was put to the test. The Spanish invaded the Georgia colony as part of the larger War of Jenkins' Ear headed directly for Fort Frederica.

The Spaniards numbered around 5,000 troops, while General Oglethorpe had fewer than 1,000 regular soldiers, Native Americans, and local colonists garrisoned inside the tabby structure. The English detected the Spanish invasion, waded into the marsh, and ambushed the enemy troops in an engagement now called the Battle of Bloody Marsh. Consequently, this battle turned back the Spanish and was the last of their offensives into the colony of Georgia.

This story, battle, and fort is an important moment in Georgia history, taught to elementary students throughout the State as a marker of our resolve and a turning point that helped to create the State of Georgia that we now know.

In passing years, specifically with updates in technology, we increase our knowledge of history through new findings. That is exactly the opportunity we have here with Fort Frederica and why we need this legislation.

Studies now show that land just outside the national park boundary was used as a campground and even a battery that protected the area from warships. This bill adjusts the existing Fort Frederica National Monument to include those locations inside the boundary, in an effort to better preserve those locations and continue to learn more about this area and the critical events that unfolded here in the First Congressional District of Georgia to create our home State of Georgia.

This legislation has been in the works for the last 12 years, beginning when the Saint Simons Land Trust temporarily purchased the additional land in 2007.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the committee for their work on this. We need to preserve this history for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, as the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, I enjoy the relationship and camaraderie I have with the Natural Resources Committee, and I want to thank the gentleman from Utah and my friend Mr. Grijalva, the chairman of the committee for once again bringing this measure forward affecting Crooked River Ranch.

The Crooked River Ranch Fire Protection Act is essential to saving lives in central Oregon. With another wildfire season just on the horizon, the people of Crooked River Ranch are really deeply concerned that they could become the next Paradise, California, and they are deeply concerned that their community could be turned into ash as wildfire feeds off the dense fuel loads that surround this community of 5,000 people.

They are there because of a lack of proper management to thin out the fuel loads because this area is in a wilderness study area. What we are doing is moving the boundary back about 800 acres. So at the BLM, it will all stay public. The BLM can come in and use mechanical treatment, literally, to reduce juniper and sagebrush so that the firefighters can come in and fight fire if they do get one.

We know what happens in this kind of terrain, the tragedy, the loss of life, loss of homes, the loss of community. There are 5,000 people out on a rim, if you will, in a canyon with only one way in and one way out. The fire chief has told me that if fire breaks out and it is the wrong kind with enough wind, he might not put his firefighters in there. So today we are going to save lives, thanks to your work.

Harry Ward, the fire chief, said this ``has created a dangerous environment and continues to threaten the people that live here.''

This legislation will adjust that WSA. The important public safety legislation will give peace of mind to the residents of Crooked River Ranch.

Last year, a fire only a few miles away burned 2,000 acres. It destroyed two homes in less than a day. The next fire season is not far away. We do not want to see images like this of homes turned to ash and lives destroyed in central Oregon, where we have a real opportunity to prevent that from happening thanks to this bipartisan legislation.

So I want to thank my Senators who worked on this. I want to thank Mr. Grijalva and Mr. Bishop for their work on this, and I appreciate its being brought in as part of the package of bills that now will go to President Trump, who I am convinced will sign it into law.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Bishop, as well as Mr. Grijalva.

Mr. Speaker, I rise enthusiastically today to support this package that the House is considering. It includes one of my bills, the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project Phase III Act. This legislation authorizes the next phase of the Yakima Basin Integrated Plan, which is a decades-long effort to address the vital water needs of the ag community, conservationists, and certainly my constituents throughout the Yakima Basin.

Mr. Speaker, I have not only worked on this project for the last three Congresses, but I hate to say it, my efforts go back even further, almost 30 years, more than I would like to admit, as a farmer, former State legislator, and as director of the State department of agriculture. Today demonstrates the closest we have ever come to sending this crucial legislation to the President to sign into law.

I firmly believe that the Yakima Workgroup and the Implementation Committee are a model for the rest of the Nation to follow to address divisive issues. I invite all of my colleagues to come see for themselves. This group represents a diverse array of local, Tribal, State, Federal, ag, environmental, and private interests. They have worked through decades of painstaking compromise, collaboration, and efforts to find solutions.

So I rise to thank all of them for their hard work, all of the Tribal leaders, the State-Federal partners, the commissioners of the counties, conservation organizations, the cities, local irrigation representatives, and certainly the Natural Resources staff who have worked very hard on this all along, including Mr. Bill Ball. Without their hard work and deep commitment to addressing this comprehensive issue, we would not be as close as we are today to getting this crucial step done.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the strong support of all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for this package of legislation that we consider today.