Floor Statements

I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.

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

I am offering this amendment with Representative Labrador after discussions with our local agriculture producers and the Public Lands Council on some needed adjustments to the underlying bill.

This amendment includes some conforming language to the Senate version of the Grazing Improvement Act that was marked up in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee last November. This includes allowing the Secretary to consolidate environmental reviews of allotments in order to reduce the backlog on permit and lease renewals.

The amendment clarifies the definition of current grazing management to the common sense wording of ``the terms and conditions of an existing permit or lease.'' It also clarifies that only those directly affected by the renewal, transfer, or reissuance of a permit or lease may appeal a final grazing decision.

Lastly, this amendment addresses some concerns with how the Federal land agencies treat temporary crossings and trailing. While the underlying bill exempts all crossing and trailing of domestic livestock from the National Environmental Policy Act, this amendment clarifies that temporary applications and those where an immediate need exists will receive a timely response from the agency. It also states that these authorizations are not subject to protest or appeal, except by affected parties.

Our producers' normal business operations require the ability to cross and trail livestock. It is often necessary to remain in compliance with their grazing permits. Temporary trailing has a de minimis impact on the range, and approval should be an administrative action with a quick turnaround time.

Weather, changes in grazing patterns, and even requests by Federal land agencies can all require trailing unexpectedly. For example, a hailstorm could wipe out a stand of grass in an hour. A devastating grasshopper infestation can change the grazing conditions on the ground. Those kinds of things require quick response to get cattle or sheep to a different pasture to keep that grass stand healthy. We need to provide the flexibility for our Federal land agencies to approve temporary requests.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Lummis-Labrador amendment and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), the chairman of our Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would like to point out something about the difference between State lands and Federal lands. I ran my State's Office of State Lands and Investments for a time, and the rights that are conveyed by States on lands to use their lands are very different than the rights that are conveyed by the Federal Government to users of Federal lands.

In the case of State lands, frequently, they have many more rights, including, in some States, the right to exclude others. They have the right to make improvements on the ground. They have the right to acquire water permits. They have no NEPA requirements that are specific to the State land and other opportunities to, in fact, even sublease their lands. And those vary from State to State. States that grant more rights can acquire more revenue because it gives more flexibility to the person who is grazing.

In the case of the Federal Government, there are burdensome regulations. There are third-party challenges. There are compliance issues. It is more of a command-and-control structure, so it is just not worth as much financially because of the tremendous paperwork and burden involved. Therefore, there are reasons for those differences.

Mr. Chairman, the amendments we are proposing have nothing to do with that but offer commonsense solutions to the very important grazing issues.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2166) to direct the Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Agriculture to expedite access to certain Federal lands under the administrative jurisdiction of each Secretary for good Samaritan search-and-recovery missions, and for other purposes.

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

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

In the Natural Resources Committee, we heard testimony from Jodi Goldberg, who shared a story about the search for her brother Keith, who had been murdered and whose body was presumed to be in the vicinity of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area.

A nonprofit search-and-rescue team attempted to search within the recreation area but was delayed by the National Park Service for over a year. By the time the search-and-recovery team was allowed access to search for Mr. Goldberg's remains, they were found in a matter of hours.

The bureaucratic delays and roadblocks constructed by the National Park Service are at best unnecessary. Much worse than that, they have caused undue suffering to families who simply want to look for their loved ones.

This bipartisan bill makes perfect sense. The Good Samaritan Search and Recovery Act, sponsored by Congressman Joe Heck, would require the Federal land management agencies to quickly issue permits to qualify search-and-recovery groups. This would also eliminate the requirement to obtain costly insurance provided they waive liability against the Federal Government.

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada, Dr. Heck, the sponsor of the bill.

I thank the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), the chairman of the subcommittee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, having completed our presentation and all of our speakers, I urge the adoption of the bill.

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 (H.R. 1684) to convey certain property to the State of Wyoming to consolidate the historic Ranch A, and for other purposes.

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, my bill, the Ranch A Consolidation and Management Improvement Act, would convey approximately 10 acres of National Forest Service land to the State of Wyoming to allow for consolidation and improvement of the Ranch A site.

Ranch A is a historic property that was first developed in the 1930s and later came under Federal ownership and was used as a fish hatchery. The property had fallen into significant neglect under Federal ownership. The Ranch A Restoration Foundation was created to restore and operate Ranch A as a center for learning and interpretation of Western heritage.

However, when Ranch A was conveyed to the State of Wyoming in 1997, an oversight kept 10 acres under Federal ownership. The Babcock House, seen in this picture, is owned by the State of Wyoming. This is in Crook County, very near the South Dakota border. So we are talking about the Black Hills. It is a very pretty area, but the land under the Babcock House was not properly conveyed. The Forest Service testified that ownership of this isolated parcel has presented ``management challenges'' and unknown costs associated with administering the property. It is an isolated tract of 10 acres upon which this house, owned by the State of Wyoming, is built. H.R. 1684 would address this issue by correcting the conveyance and would also allow for the Restoration Foundation to make further improvement for the use and enjoyment of Ranch A.

This bill would provide more flexibility for the use of the property,

which would allow for additional revenue sources to pay for maintenance and improvements. Right now, these properties are leased to educational organizations for educational uses, including sometimes South Dakota State and the South Dakota School of Mines. The foundation itself has invested those moneys and raises money at fund-raisers, thereby putting together approximately $1 million for facility restoration and renovation.

This next photo shows the deck before it was repaired and acquired by the State of Wyoming and then managed by the Ranch A Restoration Foundation. You see the damage that occurred under Federal ownership. This is its most recent state, which indicates the significant repairs.

Here, again, are before and after. It shows the state of repair having been completed by the Ranch A Foundation, using restoration funds that are obtained through the leasing operations.

We are also going to look at some of the other buildings. There are numerous buildings on this property that are used primarily by South Dakota School of Mines and South Dakota State University for educational purposes.

This is a very expensive repair to make, Mr. Speaker. When these lower logs rot over time because of snow and cold and dry air, followed by rain, and are not properly maintained, those lower logs rot, thereby causing the building to settle and creating terrible structural problems. To repair it, you have to lift the upper logs that are not damaged and jack the whole building up, pull the old logs out of the bottom, and reinsert new logs--properly treated--in order to maintain the historic finish back to its state when it was built in the 1930s.

It is hugely expensive and very time consuming. The Ranch A Foundation has undertaken that under State ownership. This was the status of the repairs when the Forest Service had it and it was used as a fish hatchery. It is because it is an isolated property the Federal Government doesn't have the money to manage. It wasn't being used anymore as a fish hatchery.

The State of Wyoming, since acquiring the property from the Federal Government, really has improved its historic condition and its long- term viability. The degraded wood has been all redone. It prevents interior damage from leakage.

Every project for maintaining and renovating the lodge has to be approved under historic designation standards. As we have pointed out, this was built in the 1930s by the Annenbergs. It is beautiful. Going through the historic design standards is a rigorous process and greatly increases the cost, but it also ensures the historic integrity of the restoration.

In order for the foundation to continue to preserve their educational facilities, they need long-term revenue generation. The foundation's academic board members and the State of Wyoming's oversight office of this property have supported the removal-of-use restrictions. With no annual appropriations in the State budget for Ranch A, their education mission is actually harmed by limiting user fees.

Ranch A is a cultural and education asset. My legislation will keep the ranch financially sustainable and improve its ability to serve educational users. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3008) to provide for the conveyance of a small parcel of National Forest System land in Los Padres National Forest in California, 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.

H.R. 3008 would authorize the Forest Service to exchange 5 acres of the Los

Padres National Forest with the White Lotus Foundation to allow public access to their property. The surrounding topography makes the land in question the only practical access point. With no other options for access, the foundation will be forced to cease operations. I would encourage my colleagues to support this bill, which passed the House of Representatives last Congress by voice vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, if the gentleman is prepared to close.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of H.R. 3008, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the right of State governments to regulate hydraulic fracturing. I am pleased that the bill before us also includes Chairman Lamar Smith's bill to ensure the integrity of Federal research into hydraulic fracturing.

Mr. Chairman, the EPA botched its study linking hydraulic fracturing to groundwater contamination in a 2011 report on groundwater in Pavillion, Wyoming. The report was so flawed that the EPA was forced to disavow their preliminary conclusion that hydraulic fracturing caused contamination in Pavillion.

The EPA's phoney preliminary conclusions were widely reported, altered national public perception, and the EPA did not back away until the damage was already done. Two years later, the EPA turned the study over to the State of Wyoming where it will undergo the scientific rigor it deserves.

Mr. Chairman, the question today is not whether hydraulic fracturing should be regulated. It should. But we shouldn't allow the Federal Government to regulate when States are already stepping up to the plate. My home State of Wyoming has been a leader in hydraulic fracturing regulation, so much so that even the Bureau of Land Management holds up Wyoming as a model.

What works for Wyoming might not work for Texas or Pennsylvania. The hydrology and the geology are different. Any State that assumes the responsibility of regulating hydraulic fracturing should be allowed to do so. Governors, legislators, and State regulators care about the well-being of the citizens in their State. More than that, who better to regulate the practice than those who live near the wells, who drink the groundwater, and who know the local geology, hydrology, and industries better than anyone?

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2728.

Mr. Chair, I would like to put a couple things straight that have been said. We are not talking about all Federal lands in this bill. We are not talking about National Park Service lands. National parks and national monuments are excluded from this bill. We are not talking about wilderness. We are not talking about lands that have been recommended for wilderness status. Those are managed as de facto wilderness. We are not talking about wildlife refuges. We are not talking about Department of Defense lands. We are not talking about Bureau of Reclamation lands. We are only talking about Bureau of Land Management lands that are managed for multiple use now. We are also talking about a Nation that desperately needs jobs.

Mr. Chair, I was in a country in the Arab world last weekend. They have 6.5 percent employment in the private sector. Everyone else is either unemployed or works for the government. Their neighbors prop up their economies to keep their problems from spilling over the borders into their countries. For a country that has been clamoring for jobs to smack down this bill as being irrelevant indicates to me that Congress has lost its way, that it doesn't understand that what the American people want is to work. They want earned success. They want self- respect. They want jobs.

H.R. 1965 would streamline the leasing and permitting process to put our public land resources back to work for the people who own them, the American people, particularly those who live near these resources and know the importance of a quality environment.

I represent the whole State of Wyoming. I have lived there my entire life. Nobody cares more about the environment of Wyoming than I do-- nobody. This is also good fiscal policy.

Wyoming's payments to the U.S. Treasury for oil, gas, and coal royalties nearly pays for the entire BLM budget.

And I would point out that, contrary to what the gentleman said about the increase in production on Federal land, between the year 2000 and 2007, in Wyoming, the number of new leases issued

was 873, on average; during the Obama administration, it is 599. In my book, that is a decline of 31 percent.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Messrs. Hastings and Lamborn for making this bill possible. I urge the Members to support it.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize Mary Gibson Scott, the superintendent of Grand Teton National Park and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway. She announced her retirement from the National Park Service this week after 33 years of public service.

Mary is one of just 10 top-level park managers in the United States and is also the only woman among them. Before taking her current position in Wyoming in 2004, Mary held park management positions across the U.S., including at fabulous Carlsbad Caverns, the Golden Gate Park, the Santa Monica Mountains, and the Channel Islands in the West, and in the East, the Gateway in New York and the Blue Ridge Parkway in Virginia.

Over the course of her career, Mary has earned a variety of awards, including the Department of the Interior Superior Service Award and the Intermountain Region's Superintendent of the Year for Natural Resources, just to name two.

To many of us in Wyoming, Madam Speaker, Mary Gibson Scott is a neighbor and a friend, immersed in the Wyoming community; a valued and treasured public servant; and the epitome of a leader in stewardship of both natural resources and human relationships. I am proud and pleased to call Mary Gibson Scott my friend.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mary Gibson Scott on her illustrious career and in wishing her the very best for a happy and well-earned retirement.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 539, I was detained in a hearing and missed rollcall 539. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, my State of Wyoming is projected to have the highest average premiums under ObamaCare of any State in the Nation that is subject to the Federal exchange; by far, the highest rate of any State in the Nation.

Is it any wonder that because my State has the smallest population in the Nation that I would fight for not one-size-fits-all, top-down, Big Government solutions, but State-based solutions, health care that is negotiated between the patient and the doctor.

Yet ObamaCare has taken place today; it has taken effect. It is the law of the land, and I will abide by it; but Congress should not have an illegal subsidy under ObamaCare. House Republicans want to get rid of the illegal subsidy for Congress under ObamaCare. That is what we demand.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the act because it will save forests in Wyoming and the West. These are fabulous natural resources enjoyed by people and wildlife, but across the West they are burning or

dying after decades of Federal mismanagement.

This photograph is from the Black Hills National Forest. Right here, you see a very lush green area in the forest. Adjacent to that, you have brown areas with dead or dying trees that have been ravaged by the mountain pine beetle. Where you find that healthy wildlife habitat, that healthy soil that's resistant to erosion, the healthy rivers and streams, the safe area to camp and hike and recreate, is because you have a healthy forest that was actively managed.

This green area was logged. It was thinned. The thinning is selective, it's measured, and designed to maintain a healthy and strong mix of trees. The brown area wasn't thinned. Bureaucratic delays, litigation, and endless appeals prevented conservation logging in this area. When you don't manage a forest, the entire ecosystem suffers from the trees down to the wildlife, the soil, and the streams. It's dangerous to camp or hike in the brown area because of the dead or falling trees. The dead trees are now fuel for fires, and we've seen them all over the West in the last 3 years, including this summer. This picture is replicated throughout the West, dead or burning Federal forests right next to healthy State or tribal forests, because the State and tribal forests are actively managed.

Our forests don't have to look like this. They can look like this. This act will get the Forest Service back to work on conservation logging, create jobs in the forest-products industry, create revenue for Federal and local governments, and prevent the astronomical costs of responding to wildfires and infestations.

It also gives State and local government a voice in forest management within their borders. Through good neighbor authority and community forest demonstration areas, we're involving the people who actually live near those forests who depend on that beautiful place to live.

Mr. Chair, this is one of the most commonsense bills I've had the privilege of helping with. I urge its passage.

Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office informed us again yesterday what we already know about our job here in Congress, which is that we must reform entitlement programs in order to save them.

We must save them so we can save ourselves from this unsustainable debt and deficit which faces us; and further, that if we are to do it by raising taxes, it will erode the economic recovery that we're already just beginning to have.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Senate Democrats to adopt the House Republican budget which will balance in 10 years, which will address our unsustainable debt and deficit, and put us on the road to recovery.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I also thank Chairman Hastings of the Natural Resources Committee for bringing this important legislation to the attention of the American people, especially after this tremendous fire season that we've had in the West for the past 3 or 4 years, in which we have lost valuable natural resources, jobs, wildlife, livestock, people, houses. It is an unnecessary devastation that always amazes me as we would bring about legislation to address regional haze, which has no environmental impact other than to reduce the viewsheds or the damage to the viewshed, when the damage to the viewshed is being caused by our inattentiveness in managing our national forests.

I want to talk, Mr. Chairman, about forest health and about the benefits of logging to have healthy forests, vibrant wildlife, and clean water and air.

The air is cleaner when the West is not on fire. The water is cleaner when protected from the ash that goes down the hills, into the streams, choking the oxygen out of our streams, which then, in turn, kills our fish. That reduces fishing opportunities, and it reduces a vibrant fish population.

In addition to providing clean air by lack of fire, clean water due to lack of fire, by logging, we can actually have more vibrant, widespread wildlife habitat and water for that habitat. When we log and do it in a manner that preserves the natural contours in our forests, we can have high mountain meadows with forages that will keep elk, deer, and other species on those high mountain meadows longer in the year, thereby providing habitat for a vibrant, healthy, diverse, ungulate population and for the species that share that ecosystem habitat. So it's good for wildlife.

Furthermore, it's good for the health of the forests, themselves, because, if you would look, for example, at the Medicine Bow National Forest and the Routt National Forest across the border in Colorado, these two forests have been absolutely denuded of lodgepole pine by the bark beetle with the exception of the young trees in the areas that have previously been logged. The healthy areas of the Medicine Bow National Forest in Wyoming and the Routt National Forest in Colorado are the areas that were previously logged, because there is a diversity of the age of the trees, thereby having a young, more resilient, healthy tree intermingled with stands of medium-maturity and high- maturity trees. The combination of the old growth, the medium-maturity trees, and the young trees makes for a more vibrant, healthy forest that can better withstand an onslaught like the bark beetle epidemic that has devastated so much of the Intermountain West.

So we have addressed clean air, clean water, wildlife habitat through the opportunity for high mountain meadows, and we have addressed the health of the trees, themselves. All this can happen while we have jobs in logging, while we have opportunities for revenues for schools.

The point here is we are all part of this ecosystem--the people, the animals, the air, the water, the trees. All can benefit by this bill. This is a commonsense solution that has taken Americans decades to understand and appreciate the importance of, but that has never been more apparent than it was this summer.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this important dialogue.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Quigley amendment as well. It will defund the operation and maintenance of 150 of our land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Regardless of your stance on the nuclear triad--and we will have the opportunity to discuss it later--it is irresponsible to stop funding maintenance of our nuclear weapons with no formal reduction plan.

Are we supposed to leave warheads rotting in the silos? This amendment does not fund the decommissioning of warheads. If it did, a full-scale reduction of our force would be a costly endeavor, one that takes time and is a decision that should not be taken lightly.

But it will effectively reduce our ICBM capabilities by one-third without any strategic considerations or multi-lateral negotiations with other nuclear powers. The Joint Chiefs have directly and explicitly recommended against a unilateral reduction.

As the administration continues to weigh final force structure decisions scheduled to occur in FY 15, I ask my colleagues to consider the consequences of removing this funding the year before.

The mission of the Air Force Global Strike Command is to provide a safe, secure, effective nuclear deterrent force for the President of the United States. The Quigley amendment would impede the Air Force's ability to fulfill that mission, preempts the President's force structure decision, and lacks feasibility without preparation.

I urge you to oppose the Quigley amendment.

I thank the gentleman from Colorado for sponsoring this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the New START Treaty does not require the closing of an ICBM facility, but the purpose of this study is to close an ICBM wing or squadron.

While President Obama has announced plans to further reduce America's nuclear capabilities, there is no negotiated proposal with Russia or a Senate-confirmed treaty for reductions of this size. The Air Force has a plan for the ratified reductions, placing 30 silos in warm status before February 2018. These baseline numbers will meet the New START deadline if the administration just allows them to move forward.

I urge my colleagues to support the Lamborn-Lummis-Daines-Cramer amendment and ensure that Congress provides proper approval of the goal before spending money on the process.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The ICBM land-based missiles are the most cost-economical deterrent of the nuclear triad. This is the most efficient way to deter our enemies.

Mr. Speaker, today in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on border security, we heard from border officials that the border is not secure, or more specifically we heard no response when we asked: Is the border secure or not? And they would not answer ``yes'' and they would not answer ``no.''

The American people have been asking for a secure border before we engage in comprehensive immigration reform for years. The fact that this administration and, quite frankly, previous administrations have not secured the border, makes it premature to address the Senate bill here in the House.

Comprehensive immigration reform must be preceded by a secure border.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the anniversary of Spencer West's summit of Mount Kilimanjaro. A man of many talents: relentless climber, accomplished speaker, motivating author, thriving philanthropist and activist. This Wyoming native from Rock Springs is a man who is inspiring the world to follow in his path and redefine possible.

``Redefining Possible'' is the phrase that West has chosen to embody his life. At age of 5, he was diagnosed with sacral agenesis, a genetic disorder which led to the amputation of both his legs. The 32 years old man today is an inspiration, proving no handicap can hold you back from changing the world.

Just one year ago, West climbed Mt. Kilimanjaro in Tanzania, the highest peak in Africa on his hands and in his wheelchair. West's climb was dedicated to the fundraising campaign for Free the Children's sustainable water initiative, which raised more than half a million dollars committed to create clean water programs in Kenya. He now shares with audiences the struggles he has overcome. His motivational speeches have reached over 150,000 people where he captures audiences with his charismatic and dynamic personality.

His powerful message continued to reach a larger audience when West teamed up with Nelly Furtado in her lyrical video for her single titled Spirit Indestructible. Furtado's video chronicles West's astonishing journey during his week-long climb to the summit of one of the world's most famous mountains.

Since his climb, West has not slowed down in his efforts to raise awareness and additional funds for the clean water project in Kenya. He recently finished a 300 kilometer trek between Edmonton and Calgary in Alberta, Canada. He completed the journey in 11 days, undertaking nearly an entire marathon every day.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues will join me in congratulating Spencer West for his inspiring achievements for powerful social change. Through his determined work and optimism, he has demonstrated that the impossible is indeed possible.