Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, which is celebrating a half-century of innovation and achievement in American research and development.

For 50 years, the men and women at PNNL have worked diligently to make the Lab a leader among the scientific foundations of the United States, evolving from a laboratory supporting a nuclear materials development mission to a multi program national laboratory with significant portfolios in science, energy, and nonproliferation.

When America went to the moon in 1969, NASA chose the lab (then called the Pacific Northwest Laboratory, or PNL) as the only Northwest organization to analyze the lunar material from the Apollo program, and their work became critical to understanding the origin and history of the moon. Additionally, their research had many applications outside of the laboratory. In 1974, they developed a data storage technique called optical digital recording, and became the pioneer of a technology still popular with consumers today--CDs and DVDs.

Their commitment to the environment has consistently been a driving force in work they do. When Mt. St. Helens erupted in 1980, PNL was ready. Because of their expertise in environmental sampling and monitoring, researchers were able to collect samples of the ash and assess potential threats to health and the environment. After the 1986 disaster at Chernobyl, they were assigned the lead role in collecting air samples of the fallout using special research aircraft. They also helped to monitor the radiation levels in the plume after it arrived in America. And, in the early 1990s, PNL helped create the Global Change Assessment Model (GCAM). This model is now widely used around the world, and demonstrates the true impact of the laboratory's work on an international scale.

In 1995, they changed their name to the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory--a suitable switch, since they had always been a national lab making national impacts. Two years later, they opened the Environmental Molecular Science Laboratory (EMSL), a national scientific user facility, which narrows the gap between theoretical molecular modelling and practical physical experimentation. Since its opening, EMSL has welcomed scientific users from every state, and nearly 30 countries.

In the early 2000s, PNNL began to focus on updating the infrastructure of the United States' century-old electric grid, and incorporating it into the information age. They continue to be a leader in testing and developing new technology to manage and protect the grid, especially from new cybersecurity threats. Some of their most recent scientific missions include increasing U.S. energy capacity, and reducing dependence on imported oil; preventing and countering terrorism and

the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; and creating sustainable systems, reducing the environmental effects of human activities.

Closer to home, PNNL created a suite of modern facilities to support its national and international customers using Battelle, federal, State and third party funds . . . a complex unique in the DOE laboratory system. The Consolidated Laboratory complex allowed PNNL to vacate older facilities that were on the Hanford site.

PNNL developed and supported efforts to create a WSU Branch Campus in the Tri Cities, including joint appointments and federal/state partnership for a research laboratory on the WSU campus. PNNL has been a strong supporter of STEM education programs throughout Washington State, including early funding to build the Delta Prep school in the Tri-Cities.

I want to thank the generations of hardworking men and women who helped bring PNNL this far. I am proud of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, its work, and the boundless spirit of American innovation that has made it possible for the last 50 years.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all committees may have until 5 p.m. on December 30, 2014, to file reports to accompany measures.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5742) to provide to the Secretary of the Interior a mechanism to cancel contracts for the sale of materials CA- 20139 and CA-22901, 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.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to address the Soledad Canyon Settlement Act, H.R. 5742, as introduced by our colleague from California (Mr. McKeon). This bipartisan bill will solve a longstanding controversy surrounding a pair of sand and gravel leases located near the community of Santa Clarita, California.

In 1990, the Bureau of Land Management, or BLM, issued two leases for sand and gravel mines to CEMEX. At the time, this area was much more remote than it is today. As CEMEX was preparing a plan of operation, it became clear to all parties involved that local community development had made the project incompatible with the local community. Local community leaders, the region's congressional delegation, and the company have all worked for more than a decade to find a legislative solution to make the company and Federal Government whole while returning the lease to the Federal Government.

As a result, we are here today to move forward with a plan to cancel these leases while at the same time making both the contract holder and the Federal Government whole. This legislation has the strong support of State and local communities, the contract holder, and the regional congressional delegation.

Now while this bill has just recently been introduced, it is the product of years of hard work and careful communication and review by the committee. The gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) has been a tireless advocate on behalf of his local communities. He has demonstrated patience and diligence in pursuing a workable solution that the Congress can successfully act upon. I am confident that the community of Santa Clarita already knows just how fortunate they have been to have had Mr. McKeon as their Congressman for 11 terms.

Now, it is also my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the gentlewoman from California, Senator Boxer, shares Mr. McKeon's commitment to this legislation, and I hope that she will be able to follow his lead before the end of this Congress by shepherding this bill through the Senate. This bill deserves the support of both the House and the Senate.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the author of this legislation, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, as Mr. McKeon pointed out, this has been a long process for a vexing problem in Santa Clarita, and Mr. Sherman pointed out very well that Mr. McKeon is to be commended for this, and this would be kind of the capstone on the career that he has.

All that is left if this House adopts this measure is very simply for the other body to take it up, and with the interests that Senator Boxer has shown on this issue, I hope that she can

move this legislation through the Senate.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1000) to require the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to prepare a crosscut budget for restoration activities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, 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 as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to commend Congressman Wittman, the author of the House companion bill, H.R. 739, which has already passed the House earlier in this Congress. I would like to thank him for his work for this government efficiency bill for the Chesapeake Bay.

Mr. Wittman is a true champion for the Chesapeake Bay, and this bill is another example of his effective leadership for the bay and his Virginia constituents.

Mr. Speaker, there are two parts to this bill, and I will let Mr. Wittman explain that, but I would like to comment also that while section 3(d) of the bill does not require that a copy of the financial report be submitted to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, it is our intent that the director should also transmit a copy to that committee.

Finally, I would like to thank Chairman Shuster of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for his assistance in scheduling this bill for floor consideration. I include in the Record the exchange of letters on S. 1000 between our two committees.

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of

Representatives,

Washington, DC, December 5, 2014.

Hon. Doc Hastings,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Longworth House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I write concerning S. 1000, the

Chesapeake Bay Accountability and Recovery Act of 2014. S.

1000 contains provisions that fall within the Rule X

jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure.

I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring S. 1000

before the House in an expeditious manner and, accordingly, I

will not seek a referral of the bill. However, this is

conditional on our mutual understanding that forgoing

consideration of the bill does not prejudice the Committee

with respect to any future jurisdictional claim over the

subject matters contained in the bill or similar legislation

that fall within the Committee's Rule X jurisdiction.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

this understanding, and would request that you insert our

exchange of letters on this matter into the committee report

on S. 1000 and the Congressional Record during consideration

of this bill on the House floor.

Sincerely,

Bill Shuster,

Chairman.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman). He is the gentleman who sponsored the House version of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt this very hard bill that went through arduous examination from all aspects, and I commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman) for his work on it.

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. 5699) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire approximately 44 acres of land in Martinez, California, and for other purposes, as amended.

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 under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, the John Muir Historic Site was established in 1964 and currently consists of 345 acres in Martinez, California. H.R. 5699 allows the National Park Service to accept the donation of 44 acres of property adjacent to the John Muir National Historic Site. This donation will enhance the recreational value of the existing park by creating new opportunities for visitors. It is a good bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good piece of legislation. I urge its adoption.

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. 5086) to amend the National Trails System Act to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the feasibility of designating the Chief Standing Bear National Historic Trail, and for other purposes, as amended.

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 under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5086, authored by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the feasibility of designating the Chief Standing Bear National Historic Trail.

The proposed trail would extend approximately 550 miles between Nebraska and Oklahoma, following the route taken by Chief Standing Bear and the Ponca people during the Federal Indian removal. The trail would also commemorate the chief's return to Nebraska and subsequent trial in 1879 when he became the first Native American to be recognized as a person in a Federal court decision. It is a good piece of legislation. I urge its adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), the author of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5701) to require that certain Federal lands be held in trust by the United States for the benefit of federally recognized tribes in the State of Oregon, 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 to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to acknowledge the gentlemen from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio and Mr. Walden, for their hard work on this piece of legislation, which will benefit several Indian tribes in the State of Oregon.

H.R. 5701 is a compilation of several stand-alone bills, most of which have been reported out of the Natural Resources Committee and passed by the full House.

Title I of H.R. 5701 would ease the process for the Grand Ronde Tribe to apply for trust land within the original boundaries of its 1857 reservation, which encompassed 60,000-plus-acre acres in Polk and Yamhill Counties in Oregon.

Further, the bill deems property placed in trust for the tribe after 1988 to be part of the tribe's reservation.

Finally, specific tracts of land totaling 288 acres would be placed in trust for the tribe in its former reservation.

Mr. Speaker, title I is identical to H.R. 841, which previously passed the House.

Title II and title III are similar to provisions found in H.R. 1526, the Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act, which passed the House in September of 2014.

Title IV would make it easier for the Siletz Indian Tribe to apply for trust land within the original boundaries of the 1855 Siletz Coast Reservation, which encompassed a large part of the coast of Oregon. Gaming on this land to be held in trust would be prohibited. This is identical to the Natural Resources Committee-reported version of H.R. 931.

Finally, title V would correct a situation with respect to the management of the Coquille Tribal Forest in Oregon. This forest has been regulated as part of the Northwest Forest Plan, which is inconsistent with the management of other tribally-managed forests in the United States. Under this title, the Coquille Tribe would be able to manage its forest under the National Indian Forest Resources Management Act. This will provide the tribe with the ability to better manage their timber resources.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good piece of legislation, as I mentioned, encompassing three other pieces of legislation that the House and/or the committee has already acted on.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commended two of my colleagues from Oregon for their work on this, Mr. Walden and Mr. DeFazio. I failed to mention Mr. Schrader, who was the author of H.R. 931, which is title IV of this bill. I want to correct that oversight that I made.

I want to thank my two colleagues for their very kind words. This will, I think, be the last time that I have the opportunity to manage a bill on the floor. I will just say that both gentlemen made the observation that while we don't always agree on things, at least we can understand when somebody comes from a particular position, you can deal with that.

I want to take this time then to correct an assertion that my friend from Oregon made when I had my portrait unveiled. I say that because I think most of my colleagues know my position on wilderness areas is probably contrary to what their vision is.

I want to correct the record because Mr. DeFazio asserted that my position on wilderness areas was because, as a child, I was lost in the wilderness when we were camping. I thought that was very clever, but it is not the truth, and so while what he said is not on the record, I get the last word here and will say on the record that I was not lost in the wilderness and that is not how I derived my position on wilderness areas.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to yield back if the gentleman from Oregon is prepared to yield back, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I will just simply say it has been a pleasure for me to have worked with you in your position as ranking member, and I wish you the best as you move over to be the ranking member of T&I in the next Congress.

This is a good piece of legislation. As the gentleman from Oregon mentioned several times, tribal issues, particularly in Oregon, are somewhat contentious. I am somewhat familiar with that because I do go to the Oregon coast at least every other year.

I congratulate my colleagues from Oregon for this legislation, urge its passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I just simply want to say that we kind of alluded to California water in just a prior exchange. Yes, it is complicated, but I want to be very, very specific.

The bill under consideration today is a short-term fix to something that needs a long-term fix. And the gentleman made a number of arguments, but I think the gentleman failed to read the bill because there are two specific sections in there that are contrary to what he is asserting would happen. Those are section 203 and section 301.

Let me try to be as concise as I can on what this legislation does and why it is important to pass it out of this Congress. This legislation, to cut to the chase, simply says that during rainy periods--California is getting rain right now. They will probably get rain for another couple of months, hopefully. During rainy periods, this legislation simply gives Federal agencies and State agencies the flexibility to direct water to where it is needed--nothing more. It is nothing more complicated than that because it doesn't preempt the Endangered Species Act. It doesn't preempt other environmental laws. It simply says that when it rains, and we are in rainy season right now, that we should have the ability to direct that water where it is needed. That is why this legislation has an expiration date in September of 2016, to give time for a more comprehensive solution to this.

So, from my point of view, this motion to recommit is simply a procedural motion to hopefully stop this process of trying to give short-term relief to the drought in California. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and to vote ``yes'' on the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3979, pursuant to House Resolution 770, the Clerk be instructed to make the correction I have placed at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 770, I call up the bill (H.R. 5781) to provide short-term water supplies to drought-stricken California, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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 H.R. 5781.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5781, the California Emergency Drought Relief Act of 2014, as introduced by our colleague from California (Mr. Valadao).

Today the House meets once again to provide a solution to the ongoing water crisis in California. The House has been on record twice to provide solutions, and here we are, and we must act again. Although this bill is different from the two prior attempts and reflects significant bipartisan progress towards enacting a solution, we must provide relief, even if it is short-term relief before this Congress adjourns. It is unacceptable for us to give up when Californians are starving and their communities are literally drying up.

Like California, my central Washington district is heavily dependent on irrigated water to support our local economy and our agriculture industry. I understand the importance of having a stable, reliable water source, and I also understand the economic devastation that is caused when the water supply is shut off, particularly when the shutoff is avoidable.

California is in an emergency situation. For years San Joaquin Valley farmers have been fighting against Federal regulations and environmental lawsuits that have diverted water supplies in order to help a 3-inch fish. In 2009 there was a deliberate diversion of over 300 billion--Mr. Speaker, that is billion with a B--gallons of water away from farmers.

Mr. Speaker, let me equate that: 300 billion gallons of water is nearly 1 million acre-feet of water. What is an acre-foot? An acre-foot of water--for 1 year, that is 12 inches of water for a year that was diverted from these farmers.

As a result, thousands of farmworkers lost their jobs, unemployment reached 40 percent in some communities, and thousands of acres of fertile farmland dried up. The same thing is happening today.

As chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, I have traveled to Fresno, California, twice and have seen the effects of natural and manmade drought firsthand. We have held multiple hearings and heard the pleas of communities that simply want the water turned back on and their livelihoods restored.

We have seen farmers who normally help feed the Nation being sent to wait in line at food banks and, in some cases, Mr. Speaker, being served carrots imported from China.

I want to stress that this crisis does not just impact California, but it has a rippling effect across the entire Nation.

California's San Joaquin Valley is the salad bowl for the world and provides a significant share of fruits and vegetables for our country.

Food grows where water flows. When there is no water, our food supply suffers, resulting in higher food prices across the country, higher unemployment, and increased reliance on foreign food sources.

Unlike the last time this body acted on this issue, the Senate did pass its version of the bill in June of this year. I commend Senator Feinstein for her efforts to pass that short-term bill. However, since the bills were so different in their scope, those interested in productive conversations to bridge differences have negotiated in good faith over the last 6 months.

We got very close to a resolution but more time was necessary on agreeing to a long-term bill. In the interim, the measure before us today reflects much of what the Senate passed earlier this year and agreed to in our negotiations to bring some short-term water supply relief to many of those communities in need.

This bill simply allows us to capture some water from storms in this and the next water year and improves data quality when it comes to the existing biological opinions on smelt and salmon. It also protects those communities in the north that are in relatively abundant water areas.

The entire bill, Mr. Speaker, sunsets in September of 2016 to allow more time to negotiate a longer-term solution that not only could help California but other States in the West as well.

This bill is not perfect, but it is a short-term bridge based on productive negotiations between those who want sensible solutions to the California water crisis. This bill, while very limited in scope, helps protect the jobs and economic livelihoods of farm families and workers and communities that are in dire need of water.

The people of the San Joaquin Valley cannot wait any longer for Congress to act. As the title of this bill suggests, it is truly an emergency for many, and time is running out. Those communities facing massive unemployment deserve nothing less.

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues in the last two Congresses for working together to get us this solution. This is the latest iteration of that, and I want to commend them.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao), the author of the previous bill that I had mentioned in my opening remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), author of the original, long-term bill that passed in the last Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just make a couple of points here before I yield back my time. This has been a very interesting debate. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I attended two hearings in Fresno, California, particularly on this issue, and saw firsthand the impact of what the natural drought and the manmade drought has done to the San Joaquin Valley.

My friends on the other side of the aisle stated a number of newspapers that editorialized against this. Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record a Fresno Bee editorial of December 6 saying that the Valadao bill, which is H.R. 5781, should be passed.

[From The Fresno Bee, Dec. 6, 2014]

Facts Support Passage of Drought Relief Legislation

One of the oldest rules in politics is, when the facts are

on your side, you cite the facts; when the facts aren't on

your side, you pound the table.

Over the last few days, opponents of The California

Emergency Drought Relief Act, which was introduced in the

House of Representatives on Tuesday, have been yelling about

water grabs, protesting the timing of the bill's introduction

and doing all they can to divert attention from the facts--

both pertaining to this legislation and to the cruel

realities of our state's prolonged drought.

So, let's start with the facts.

This drought is the worst that California has experienced

in at least 1,200 years. So says a study published by the

American Geophysical Union and cited by a Washington Post

blog Thursday. Not only have we received little rain, but the

lack of precipitation has been intensified by record-breaking

high temperatures. Moreover, the fertile agricultural fields

of the San Joaquin Valley are suffering through an

``exceptional drought,'' the most severe classification.

Yes, it has rained lately in California. Thank goodness it

has. But much more rain is needed to restore our aquifers,

fill our reservoirs reverse the economic hardship inflicted

on our state and, in particular, the Valley, by the drought.

The bill (H.R. 5781) introduced by Rep. David Valadao, R-

Hanford and supported by GOP leadership provides the

flexibility and resources to give farmers in the Valley and

elsewhere a fighting chance to grow their crops and put

people back to work in 2015. In a nutshell, the bill would

allow the Bureau of Reclamation the freedom to hold more

winter rain and snow and then distribute it to areas in need.

Not only would this flexibility help farmers and rural

communities, but it would benefit the environment as well.

This legislation is the product of months of talks and

negotiations earlier this year involving Republican and

Democrats in both the House and the U.S. Senate and is the

result of thoughtful compromise. The bill doesn't amend the

Endangered Species Act or existing biological opinions. It

leaves decision-making about habitat, protected species and

water quality to federal environmental agencies. But it would

reduce the flow of water through the Sacramento-Joaquin River

Delta to the Pacific Ocean and pump more water to the south--

as long as that pumping doesn't harm protected fish such as

delta smelt, salmon and steelhead.

Moreover, these changes would be temporary, as they would

end in September of 2016 or upon the governor ending

California's drought declaration.

Opponents are trying to paint this bill as detrimental to

the environment and the result of secret negotiations. Again,

let's examine the facts. In a phone interview with The

Editorial Board on Friday, Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno, pointed

out that this proposal is similar to Sen. Dianne Feinstein's

bill that was passed under unanimous consent by the Senate in

February.

Passage of Feinstein's Emergency Drought Relief Act then

set the stage for negotiations--and compromise--with Valadao,

who

earlier had received partisan House approval of a bill that

was extreme and over the top. Early on, Northern California

Democrats, many of which are supported by environmentalist,

were involved in the negotiations. But they drew firm lines

in the sand and quit the talk.

Valadao's bill is reasonable and much needed. It deserves

the support of Sen. Feinstein and Sen. Barbara Boxer and the

California delegation in the House of Representatives.

Let me address another issue.

We heard a number of times from the speakers on the other side of the aisle that there has been no hearing on this bill; it came out of the blue, blah, blah, blah. We heard that over and over. Maybe it is because when my friends on the other side of the aisle were in the majority, they didn't follow regular order, so let me say this as slowly or plainly as I can.

In the last Congress, Congressman Nunes introduced a long-term bill that we had a number of hearings on in the National Resources Committee. We marked up the bill in the Resources Committee, and we had it on the floor, where there were amendments that were offered to that bill; and, finally, in the last Congress, it passed with bipartisan support.

That was in the last Congress, Mr. Nunes' bill. In this Congress, Mr. Valadao took that bill, dusted it off, and made two minor changes. We brought it to the floor, and once again, it passed with bipartisan support.

Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty good example of what regular order is, and all we said, by the way, is, ``Okay. This is our position. This is the House's position. If the Senate has a different position, pass a bill.'' There was nothing complex about that, and to the credit of Senator Feinstein, primarily, there was a bill that passed with unanimous consent.

I might add, however, Mr. Speaker, that there were no hearings held on the Senate bill in the Senate. There were no hearings held on the Senate bill; however, because of the drought in California, many Western senators--primarily, Republican Western senators--when asked, presumably by Senator Feinstein, if this bill could go by unanimous consent, they said, ``Yes, but there are some conditions that we ought to look at before it finally becomes law.'' Their principal concern was in the area of the Endangered Species Act.

Now, in the 20 years that I have been here, I have been a vocal critic of how the Endangered Species Act has been implemented, and I hope that we have made some movement in that with the passage of three bills that we did later on.

My point is this, Mr. Speaker: the Senate then passed their bill. The normal process under regular order is when the House has a position and the Senate has a position, then you get together to negotiate the differences.

Now, there are a lot of differences between those two bills, and for the last 6 months, there has been a good faith effort to try to negotiate the difference.

A week ago, Senator Feinstein said: We just can't get it done at this point; and, at that point, my colleagues here in the House--Mr. Valadao, principally, but the other colleagues that spoke--said: I think what we ought to do is to put into bill form what we had principally agreed to in this conference--although it wasn't a formal conference, it was an informal conference--and put it in bill form.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say what we have before us is legislation that has been largely agreed to in this informal conference that has been going on for some time with the California water issue.

This isn't something that came out of the dark. As a matter of fact, in the 4 years that my colleagues controlled this House, there was no California water legislation whatsoever. So to come up here and talk and say there are other things and they should be involved, of course, they should be involved. They were involved with the Senate action on the Senate bill.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that this is good legislation. It represents a broad consensus that could be done in the informal conference, so I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation. Hopefully, the Senate can take it up before we adjourn. If we don't, the consequences are that we are going to have to start all over again in the next Congress.

There has been so much work that has been done in the informal conference that to let that go and not have some positive action on it, I think, would be wrong for us to do.

With that, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, title 30 of the NDAA represents a bipartisan agreement on provisions under the jurisdiction of the House Natural Resources Committee and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. This agreement represents a balanced approach to public lands management.

It will create thousands of new jobs, support energy and mineral production, transfer land out of Federal ownership, and protect treasured lands through the establishment of several locally-supported parks and wilderness areas.

A few highlights of this agreement include: opening the world's third largest undeveloped copper resource in Arizona, boosting American energy production on Federal lands by reducing bureaucratic permit processing delays, reducing grazing permit backlogs on Federal lands, and increasing private funding of national parks.

The agreement designates less than 250,000 acres of wilderness. The designations, however, protect private property and are balanced with economic development opportunities on other public lands. For example, the agreement provides for over 110,000 acres of land to be conveyed out of Federal ownership to be utilized for economic and community development. It also releases approximately 26,000 acres of current wilderness study areas.

Additionally, it provides for an unprecedented study of two Montana wilderness areas, or WSAs, for oil and gas potential. Tremendous credit goes to Mr. Daines of Montana for securing the thousands of acres of WSA release and this new energy study. He has broken important new ground. It includes a number of items important to my district in the State of Washington.

Lastly, I want to emphasize that all of the bills included in this agreement have undergone public review in the House or the Senate. It includes nearly three dozen House-passed suspension bill that have languished in the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take my final time here to thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith and their respective staffs for their work on this. Without that collaboration with my staff, we wouldn't have gotten this done; and I, too, want to add my congratulations to Chairman McKeon for his service, well-served to this House and to the country.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4924) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to enter into the Big Sandy River-Planet Ranch Water Rights Settlement Agreement and the Hualapai Tribe Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement Agreement, to provide for the lease of certain land located within Planet Ranch on the Bill Williams River in the State of Arizona to benefit the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program, and to provide for the settlement of specific water rights claims in the Bill Williams River watershed in the State of Arizona.

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.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, our colleague from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) is the author of H.R. 4924, which is cosponsored by the entire bipartisan Arizona House delegation. The bill authorizes and codifies two water rights settlement agreements.

The bill will provide some water supply certainty for the Hualapai Tribe, a mining company, the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, and the Federal Government. Due to Federal trust responsibility for the tribe, congressional authorization and ratification of these agreements are necessary.

The bill does not impact Winters Doctrine rights, which are tribal water rights set forth in a landmark 1908 Supreme Court case, nor does it authorize Federal expenditure of any kind since this bill involves just the first phase of an agreement. This creative bill provides benefits to all parties involved in these settlements without any Federal expense.

I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), the author of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good piece of legislation. I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5050) to repeal the Act of May 31, 1918, and for other purposes.

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 under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), my colleague, for his hard work and leadership on H.R. 5050. He will be speaking on the bill later, so I will just provide a brief summary.

Under the Act of May 31, 1918, the Secretary of the Interior was authorized to set aside land for town-site purposes within the Fort Hall Indian Reservation in the State of Idaho. The town-site envisioned under the 1918 Act never came to fruition, and the land is now owned by a county. The tribe seeks restoration of the land into tribal ownership because the parcel is centrally located on the reservation and can't be used for economic development. This bill removes this unused reservation so that the land may be fully utilized by the tribe.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Simpson, for his work on behalf of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), the author of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good piece of legislation. I urge its adoption, 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. 2040) to exchange trust and fee land to resolve land disputes created by the realignment of the Blackfoot River along the boundary of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, 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 such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to, once again, acknowledge the work of the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) for his work on the House companion to this bill, H.R. 5049, which was ordered favorably reported from the Natural Resources Committee by unanimous consent.

S. 2040 addresses a land dispute caused by the realignment of the Blackfoot River along the boundary of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation in Idaho by requiring an exchange of Indian lands for non-Indian lands. Specifically, S. 2040 authorizes the Federal Government to take into trust certain non-Indian lands on behalf of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes in Idaho. In exchange, the government would then convey certain Indian lands. Finally, in recognition of this land exchange, the bill extinguishes claims that would be asserted by the tribes against the Federal Government.

It is a complex solution, Mr. Speaker, to a complex problem, and I am glad we will be able to resolve that problem with this bill. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), the author of the companion House bill to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, once again, this is a good piece of legislation addressing a complex issue. I urge its adoption, 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 (H.R. 2455) to provide for the sale or transfer of certain Federal lands in Nevada, 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.

First, I would like to commend the sponsor of this bill, Mr. Amodei from Nevada, for his tireless work on this important piece of legislation. Because he will speak further on the details of this legislation, I will provide a very brief summary of the bill.

H.R. 2455, as amended, requires that 45,000 acres of Federal land be held in trust by the U.S. to expand the reservations of several tribes residing in Nevada while requiring that this land may not be used for gaming purposes.

The bill also directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey 275 acres of Federal land to the county of Elko, Nevada, to be used only as a motocross, bicycle, off-road vehicle, or stock car racing area.

Again, I would like to thank the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei) for his legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei), the author of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, again, a lot of these bills can be very complex, and I am glad there is a solution to it. I urge adoption of the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.