Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3572) to revise the boundaries of certain John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System units in North Carolina, 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.

In 1982, Congress enacted the Coastal Barrier Resources Act and, 8 years later, significantly expanded the number of acres contained within the Coastal Barrier Resources System.

The fundamental goal of this law was to discourage development along fragile and shifting coastal barriers by prohibiting participation within the National Flood Insurance Program and to deny certain Federal development subsidies.

To qualify for inclusion within the system, coastal land had to be undeveloped or conserved as part of a national wildlife refuge, Federal or State park, a national seashore, a military installation, or conservation land owned by private organizations.

Inclusion in the system is through maps which historically were hand- drawn by individuals who used Magic Markers to distinguish property lines--really, Magic Markers. As you might expect, mistakes were made, and Congress has corrected those errors by providing legislative relief to homeowners whose property was mistakenly incorporated within the Coastal Barrier Resources System.

What we have before us today is a bill that corrects mistakes in certain coastal barrier units in Florida, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and South Carolina. This affects both Republican and Democrat districts.

In total, the legislation affects maps in 10 of the 857 units of the system. Upon enactment, 156 acres of the 3.1 million acres would be removed from the system; however, because digital technology is now being used, 4,737 new qualifying acres will be added to the system for a net gain of 4,580 acres.

Each of these changes have been exhaustively reviewed. There is no dispute that these lands were mistakenly included within the Coastal Barrier Resources System, there are no objections to correcting these mistakes, and the Congressional Budget Office has in each case stipulated that ``enacting the bill would not affect revenues.''

Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on this bipartisan noncontroversial collection of changes to the Coastal Barrier Resources System, and I compliment the sponsors for their work on the legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge 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 want to thank my friend, Mr. Camp, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, this jobs package includes important legislation, H.R. 1526, the Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act, which passed the House almost 1 year ago today. It is a long-term sustainable solution to put Americans back to work, restore forest health, and prevent wildfires.

Our national forests, unless otherwise designated, should be open for multiple uses for everything from recreation to job-creating economic activities. Instead, Mr. Speaker, due to onerous Federal regulations and litigation, our Federal forests have increasingly been shut down.

Mr. Speaker, timber harvests have dropped by 80 percent in the last 30 years. We have seen catastrophic wildfires destroy our Federal forests. We have seen loggers, mill workers, and truck drivers put out of work, and we have seen rural communities turned into ghost towns.

It is long past time for the Senate to join with the House to provide better

stewardship over our Federal forest lands. It is disappointing and, frankly, unacceptable that a year later the Senate is still sitting on the sidelines. Meanwhile, rural communities continue to suffer.

This legislation requires responsible timber production on at least one half of the Federal Forest Service's non-environmentally sensitive timber lands.

By restoring active forest management, this bill will create over 200,000 direct and indirect jobs. It also maintains and strengthens the historic sharing of timber receipts with local counties which is essential, given the upcoming expiration of the Secure Rural Schools program.

Instead of having to pay for wildfire suppression, this bill would allow us to reap the benefits of a responsible timber harvest that reduces wildfire threats to our communities.

Mr. Speaker, Congress must act to restore the promise that the Federal Government made over a century ago to actively manage our forests and create jobs for the benefit of rural communities. Today, the House is, once again, living up to this promise. We hope that the Senate will join us and support this commonsense reform of Federal forest management.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the question of adopting a motion to recommit on H.R. 2 may be subject to postponement as though under clause 8 of rule XX.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 727, I call up the bill (H.R. 2) to remove Federal Government obstacles to the production of more domestic energy; to ensure transport of that energy reliably to businesses, consumers, and other end users; to lower the cost of energy to consumers; to enable manufacturers and other businesses to access domestically produced energy affordably and reliably in order to create and sustain more secure and well-paying American jobs; and for other purposes, 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. 2.

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand here on the House floor, only a few hundred yards away from the Senate, and it feels as if we are worlds apart. In the House, we are listening to the American people who are telling us that it is time to expand American energy production.

Hardworking Americans know how important energy is in their lives. They need it to commute to and from work. It fuels the buses that take our kids to school. It powers the businesses on Main Street.

It provides jobs and improves the livelihoods of millions of Americans who are struggling to make ends meet in President Obama's economy; and, Mr. Speaker, Sunday, it will power the Jumbotron at CenturyLink Field in Seattle as the Seahawks take on the Broncos.

Unfortunately, on the other side of the Capitol, these calls to expand American energy production are falling on deaf ears. The House has passed dozens of energy bills, including a number from the House Natural Resources Committee, on which the Senate has failed to act. By doing so, they are standing in the way of American job creation, affordable energy, and increased national security.

H.R. 2, the American Energy Solutions for Lower Costs and More American Jobs Act, would protect and expand American energy production by removing this administration's roadblocks and preventing unnecessary bureaucratic red tape.

Mr. Speaker, since President Obama took office, total Federal offshore oil production has dropped 13 percent, Federal offshore natural gas production has dropped by nearly one-half, and the Obama administration has placed over 85 percent of America's offshore acreage off limits.

Onshore, Mr. Speaker, it is the same story. This administration has had the 4 lowest years of Federal acres leased for onshore energy production going back to 1988. It has also pledged to impose a duplicative layer of red tape on hydraulic fracturing, which would only hurt American job creation.

The Obama administration has also waged a war on coal and on coal jobs. Coal is a reliable and affordable energy resource that provides 30 percent of America's electricity and supports millions of American jobs.

Unfortunately, with one proposed regulation by the Obama administration, those jobs could disappear. Their rewrite of the stream buffer zone rule could cost 7,000 coal jobs and cause economic harm in 22 States.

But there is good news, and the good news are the provisions in these bills. These provisions are a direct response to the Obama administration's actions that have locked up our energy resources. The bill would end the regulatory delays blocking the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.

After nearly 6 years of review, this is a commonsense solution that would eliminate the need for a Presidential permit, addresses all other necessary Federal permits, and limit litigation that would delay the project.

The bill would also expand offshore energy production. It would require this administration to responsibly move forward with new offshore energy production in areas that contain the most oil and natural gas resources. What a novel idea, going where the product is, and those areas include areas off the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts.

It also requires the administration to hold oil and natural gas lease sales that have been delayed or canceled, such as offshore of Virginia. This expanded offshore production would generate over $1 billion in new revenue to the Federal Treasury and create up to 1.2 millions of jobs long-term.

Mr. Speaker, the bill would expand onshore energy production. It would reform the leasing and permitting process to remove unnecessary delays, set

clear rules for the development of U.S. oil shale resources, and establish Internet-based auctions for leases. It would also help foster expanded energy production on tribal lands.

The bill would stop the Federal Government from imposing duplicative Federal hydraulic regulations and prevent it from implementing job- destroying coal regulations. It would help protect consumers from EPA regulations that could destroy jobs and increase energy costs.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill would expand production of clean, renewable hydropower by removing outdated barriers and streamlining the regulatory process. It would authorize hydropower development at existing manmade water canals and pipes at 12 Bureau of Reclamation projects.

Mr. Speaker, the American Energy Solutions for Lower Costs and More American Jobs Act is a commonsense action plan to create over 1 million new American jobs and provide relief to hardworking Americans who are feeling the squeeze of higher gasoline and electricity prices. It would strengthen our economy and--probably more importantly in this unsettled world--increase America's energy security.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important bipartisan piece of legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), my colleague from Oregon, across the Columbia River from my district.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the subcommittee chairman on the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2

minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the distinguished majority whip.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), one of my classmates.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I yield the chairman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I will advise the gentleman that we still have several more. I will advise you when we get down to that point, but we do have several Members still waiting to speak.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend from California that I am prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It has been acknowledged on both sides of the aisle that this bill is a package of bills that has passed the Senate. It has been talked about that the Senate hasn't acted on the individual bills. It has been talked about the Senate hasn't acted on a lot of bills.

As a matter of fact, the main bill we passed yesterday, the continuing resolution--which is a terrible way to run the government, by the way, when you haven't got certainty--was passed largely because the Senate had not passed one of the 13 House bills out of the Senate. How do you negotiate when you have that sort of a situation?

Here is a point that has not been made today--and maybe my friends on the other side of the aisle aren't familiar with what our Founders envisioned when they created a bicameral legislative body.

In order for our system to work, both Houses have to pass bills. Now, the American people, in their judgment--

you know, they made good judgments every 2 years. Sometimes, some of us don't like what that judgment is--but, in their wisdom, they created one of the Houses that is controlled by the Democrats, and, in their wisdom, they created a House that is controlled by Republicans.

Now, just by the very definition of that, clearly, you are going to have two different views--clearly, you are going to have two different views. I acknowledge that, and I doubt if anybody on the other side would dispute that too.

When we talk about sending bills that we think are important from here over to the Senate--and, by the way, I should add that within this package of bills were a number of bills that came out of the House Natural Resources Committee that I have the privilege to chair. Every one of them, every one of them passed with bipartisan support. That means there are Democrats that voted for it.

Here is the issue: if the Senate, then, has a different view on these topics than we do, then fine. Pass a bill. Pass a bill. If there is a difference between the House version and the Senate version, we have a means to work that out. It is called going to conference, but the fact is the Senate hasn't passed anything.

So how do you go to conference? The only way that we find that we could make our point over and over and over again is to say, ``Okay. We will send it over.'' Maybe somebody, somebody in the other body will finally get the message and say, ``Maybe we ought to pass it.''

Finally, I just want to make another point too. I had the privilege of serving on the Rules Committee for 12 years, and, yes, the Rules Committee, in a larger body like the House, does set the rules for debate.

When the Democrats were in the majority, they set the rules for debate that we criticized. Obviously, they are criticizing us because we are setting the rules for the debate, but my friend from California said that the Senate doesn't work that way with rules. They work by unanimous consent, that anybody can offer an amendment on any bill.

Well, that may be, that may be how the Senate rules work, but, when it is manipulated by the majority leader, all that goes away. It is a process that--I admit I don't know a whole lot about the Senate rules-- but it is a process called filling the amendment tree, amendments to be offered, and the majority leader fills the tree, and nobody has an amendment.

It has gotten so bad, so bad over there in the last 6 years that the junior Senator from Alaska, the junior Senator from Alaska who has been there for 6 years has not had an opportunity to offer one amendment on the floor, and the junior Senator happens to be a member of the majority party. You talk about openness. There is no openness that way.

We feel in this body here that the best way to make the case by debating bills that we think are important for the American people-- jobs bills, energy bills, energy security bills--the best way to do that is to continue to send the same stuff over to the Senate. Maybe, maybe--because hope springs eternal, at least from my perspective--they will take one of these up.

All they have to do, by the way, is take up one of these bills and change it and send it back over here, and we will negotiate the difference, but they haven't even done that. You see, that was never acknowledged during this whole debate of defense of what the Senate has or has not done, but, as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what has happened, and that is why we are where we are.

Mr. Speaker, this is, once again, a very good bill that deals with energy and energy security and American jobs. I urge its passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Objection.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Speaker, this is probably my last opportunity to respond to a Democratic motion to recommit, and I have heard a whole gamut of them in the time that I have had the privilege to do that, and I kind of surmise, from reading the motion to recommit, that he is talking about energy and energy supply.

Well, Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what the underlying legislation is all about. My friends on the other side of the aisle talked about how oil and gas production has gone up in the United States--increased in the United States--which it has.

But, Mr. Speaker, he left out the important part: it is not because of this administration, it is in spite of this administration's actions, because all of that activity is increasing on State and private lands where they don't have the burdensome regulation from the Federal Government inhibiting that growth.

However, the focus of this legislation is to do exactly the same thing which happened on private and State lands on Federal lands because, if you have a problem with supply, what is the best way to respond to that? You increase the opportunity for supply.

What does that do to the marketplace? In the long run, it tends to lower prices. Who benefits? American people, American jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I just simply want to say these motions to recommit have been procedural motions. They have been political motions over time, not that that isn't something we deal with on the floor, but, once again, it is a motion that, I think, is not worthy of passing.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject--reject--the motion to recommit and vote for the underlying bill, 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. 3006) to authorize a land exchange involving the acquisition of private land adjacent to the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge in Arizona for inclusion in the refuge in exchange for certain Bureau of Land Management lands in Riverside County, 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.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3006, introduced by our colleague from California (Mr. Calvert), authorizes an equal value land exchange of private and Federal property. The bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to convey 80 acres of Bureau of Land Management lands in California to River Bottom Farms.

In exchange, River Bottom Farms would be required to donate a 40-acre parcel in Arizona to the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge.

Both land transfers will be subject to valid existing rights, rights- of-way, and other valid encumbrances on the land as of the date of the conveyance. The transaction will be executed as an equal value exchange with values determined by appraisals conducted in accordance with Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions and the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.

In the event the exchange difference is a detriment to the United States, River Bottom Farms will be required to reimburse the Federal Government to ensure that there is no cost to the American taxpayers.

I urge its adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), 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 (S. 476) to amend the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Development Act to extend to the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission.

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, S. 476 would extend the authorization of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission for another 10 years. The Commission advises the Secretary of the Interior on matters related to the park which stretches 185 miles through three States and the District of Columbia.

The Commission is intended to provide the diverse governmental jurisdictions a seat at the table on topics involving the canal.

I urge passage, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the 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. 1603) to reaffirm that certain land has been taken into trust for the benefit of the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatami Indians, 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, S. 1603 ratifies a decision of the Secretary of the Interior to acquire land and place it in trust for the Gun Lake Tribe of Michigan.

The 147-acre parcel of land, often called the Bradley Property, is located south of the city of Grand Rapids and within the district of our colleague from Michigan, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Upton, who does support this legislation.

The Bradley Property is the site of a casino operated by the Gun Lake Tribe pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. The Bradley Property must be held in Federal trust for the tribe to operate its casino.

This bill is necessary to confirm the trust status of the Gun Lake Tribe's land because the United States Supreme Court ruling holding in Carcieri v. Salazar casts doubt on the lawfulness of the Secretary's acquisition of the trust property.

The Gun Lake Tribe was recognized in 1999, but the Secretary acquired land for the tribe pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. This act was intended to benefit tribes recognized and under Federal jurisdiction in 1934.

Mr. Speaker, the bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent, and the Department of the Interior supports the bill. I urge passage of S. 1603, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this 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 (H.R. 5205) to authorize certain land conveyances involving public lands in northern Nevada to promote economic development and conservation, 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 materials on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5205 is a bill introduced by former Natural Resources Committee member Mark Amodei of Nevada and is cosponsored by his three colleagues from Nevada: Mr. Heck, Mr. Horsford, and Ms. Titus.

H.R. 5205 combines seven bills addressing Federal land issues in northern Nevada. This compilation prescribes the preferred or best use of these lands or addresses or resolves longstanding issues within the affected Federal areas.

It is the product of tireless negotiations with the stakeholders and the Nevada congressional delegation to reflect a broad compromise of ideas and solutions, and it provides a balanced or complementary approach to the proposed wilderness in the bill by advancing measures to create jobs and solve long-awaited problems for these northern Nevada communities.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague, Mr. Amodei, for his tireless work in bringing this bill to the floor today. For him, I know this has been a labor of love, and the State of Nevada should be proud of his accomplishments today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I advise my friend I have another speaker, but I don't see him on the floor. Pending his arrival, I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

I advise my friend I have no more requests for time. If the gentleman is prepared to yield back, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2569) to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the Missisquoi River and the Trout River in the State of Vermont, as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, 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 as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2569 designates in the State of Vermont two segments of the upper Missisquoi River and the entire main stem of its tributary, the Trout River, as part of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

In 2009, Congress authorized an evaluation of these rivers; and, while the study endorses the designation proposed by H.R. 2569, it was very clear that the community does not want Federal management or ownership on or around the rivers; therefore, the river segments would be managed in accordance with the management plan prepared as a part of the study with the National Park Service being limited to coordinating administration and the management with the local community.

The management plan repeatedly emphasized that actions should be carried out on a voluntary basis down to the property owner level.

The Natural Resources Committee adopted an amendment to reinforce that this designation be voluntary in nature by requiring that property may only be included into the boundaries with written consent of the owner; additionally, Federal land acquisition may occur only by donation or exchange with condemnation specifically prohibited.

If this proposal is, indeed, locally supported or managed, there is no need for Federal coercion.

H.R. 2569 also excludes several hydroelectric projects from the boundaries of the designation, and the committee-adopted amendment further limits the Secretary of the Interior's influence into the ongoing and future activities of these facilities.

So I urge adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no more requests for time and I am prepared to close now. I will have to close after those last remarks.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want to thank my friend from Vermont for those nice words.

But let me speak to this legislation, because the gentleman correctly mentioned--and this has always been a concern of those of us that have been somewhat critical of Wild and Scenic designations--that it does impact local communities and local private property rights. And this legislation here, in working with you, the gentleman recognizes that. I think, at least from your debate on the floor, your citizens, your constituents, recognize that also at the town meetings. That is a win- win from my standpoint.

So I think this is good legislation. I hope the other body takes it up intact and we can pass it and sign it into law.

I do want to thank my friend from Vermont for his kind words, and with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3222) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of sites associated with the 1657 signing of the Flushing Remonstrance in Queens, New York, 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 as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3222 authorizes a special resource study to determine the suitability and feasibility of creating a

National Park unit in Queens, New York, from those resources associated with the history of religious freedom and the signing of the Flushing Remonstrance.

The Flushing Remonstrance was a 1657 petition to the director general of New Netherland in which several citizens requested an exemption to his ban on Quaker worship. It was recognized as a forerunner to the First Amendment to the Constitution and one of the earliest demands for freedom of religion in what became the United States.

The study would evaluate and provide different Federal, local, and nongovernmental management proposals. The study is informational. Congress would still have to act on separate legislation to create such a designation.

I urge passage, and with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4119) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of the West Hunter Street Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia, 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 materials on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, during the civil rights movement, the West Hunter Street Baptist Church became a center for the movement. It was the site of many civil rights gatherings, strategy sessions, and nonviolent resolution trainings. The church was also the site of leadership meetings and doubled as a school for nonviolent protest during initiatives such as the Voter Education Project and the Freedom Summer of 1964.

H.R. 4119 directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of the West Hunter Street Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia, to determine whether it meets the National Park Service's criteria for inclusion in the National Park System.

I urge its passage, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott), the cosponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I advise my friend from Arizona I have no more requests for time, so I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 4315.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring before the House legislation that would help update and improve the Endangered Species Act, a law that was passed initially 40 years ago, but has not been reauthorized since 1988.

H.R. 4315 melds together four commonsense and focused bills introduced earlier this year by myself and my colleagues, Mrs. Lummis of Wyoming, Mr. Neugebauer of Texas, and Mr. Huizenga of Michigan. While respecting the original intent of the ESA to conserve species, this bill would help make the law more effective for both species and people.

Because of the more than 500 ESA-related lawsuits that have been filed against the government during this administration alone, it has become clear that costly litigation is not only driving ESA priorities but that litigation has become an impediment to species recovery.

I should also note that, regardless of what some groups are saying, this is not a comprehensive bill. It is four sections that aim to increase transparency; to enlist greater consultation by States, localities, and tribes; and to reduce taxpayer-financed attorneys' fees to help invest more funding in actual species recovery.

For example, section 2 of the bill requires data used by Federal agencies that decide which species should be added to the threatened or endangered list to be publicly available and accessible through the Internet. What a remarkable idea--transparency. The last significant update to the ESA was when the Internet was in its infancy stages. Posting data supporting key ESA decisions online will greatly enhance transparency and data quality. The American people should be able to access such data before Federal listing or delisting decisions are final.

It is troubling that hundreds of sweeping listing decisions by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service cite unpublished studies, professional opinions, and other sources that are inaccessible to the public, yet this data would be used to regulate the very people who don't have access to this information. This secrecy goes against the grain of good science and transparency. Data transparency is not only good for the American public, in that it makes our government more accountable, but it is also good for species because it allows for an open conversation about improving species science.

As biologist Rob Roy Ramey testified at a Natural Resources Committee hearing:

When the data are not publicly accessible, legitimate

scientific inquiry and debate is effectively eliminated, and

no independent third party can produce the results. This

action puts the basis of some ESA decisions outside the realm

of science, and species recovery is no better off.

Withholding data does not further the goal of species

recovery.

I couldn't agree more with that statement, especially when over 700 species could potentially be listed over

the next few years throughout the country. These potential listings are due to this administration's megalawsuit settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians, groups, I might add, Mr. Chairman, that have filed hundreds of lawsuits against the government at taxpayer expense.

One of these species could include the northern long-eared bat, and I have a map here to show. This listing could impact 39 States. As you can see, Mr. Chairman, it is nearly all of the Eastern States. Information on data when it comes to this species listing can only help and not hurt. The bill before us today fosters the release of this information.

Section 3 of the bill would enhance State, local, and tribal involvement in ESA decisions by requiring that, before any listing decision is made, the Federal Government must disclose its data to States affected by such actions. In addition, section 3 ensures that data from local, State, and tribal entities--those are the entities that are closest to the ground, Mr. Chairman--be factored into ESA listing decisions.

Section 4 would require the administration to track and make available online the costs, in time and in resources, to the taxpayers as a result of ESA-related litigation.

Finally, section 5 would seek to reduce taxpayer-financed attorneys' fees to help ensure Federal resources are focused more on species protection and recovery than on lucrative legal fees for serial litigants. Such fees now, Mr. Chairman, are awarded as high as $600 an hour. This provision in section 5 puts in place the same reasonable hourly caps on attorneys' fees used in another Federal law--the Equal Access to Justice Act--which deals with veterans, Social Security disability, and other such claims.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4315 starts with modest, sensible updates to the ESA by promoting transparency, greater State, local, and tribal involvement, and by bringing ESA litigation fees in line with another Federal law.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer), who is the author of one of the provisions within this bill.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), an author of another provision of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis), another person who is the author of another section of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford), a member of the working group.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek), another member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), another member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), another member of the House Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), a former member of the House Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), in whose district we had a field hearing on the impact of the Endangered Species Act.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) who is also experiencing the effects of this act.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart), a former member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao), a very active Member on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I advise the gentleman from Oregon that I am prepared to close, so if he wants to use his time, then I will close.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me make a couple of points on issues that have been raised. First of all, H.R. 4315 is not a comprehensive reform to the Endangered Species Act. It is very targeted.

I might mention that several Members on the other side talked about species going extinct. I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, that during testimony in the House Natural Resources Committee, nobody testified that they are in favor of species going extinct.

Several Members said this bill weakens the Endangered Species Act. Mr. Chairman, how does transparency weaken a bill? I do not see how that works.

Finally, there seems to be a lot of discussion about allowing local entities and tribes to use their data in the listing of species. Several Members on the other side said the act deems that should happen. It does not at all. In fact, let me read it. It says:

The best scientific and commercial data available includes

all such data submitted by State, tribal, or county

government.

Now, we will have more debate on this because there are two amendments that address this section, but I just wanted to mention that this is a targeted look at the Endangered Species Act. It is not a comprehensive reform, but it certainly will, I think, get more people involved, especially because of this megasettlement, the impact that this will have on the rest of the country.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of H.R. 4315.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer this manager's amendment which would clarify two important items relating to section 2 and public disclosure of the Federal Government's ESA data.

First, the amendment would provide an important but technical clarification that the intent of the bill is for any Federal public disclosure of ESA data on the Internet under the bill to be completely consistent with data privacy laws of States, including those that protect personal identifiable information from disclosure.

A significant amount of the ``best available scientific and commercial data'' currently used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service for ESA listing decisions is derived from States which have diverse laws protecting the privacy of their citizens and sensitive species data.

While some make completely baseless suggestions that more data disclosure on the Internet could lead to poaching of species, this amendment would allow States an added layer of confidence that the information they choose to share with the Federal Government does not compromise their own data privacy laws.

Second, the amendment clarifies that the bill would not require disclosure of classified Department of Defense information related to lands, personnel, installations, or waters within their jurisdiction.

The Endangered Species Act has a significant impact on U.S. military activities. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service Web site, more than 300 ESA-listed species are located on the more than 25 million acres spread across hundreds of Department of Defense installations across the Nation. While greater data transparency related to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service listing decisions is important, branches of the American military should not have to disclose information that would in any way compromise national security.

So my amendment would make clear that the Fish and Wildlife Service's or the National Marine Fisheries Service's disclosure of best available scientific and commercial data on the Internet can be accomplished while safeguarding classified or sensitive Defense Department information.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I thank the gentleman from Oregon for his support of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

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

Mr. Chairman, when I listen to my good friend from Oregon's arguments, in many respects, maybe indirectly, he is making precisely the argument that we are making with this bill. That is, whatever data is being used to list or delist should be made available to the public so they can ascertain if that data is correct.

Now, the gentleman talked about data that was made up. Okay, that is his interpretation. If it is made up, shouldn't we know that? Shouldn't we know that that is what the data is being used to make these decisions rather than just accepting it?

Mr. Chairman, that is precisely what this bill is all about, to have transparency on this scientific data. That is really all we are asking about.

The argument got shifted to other things, like we are destroying the Endangered Species Act and so forth. Nothing could be further from the truth.

His amendment, however, does something that I think violates the principle we are trying to do. He wants to exclude certain stuff from us being transparent with it, or for the people having transparency to that data.

So, Mr. Chairman, I urge also rejection of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close, so I reserve the balance of my time.

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

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I am not embarrassed by this piece of legislation. Let me walk through this and explain why this language says what it says because I think our friends on the other side of the aisle are leaving out a very important word when they are debating this issue.

The language in question is the term ``best scientific and commerce data available includes all such data submitted,'' and so forth.

They are arguing as if the word ``such'' was taken out, where it would read ``scientific and commercial data available includes all data.'' We didn't say ``all data.'' We said ``all such data.''

What does that mean? How does that relate? All such data that relates to scientific and commercial data coming from the local communities-- what is wrong with that argument?

By the way, the agency still has discretion to use that data, but it should be part of it because lacking having this language in the bill means that the only data is what my friend from Oregon criticized when we were discussing the wolves.

Mr. Chairman, I think this language is pretty straightforward. It says ``all such data that relates to it, as developed by local communities and tribes.'' That should be part of the transparency.

So I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for bringing this issue to the floor. I think it adds very much to what we are trying to do with this underlying legislation, which is adding transparency to our efforts.

I support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with.

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

Mr. Speaker, of course this body should recognize the treaties that we have made with our Native American neighbors. And I say that with the privilege of representing a central Washington district that has two Indian tribes and reservations within my district. So that goes without saying.

However, we have had on this floor I don't know how many motions to recommit. And sometimes I wonder exactly what these motions to recommit are trying to do, other than maybe just make a political point. And I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that is probably so true with this motion to recommit.

Now why do I say that? I say that because this motion to recommit implies that tribal members should be part of the discussion. Well, of course they should. But apparently my friend from Arizona did not read the bill because section 3 in the bill says very specifically that consultation should be made with locals, including tribes.

And to add insult to injury, Mr. Speaker, the last amendment that was offered, offered by my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), would take out the section that says tribal respect ought to be in the underlying bill, and the gentlewoman from Arizona voted for it. Now she comes down to the floor and says we ought to insert into the bill something for tribal authorities that we already had in the bill.

I have no idea, Mr. Speaker, where these motions to recommit are going, but I will say this. This bill deals with transparency in the Federal Government to the citizens of the United States. That ought to be number one on our minds, and that is what this bill does.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to recommit and for the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.