Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 997) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to extend a water contract between the United States and the East Bench Irrigation District.

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 such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, S. 997, the East Bench Irrigation District Water Contract Extension Act, extends the water contract between the United States and the East Bench Irrigation District in southwestern Montana until December 31, 2013, or until a new contract can be executed.

This bill allows for the continued irrigation of 28,000 acres of land which is important to that area's economy. It also preserves the district's renewal rights while a local matter is adjudicated at the State level. The bill will not influence the outcome of State actions.

S. 997 is supported by our colleague from Montana, Congressman Dennis Rehberg, and by the administration. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and 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. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the sponsor of this amendment, Mr. Shimkus, for bringing this amendment forward. And I want to thank the distinguished ranking member from my home State of Washington and the chairman of the subcommittee for their support also of this amendment.

This is very serious business when the administration is absolutely ignoring statutory law that was passed by this Congress. As a matter of fact, going way back to 1995, this House has acted 32 different times, principally on these appropriation bills as they come forward, to address this issue. Generally, the issue is to not fund Yucca Mountain. Thirty-two times this House, since 1995, has said we are going to fund Yucca Mountain. So I think that the Congress--and certainly the House-- has well established what their position is.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Reclaiming my time, that is precisely the point. Both you and Mr. Shimkus made that point very well that needs to be repeated over and over: This is statutory law. And 32 different times it has been attempted to be modified on the House floor, and 32 times it has been rejected since 1995.

Let me put a personal note on this because I represent the Hanford area in central Washington. It was one of the three Manhattan Projects where we developed atomic weapons to win not only the Second World War but also the Cold War. The process of developing those atomic weapons created a tremendous amount of waste, and the State of Washington has a legal agreement with the Federal Government to clean up that waste. It's called the Tri-Party Agreement. But just to give you an idea of the scope of what needs to be cleaned up there, the waste in underground tanks at Hanford would fill this Chamber over 21 times with radioactive and/or hazardous waste. That's the waste that will eventually go to the repository after it is glassified.

So I thank the gentleman from Illinois for bringing this amendment forward, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It's very, very important. This will be the 33rd time, I contend, that this House will have reaffirmed that Yucca should be the repository.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 241) to authorize the conveyance of certain National Forest System lands in the Los Padres National Forest in California, as amended.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my motion.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2060) to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to adjust the Crooked River boundary, to provide water certainty for the City of Prineville, 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 include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2060, sponsored by our colleague from Oregon (Mr. Walden), is an important step towards restoring water and power abundance and jobs to a rural area that has been devastated by Federal logging restrictions.

This bill is a reflection of years of negotiation. Its supporters include those who would normally be water adversaries in most parts of the West. Municipalities, irrigators, the Warm Spring Tribes utilities, organized labor, and environmental organizations have come together to support this legislation.

I commend my colleague from Oregon for working hard to bring these many parties together, and I urge adoption of this commonsense legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the author of this legislation, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, so if the gentleman is prepared to yield back.

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

Mr. Speaker, in many respects, this bill epitomizes the problems that those of us have in the West. This is a simple boundary change to something that was designated here on the Federal level. It has taken a great deal of time, and the impacts will be great for the economy in that area.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, this has broad support from all of the local groups and local environmental groups, as the gentleman from Oregon said. Sadly, the frustration that we continue to have when we're trying to move legislation like this to help the local job economy in these areas is that you have national groups that don't live in those areas opposing it. And that's what frustrates us, because when you get people, especially on the local level, that support this, it's frustrating when have you a national group that says, Just because we're dealing with national land, we want to have a say in all of this. A big sense of frustration for us.

So I commend my friend from Oregon for moving this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2512) to provide for the conveyance of certain Federal land in Clark County, Nevada, for the environmental remediation and reclamation of the Three Kids Mine Project Site, 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 this bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to start this debate by defining clearly what H.R. 2512, the Three Kids Mine Remediation and Reclamation Act, does. This bill will create jobs, clean up an abandoned mine that is the responsibility of the United States Government, and represents a tremendous win-win for all the parties involved in this effort.

The Three Kids Mine is located in Clark County, Nevada, adjacent to the City of Henderson. The mine was operated from 1916 until 1961. From 1942 to 1955, the United States Government, through the Defense Plant Corporation, owned 446 acres of the Three Kids Mine Project site. The mine site was used to produce federally owned manganese ore for national defense purposes and was leased to the U.S. until 2003 to stockpile those nodules.

The total Three Kids Mine Project area is approximately 1,262 acres and includes 948 acres of Federal lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Reclamation, and 314 acres of private lands that include the mill site and the former processing site.

The City of Henderson, the Henderson Redevelopment Agency, Nevada

Department of Environmental Protection, Lakemoor Development, LLC, and the Bureau of Land Management have negotiated a plan to clean up and redevelop the Three Kids Mine Project site that includes the purchase of 948 acres of Federal lands. The site is contaminated with arsenic, lead, and other heavy metals and petroleum hydrocarbons. Cost estimates for cleanup and reclamation at the site range from $300 million to over $1 billion. The lower cost estimates apply to onsite remediation and disposal of tailings and other minerals in the open pits if it can be accomplished without contaminating groundwater. The higher cost estimate is associated with offsite disposal of the contaminated material.

The purchase price of the Federal lands would be adjusted to reflect the actual cleanup costs of the Federal and non-Federal land where the Federal Government has environmental liability resulting from the mill, the processing facilities, and the storage of Federal-owned manganese nodules. The City of Henderson and the developer would absolve the Federal Government if any liability arises for this site.

All in all, Mr. Speaker, this is a win-win for everyone involved. The environmental problems are addressed, the abandoned mine site is reclaimed and the land redeveloped for a beneficial use--all at no cost to the American taxpayer. This should provide a framework for other abandoned mine sites that are near or adjacent to small towns in larger urban areas.

That's why this legislation is needed and that's why I urge my colleagues to support this, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the author of this important piece of legislation, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck).

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3263) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to allow the storage and conveyance of nonproject water at the Norman project in Oklahoma, 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.

H.R. 3263, introduced by our colleague from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), allows the Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy District to store water purchased from Oklahoma City in Lake Thunderbird. This legislation is necessary since Federal regulations do not allow water transfers from out-of-basin areas unless Congress expressly authorizes such a transfer.

This bill specifically states that any cost associated with its enactment will be borne by the project beneficiary. It is a no-nonsense bill that will provide additional water storage during times of drought. I thank Congressman Cole for sponsoring this commonsense bill, and I urge adoption of the measure.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

I have one more speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time as he may consume to another Member from Oklahoma, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 241) to authorize the conveyance of certain National Forest System lands in the Los Padres National Forest in California, 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 such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 241 authorizes the Forest Service to convey, for appraised market value, approximately 5 acres of the Los Padres National Forest to the White Lotus Foundation.

Due to steep topography, there is limited access to the White Lotus Foundation other than a short access road that crosses Forest Service land. This bill would allow the foundation to acquire this parcel and ensure public access to their facility.

So I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, as authored by our colleague from California (Mr. Gallegly), and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 292) to resolve the claims of the Bering Straits Native Corporation and the State of Alaska to land adjacent to Salmon Lake in the State of Alaska and to provide for the conveyance to the Bering Straits Native Corporation of certain other public land in partial satisfaction of the land entitlement of the Corporation under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.

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 such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, S. 292 ratifies the Salmon Lake Area Ownership and Consolidation Agreement signed in 2007 by the State of Alaska, the United States, and the Bering Straits Native Corporation.

The agreement resolves overlapping claims to certain public lands by the State of Alaska, the United States, and the Bering Straits Native Corporation. The claims arose from the implementation of the Alaska Statehood Act of 1958 and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971.

Though similar legislation sponsored by the gentleman from Alaska, and the sponsor in the House of this bill, Mr. Young, passed by 410 0 in the 111th Congress, the Committee on Natural Resources undertook regular order on S. 292, including a hearing in the Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs, and a markup in the full committee, which reported the bill out favorably.

I am unaware of any opposition to S. 292, and so I urge full House support for the motion to suspend the rules and pass this bill today.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the author of the legislation that the last Congress passed, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

I urge adoption of this legislation and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 363) to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to convey property of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to the City of Pascagoula, Mississippi, 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 such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, S. 363, introduced by Senator Wicker from Mississippi, would authorize the Secretary of Commerce to convey less than 1 acre of property owned by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association to the City of Pascagoula, Mississippi.

This would improve the operations of the NOAA science center and give the city river access and space for a park.

The bill specifies that a land conveyance could occur provided that the United States receives at least the fair market value for the property or in-kind exchange. The city and the agency have identified properties to exchange, and therefore, both parties are in agreement. S. 363 would simply allow them to go forward with this land exchange, so I urge its adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1740) to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a segment of Illabot Creek in Skagit County, Washington, as a component 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 materials on the bill under consideration.

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

H.R. 1740 will designate segments of the Illabot Creek in Skagit, Washington, as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The designated area is located within the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, and it totals 14.3 miles in two separate segments. The U.S. Forest Service studied this creek and found that it possesses the requisite characteristics consistent with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, this bill was amended with some provisions that the subcommittee and the full committee thought were very important on these designations, but I urge its passage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I advise my friend from Arizona that I have no further requests for time.

I urge the passage of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2336) to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the York River and associated tributaries for study for potential inclusion in 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 materials on the bill under consideration.

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

H.R. 2336 authorizes the National Park Service to study 11.25 miles of the York River, in the State of Maine, for the possible inclusion into the Wild and Scenic Rivers program.

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 was intended to put a development freeze on rivers to preserve their ``free-flowing'' characteristics. Although no risks to the river necessitating Federal designation were identified, proponents of the study explained that they would benefit from the expertise of the National Park Service and its interaction with the community.

As I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, this legislation was amended. The subcommittee felt that there should be some conditions even though this is only a study, and those conditions were inserted into this bill. I urge its adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I advise my friend from Arizona that I have no more requests for 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. 4222) to provide for the conveyance of certain land inholdings owned by the United States to the Tucson Unified School District and to the Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative 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. 4222, authored by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), directs the Secretary of the Interior to take two approximately 10-acre parcels of Federal land into trust for the Pascua Yaqui tribe in Arizona. The two parcels are completely surrounded by either the tribe's reservation or by fee lands owned by the tribe.

Before one of the parcels can be taken into trust, however, the Tucson Unified School District will need to relinquish its possessory interest in the parcel. The school district no longer needs the land, which it had previously received under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. Both parcels would be utilized as part of a golf course as currently under construction. Neither parcel is necessary for the construction of the golf course, but if the tribe does not acquire and use the parcels, they will be orphaned and of relatively no use to either the tribe or to the United States.

Finally, as has been the practice of the committee during the last several Congresses, this bill includes language that prohibits any gaming on the two parcels to be taken into trust, and the tribe has no objection to this language.

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

Mr. Speaker, I advise my friend from Arizona that I have no more requests for time on this excellent piece of legislation.

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

I move to strike the last word.

I rise to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

We have had several hearings on this executive order and on the potential impacts that this executive order would have far, far beyond ocean policy. The Natural Resources Committee also, obviously, has concerns about our environment. That's probably one of the reasons the committee was created many, many Congresses ago. But this step by this administration with this executive order goes far, far beyond what anybody would envision, and it is being done without going through the normal process.

In his remarks, the gentleman from Texas stated several organizations that are opposed to this executive order, and amongst those is the Farm Bureau. Now, when one thinks about the Farm Bureau, they are an organization that represents our diverse agriculture industry across the country, but you don't associate the Farm Bureau policies with the oceans or lakes. You associate them with crops that are grown on dry land or on irrigated land or whatever the case may be. With that being the case, why should the Farm Bureau be concerned about a policy dealing with ocean planning?

The reason is, obviously, in the fine print because, in the fine print of the executive order, it says that this ocean policy should look at a number of things, including ``by promoting and implementing sustainable practices on land.'' So, implementing practices on land, are those positive or negative?

I will be happy to yield to my friend from Washington.

In reclaiming my time, I would be more than happy to respond to my good friend in that regard.

Obviously, this is the concern because of that. They say then--and rightfully so--in their letter that was sent out to all Members of Congress:

Thus, instead of being limited to oceans and coasts, the

National Ocean Policy could extend to the regulation of every

farm and ranch in the United States.

Now, I think they're right on that. But we do have statutes, by the way, that deal precisely with what my good friend from Washington brought up to me just a moment ago, and that is the Clean Water Act. That's what part of that is all about, is to deal with that. This is an executive order that gives potential authority far, far beyond those acts, and it's done by executive order. Now, there is a process to go through. Sometimes we can agree with that process or disagree, but at least let's go through that process with the Congress making the policy. That's what the issue is here with this executive order.

Finally, since my good friend from Washington brought this up, let me make this observation. Our State of Washington has an ocean policy. It was done by statute, and in it, it specifically says in that statute:

The marine management plan, meaning the ocean policy, must

be developed and implemented in a manner that recognizes and

respects existing uses.

I think that's good policy. In fact, that's probably why so many Northwest fishing organizations are in support of the Flores amendment, but the policy that is driving this executive order is contrary to that. Let me take a direct quote--a direct quote--out of this policy driving this executive order:

The task force is mindful that these recommendations may

create a level of uncertainty and anxiety among those who

rely on these resources.

``Resources'' meaning the land.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I have to ask: Does this not sound suspiciously like, We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it? Does that sound somewhat familiar? So I think the gentleman from Texas is exactly right in that the way that we can exercise our prerogative and our authority is to deny funding.

By the way, speaking about funding, we had the Council on Economic Quality in front of our committee, and we asked particularly, Where is all this funding coming from? We've asked by letter. They have yet to respond. So they're taking parts of it here and there, and it's not showing up on anybody's budget at all.

So what this attempts to do, by the gentleman from Texas with his amendment, is simply to say, okay, we're going to exercise our authority, and our authority is not to give any agency that contributes to this policy any funds. It's nothing more than that. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Here is the crux of the issue right here. The gentleman started his remarks by saying that the committee, which I had the privilege to chair, created the Ocean Commission. I was not on the committee at the time, but I acknowledge that. We did create that.

And this is the crux of the matter right here. One of the recommendations that came out of that committee was that the policies-- it said: The Ocean Council should work with Congress and so on to develop a flexible and voluntary process for the creation of regional ocean councils. States working with relevant stakeholders should use this process to establish regional ocean councils. That is exactly the process we should be going through, but the process of the executive process is 180 degrees from that. So the legislation the gentleman is citing is being used is contrary to what he is trying to promote. That's the whole point of this amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to make this point. The gentleman makes the point of how maybe the process should work and the commission was created.

My objection--and I think the gentleman from Texas' objection--is this is being done by executive order. The way that the process is laid out totally ignores the recommendation that came out of that policy. That is the whole point.

If the gentleman will yield, we have had five hearings on this, just to make a point.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

The gentleman, when he made his remarks about all of the challenges that we face, if you heard, nobody is arguing on our side about that. Nobody is arguing about that. It is the structure of which we are talking about here. And, unfortunately, we have experienced painfully in this body and in this country when we have a structure of a top-down solution, it always seems to come out wrong. And that is what the issue is all about.

We have had five hearings, like I said, in my committee on this issue. But the way this is set up, it was designed to be voluntary, and it was designed to be in corroboration with the States. Our home State of Washington has responded to that. But the way this is written and the way it is interpreted, it is a top-down issue; and if we

let it continue going, we are going to have a problem, and the gentleman knows it.

I am aware of that. Clean water takes care of that, and that process is going through. Sometimes we agree. Sometimes we don't.

But just let me make an analogy that I think the gentleman would agree with. We had a long debate last night on catch shares, something entirely different. The gentleman was very much so defending--and I agree with him--the fact that there was regional planning. And catch shares works in our part of the country. That is all that we are saying. We think that is probably a better model.

This executive order is contrary to that. So my arguments here over and over have been the model, and that's why we should defund it and come back and do it correctly.

I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4849) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to issue commercial use authorizations to commercial stock operators for operations in designated wilderness within the Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This legislation addresses an urgent need at Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks in California. Because of a lawsuit, the National Park Service has chosen not to issue commercial packer permits this year. These permits allow mules and horses into the park to carry visitors and supplies. Unfortunately, this not only means the loss of hundreds of jobs, it also canceled long-planned family vacations into the outdoors. For many Americans, whether elderly or handicapped, stock animals are the only option if they want to visit our national parks.

Today, we have the option to right a wrong and allow these permits to be awarded to responsible stewards of our parks. This bipartisan legislation was worked out between Members of both parties in the California delegation. Time is very crucial here. This only extends what has been happening for decades in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. We must act now if there's any hope in preserving the season for those individuals who have planned and paid for their visit in the national park.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of H.R. 4849, the Clerk be authorized to make the change that I have placed at the desk.