Floor Statements

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, H.R. 4089.

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

I rise in strong support of H.R. 4089, the Sportsmen's Heritage Act of 2012.

This legislation protects the traditional right of American sportsmen to hunt and fish from arbitrary and unjustified bureaucratic restrictions and limitations. It will remove government roadblocks to these activities on certain public lands and guard against new regulations that threaten hunting and fishing.

This is a bipartisan bill, Madam Chairman. It has the bipartisan sponsorship of the Republican and Democrat chairs of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, Mr. Miller of Florida and Mr. Ross of Arkansas, as well as the caucus' vice chairs, Mr. Latta of Ohio and Mr. Shuler of North Carolina. This bill also has the broad support of America's recreational fishing, hunting, shooting, and wildlife conservation community.

At the appropriate time, I will include two letters, one from over 35 sportsmen's organizations and one from the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, for the Record.

There are four titles to this legislation, and each reflects stand- alone bills sponsored by individual Members of the House. Mr. Benishek of Michigan, Mr. Flake of Arizona, Mr. Young of Alaska, and Mr. Miller of Florida all deserve credit for leadership on these important sportsmen issues. Their four bills were assembled in this package to be among the first pro-sportsmen bills considered and, I hope, passed by the House this year. I expect and anticipate further action on additional legislation in the months ahead.

This legislation is an affirmative declaration that Americans' ability to fish and hunt is not arbitrarily subject to limitation by the whim of Federal bureaucrats. It makes clear that public lands are ``open until closed'' to such recreational activities, and it makes absolutely clear, Madam Chairman, that the EPA does not have the authority to regulate ammunition and fishing tackle. This bill is not a solution in search of a problem, but regrettably, bureaucratic threats to hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting are very real, thus the need for this legislation.

Title I of this bill protects sportsmen from arbitrary Federal efforts to block hunting and fishing on public lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, or the BLM.

It requires that these activities be supported and facilitated, but-- this is very important, Madam Chairman--it does not prioritize hunting and fishing over other multiple uses.

The vast majority of our Nation's public lands are to be open and available for multiple uses, but, regrettably, there are agency personnel and land managers who attempt to control these lands as personal fiefdoms and prevent legitimate uses and activities, including hunting and fishing. In addition, activist groups bring lawsuits to limit these activities; and in the worst situations, bureaucrats willingly roll over to such lawsuits as a convenient way to limit the use of these facilities. This bill will protect against such lawsuits and the ensuing costly paperwork associated with them.

Title II of the bill directly addresses the sudden attempt last year by the Obama administration's Bureau of Land Management to limit target shooting on certain lands. An agency spokesman was cited in a news article saying that their proposed ban was being enacted in response to urbanites who ``freak out'' when they hear shooting and that the restriction wasn't rooted in public safety but, rather, to reduce ``social conflict.'' This proposed ban echos the Obama administration's attempt to impose a new classification of wildlands on Federal property in an attempt to unilaterally establish de facto wilderness.

Madam Chairman, I want to remind my colleagues once again that only Congress has the authority to establish wilderness areas.

Just as with the wildlands proposal, public outcry against the BLM's attempt to limit target and recreational shooting forced Interior Secretary Salazar to retreat from this effort, and rightfully so. However, at any point--say, right after the November election--the administration could again attempt such a ban on such activities. This is exactly why this legislation is necessary, because it would clearly provide that any closure must be specifically and publicly justified and be for reasons of national security, public safety, or to comply with Federal or State laws.

Title III of the bill would allow for the importation of certain legally taken hunting trophies from Canada that, through no fault of the sportsmen, have become trapped in a bureaucratic limbo. This is focused squarely on resolving existing situations ensnarled in red tape and does not open the door to unlimited future imports.

Finally, title IV of the bill is in response to perhaps the greatest bureaucratic threat posed, and that threat comes in the form of the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA. In 1976, Congress barred the EPA from regulating firearms and ammunition. However, this has not stopped attempts to try and circumvent the law with the argument that EPA may not be able to regulate ammunition, but it can regulate components of ammunition and components of fishing tackle.

Regulating components of ammunition and fishing tackle would be a massive power grab by the EPA despite a clear lack of legal authority. Has that stopped the EPA under this administration? Sadly, it hasn't.

The EPA is an unfettered agency with an appetite for greater regulations that result in a greater stranglehold of our economy and how Americans are allowed to live their lives. But, unfortunately, the EPA is not without its allies.

In March, over 100 activist antihunting and environmental groups petitioned the EPA to ban the use of lead in hunting and fishing components. This is an overt attempt to end-run a law that has been on the books for nearly 40 years.

This legislation that the House will vote on today reiterates and clarifies existing law, leaving no question that the EPA does not have the authority to regulate ammunition and fishing tackle.

Madam Chairman, hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting are longstanding American traditions that deserve protection, which is exactly what this underlying legislation does, the Sportsmen's Heritage Act of 2012. This is why the bill has received strong bipartisan support and the endorsement of dozens of sporting and wildlife organizations.

I again want to commend the sponsors for their work and encourage all of my colleagues to support and vote for this legislation. I also want to thank Chairman Upton of the Energy and Commerce Committee and Chairman Lucas of the Agriculture Committee for their cooperation and assistance in helping to expedite consideration of this bill. At the appropriate time, I will again insert into the Record an exchange of letters between me and those chairmen regarding this legislation.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC, March 8. 2012.

Hon. Doc Hastings,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Longworth House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Hastings: I am writing concerning H.R. 4089,

the ``Sportsmen's Heritage Act of 2012,'' which was ordered

reported from your committee on February 29, 2012. I wanted

to notify you that, although it received a referral on the

bill, the Committee on Energy and Commerce will forgo action

on H.R. 4089 so that it may proceed expeditiously to the

House floor for consideration.

This is done with the understanding that the Committee on

Energy and Commerce is not waiving any of its jurisdiction,

and the Committee will not be prejudiced with respect to the

appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives

on this or similar legislation.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 4089, and ask that a

copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in

the Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on

the House floor.

Sincerely,

Fred Upton,

Chairman.

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the author of one of those pieces of legislation, the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun), who is a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, Dr. Benishek, who is also a sponsor of one of the pieces of legislation that's part of this legislation.

I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona, somebody who has worked on this legislation, Mr. Gosar.

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

Let me touch a bit on an issue that was brought up as to the cost of this legislation--cost that I acknowledge was scored by the Congressional Budget Office. I have to say, sometimes we have differences with those agencies. I guess that's understandable. But they suggest that there is a cost associated with this bill. Let me kind of walk through some points of this bill that I hope will point out: How can there be a cost associated with it?

Because, first of all, this bill does not create a new program. New programs would be associated with cost. This does not create a new program. It does not authorize any new spending. So because it doesn't authorize spending, how can there be a cost associated with it? It does not authorize any new personnel. So if we don't add any new personnel, how can there be a cost associated with it? Further, the bill restricts the ability of Federal land managers to oppose restrictions. Well, if they do less, one would say, logically, how could there be a cost associated with it?

I think what the reason is--and sometimes we point fingers here too much, but I mentioned in my opening statement that the Department of the Interior had some problems with this legislation, and maybe they had some problems and said that there would be new activities for people that work for them and, therefore, there would be a cost.

Let me reiterate: it doesn't create a new program. It does not authorize new spending, doesn't hire anybody. Under current law, they are required to do what they are required to do. How could that possibly cost more money? But yet that is what the CBO scored, and there's absolutely nothing we can do because that's their score.

But I will tell you, Madam Chairman, for the record, I highly doubt that if one were to walk their way through the restrictions that I have here and apply it to any other legislation, I would have to think that there would be no costs associated with that legislation. And I think that is probably the case, when you really get down to it, on this legislation.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to another gentleman that has authored legislation that is part of the title of this legislation, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to a vice chairman of the bipartisan Sportsmen's Caucus, Mr. Latta, from Ohio.

I thank the gentleman. I am prepared to close, and so if he wishes to close, then I will close on my side.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Let's go back and set the stage for why this legislation is needed, and let's understand that public lands were designated for multiple use which, of course, means recreation and, of course, commercial activity, unless Congress says otherwise. And the most obvious example of where Congress says otherwise is in wilderness designations. But even then, in wilderness designations, there are certain activities. But Federal lands were designed to be multiple use.

The reason for this legislation is because we are finding arbitrary decisions on the ground not for the exceptions that Congress looked at that would restrict land activity. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) pointed that out very well with his portion of this bill.

Some of the restrictions make perfectly good sense if one were to look at it hopefully logically, and sometimes we miss that point when we debate here on the floor. One of the reasons is for reasons of national security. If there should be restrictions on public lands for national security, nobody, I think, would argue with that. If there should be restrictions on public lands for public health, nobody would argue with that. Forest fires or wildfires come to mind in that situation--or if they are contrary to applicable Federal statutes. All of those things make sense.

But let's not lose the underlying principle of public lands, that they should be for multiple use. And what this legislation simply does is reiterates, reiterates that hunting and fishing have their portion-- not higher, not lower--but have their portion on use for public lands. That's what the whole intent of this legislation is.

We hear my friends on the other side of the aisle saying this is becoming top down; and yet when you look at the concerns that Members have had trying to offer amendments where they're trying to get more flexibility, you can't have it both ways. This simply reiterates what are the national standards. It should be multiple use, but particularly in this case as it relates to hunting and fishing.

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

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, this manager's amendment is a noncontroversial amendment to H.R. 4089 that makes several technical, clarifying, and harmonizing changes to the bill. It adds to the bill amendments that were adopted by the Natural Resources Committee when it considered several of the individual bills that are now separate titles of the Sportsmen's Heritage Act.

In addition, although I believe the original bill never allowed extractive commercial activity or motorized travel in wilderness areas, this amendment adds language that will say so explicitly.

Finally, the amendment reduces the administrative tasks faced by the agencies with regard to the format and frequency of public notice and congressional reporting requirements.

I ask for your support for this amendment, and with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the Holt amendment uses a blunderbuss and not a rifle to address the complex issue of the programs in national parks that involve shooting. This issue goes beyond sport or subsistence hunting, which are currently allowed in some park units.

In addition to national parks that allow traditional forms of hunting, the National Park Service has a historic weapons program that would be silenced, contrary to what my good friend and the author of this amendment, Mr. Holt, says.

In 2011, more than 600 national parks participated in some form of historic weapons demonstrations. From cannons to flintlocks, the Park Service says this program is ``undeniably popular with visitors'' and drew just less than a million visitors to various national parks around the country last year.

At Fort Vancouver National Park in Oregon and Washington, for example, both rangers and volunteers regularly fire muskets and cannons to demonstrate the historic role these weapons played in the history of the site.

One of the most popular public participation events in many parks involves the reenactment of historic battles. Thousands of reenactors participate. They use their own historically accurate weapons and costumes to re-create, on location, the great battles that took place at our Civil War sites. For many of those who participate or come to watch, these educational passions are the favorite of the national park events.

It was on this week, 237 years ago, that General Thomas Gage, the Royal Governor in Boston, sent his troops to confiscate the patriot weapons at Lexington and Concord. And at the Minuteman National Historic Park today, a living history event is conducted in which volunteers are permitted to bring reproductions of the flintlock muskets, pistols, and percussion cap weapons their ancestors used during the first battle for our independence.

At a time when the National Park Service is running a multibillion dollar maintenance backlog, the Holt amendment will disarm it of its real draw. So I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and to allow the Park Service to continue the tradition of educating visitors about our proud American history.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield myself the balance of the time.

I beg to differ. I understand where my good friend from New Jersey is coming from. I'm sure that's what his intent is, but that's not what his amendment says. His amendment says that that activity has to be provided by statute at each facility, and that's simply not the case. We haven't done that. We blanket authority give that to the National Park System to carry on what is classified as pastimes, that sort of activity. He prohibits that unless it's provided by statute. He did not offer an amendment to say we should statutize every one of those at every one of the sites. That's the flaw in the amendment. It was brought up in Rules yesterday, and yet the amendment wasn't corrected and so here we are.

Now, I understand what he's trying to do, but the amendment does not say that. So I urge defeat of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, last year, the Bureau of Land Management decided that it would close a lot of the land it manages to shooting sports. The agency never explained why it wanted to do this, but one BLM official was quoted in a news article as stating, ``It's not a safety issue; it's a social conflict issue.'' He elaborated by saying that urbanites ``freak out'' when they hear shooting.

Now, after a public outcry on this, the Interior Secretary had to send out an order telling BLM to stand down on this regulation, but the question is really: For how long?

There is nothing that prevents the Obama administration from changing its mind--say, immediately after the November election--and again seeking to arbitrarily limit shooting sports. That's why this bill is necessary, to prevent such an arbitrary action by bureaucrats to limit recreational shooting, fishing, and hunting without justification.

The amendment by the ranking member of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands is even more arbitrary. While the amendment is drafted to appear reasonable, it is most certainly not. The devil is in the clever details. It appears to permit fishing, hunting, and recreational shooting, but in reality the amendment nullifies the actual purpose of the underlying bill to protect these activities.

First, one needs to understand that you could fit a lot of eastern States in a small fraction of our land that is BLM land. BLM controls 253 million acres of land, more than one-eighth all the land in the United States.

Second, the term ``public land'' used in this amendment has an expansive meeting. Legally, public land means more than national forest and BLM land. It also includes the Outer Continental Shelf. So, under this amendment, as long as fishing is allowed in any part of the ocean, no actual land need to be open to hunting; in other words, the 20 percent requirement could be satisfied in the Outer Continental Shelf.

Who hunts in the Outer Continental Shelf, Mr. Chairman?

Again, the bill we are considering today is about public land open to American people for outdoor recreation. That is a good goal. This amendment tries to hijack the bill by sending it 180 degrees from the intent of the underlying legislation.

So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, my good friend from Arizona said that suggesting in my argument that there could be a change in direction after the November election--and I'll paraphrase. He said that's preposterous. It may be. But I would just remind my colleagues that in a situation here several weeks back when it was not supposed to be recorded, our President was talking to the President of Russia.

This was recorded on an open mike when he was talking to the President, and again I'll paraphrase. He said, After the election, I'll have more flexibility on missile defense.

Now, on that issue, keep in mind, he had already given up the missile defense in Eastern Europe. Why would he want to have more flexibility for the defense of our country? The issue there is flexibility. And the issue is, if the President is going to use flexibility in that context, couldn't you apply the same flexibility to something that he has already done this year that has been reversed?

So I don't think it is preposterous. The flexibility issue, I believe, is going to be an issue that is going to be talked about a lot between now and November, and it could apply to a great deal of policies that we could be considering in this House. This is one of them because the administration has already said that these activities should make BLM lands off limits to target shooting. I don't know why that same principle could not be applied if the President has more flexibility after the election.

So I urge the defeat of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his talk and discussion about the long history and strong local support for this traditional form of hunting in his State.

The primary purpose of this legislation is to limit unjustified Federal bureaucratic limitations and restrictions on hunting and fishing in public lands. The circumstances that he has detailed demonstrate that his amendment fits squarely within the spirit of this bill, and I therefore support the amendment.

It is important to recognize that it is the authority of States to regulate hunting and fishing. Individual Federal agency personnel should not be substituting their opinion for the laws of the State.

Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman and I urge adoption of the amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act's authorization of appropriations expired at the end of fiscal year 2011. Our Fisheries Subcommittee intends to hold hearings on the reauthorization in this Congress. I think this would be the appropriate time and place to have the discussion which is the subject of your amendment.

I understand the gentleman's concern. Believe me, we have heard other concerns on the Atlantic striped bass. If the gentleman would withdraw his amendment, I can assure him that he will get a full hearing on the content of his amendment in our committee this year.

If the gentleman will yield, I thank you very much, and we will work together on

this. This is a larger issue, and I certainly understand the gentleman's concerns.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the section of the bill that applies to hunting and fishing was derived from the excellent bill offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek).

I have noticed that whenever a new wilderness designation bill is introduced and a subcommittee hearing is held, the sponsor testifies that his or her bill will not reduce hunting because hunting is clearly permitted in wilderness areas. And they are right. Nevertheless, when an anti-hunting group went to court recently to block hunting in the wilderness section of a national forest in Michigan, the Forest Service had to waste a great deal of time and money justifying the hunting permitted there.

Similarly, anti-hunting groups have sought to use the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, to entangle the land management agencies in NEPA's briar patch when the agencies allow hunting activity on public land.

Now I'm certain that many would agree that hunting and fishing on public land is not a new major Federal action that requires a full environmental impact statement. However, to protect sportsmen and to prevent the waste of resources that occurs when conservation dollars are diverted into defending against nuisance lawsuits, Dr. Benishek's provision gives clear statutory support to legitimacy of hunting on public land.

I believe from the beginning that the Benishek bill dealt only with hunting and fishing. It never authorized motorized travel or extractive industries, even though some environmental activist groups quickly made that accusation. But to allay any genuine concerns people may have, we worked closely with a wide variety of conservation groups and decided to include in the manager's amendment that was passed a provision that explicitly states that the relevant portions of the bill--and I quote from the amendment--``are not intended to authorize or facilitate commodity development, use, or extraction, or motorized recreational access or use.''

With that very direct language I can honestly say that virtually every major conservation group that is not anti-hunting supports the bill. I don't have time to read the whole list, but it does include the NRA, the Safari Club, the bipartisan Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, Ducks Unlimited, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

I think H.R. 4089, as amended, now has the support of the entire range of sportsmen conservation groups, ranging from those considered conservative to those that are quite liberal, and do not believe that the wilderness section needs any additional changes as offered by the gentleman from New Mexico's amendment. Again, the concerns expressed by the gentleman from New Mexico in support of his amendment, in my view, are unfounded. This bill deals squarely with hunting and fishing, and does not authorize motorized travel or mining or other such activities in wilderness areas.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

It appears that the argument here is that this language that we've drafted and passed in the manager's amendment is not strong enough. Let me read the appropriate words. In the gentleman from New Mexico's amendment, he focuses on the word ``shall,'' which, of course, is strong language. But he follows it with ``construed.'' Now that raises the question: Construed by whom?

Our language says very specifically that nothing in here is intended to authorize or facilitate any use regarding extraction. We say that is the intent of the law, very specifically. When you use the word ``construed,'' I dare say, Mr. Chairman, that you are opening this wide open to litigation, and maybe that is exactly what the gentleman intended.

By focusing on ``shall,'' he doesn't focus on the operative word, which is ``construed,'' because ``construed'' can be used by anybody outside in order to sue. We say very specifically, even though we didn't think extraction was part of this underlying legislation, but we say very specifically it's not intended to reinforce it. That was the reason that provision was in the manager's amendment.

So I urge my colleagues to defeat the Heinrich amendment.

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

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Unfortunately, the Antiquities Act is used more often than not to circumvent Congress' role in setting land-use policy or to foreclose any opportunity for anyone outside the White House to participate in whatever decision they make, including the affected States.

Unlike America in 1906 when the antiquities law was first enacted, we now have an elaborate set of other laws and regulations that require deliberative processes and procedures to be followed before any significant action affecting public lands can be taken.

I think the gentlelady's amendment would improve this process, and with that, I support it.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.

I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, a week ago or so, I said history repeats itself, and I said it in the context that we keep hearing the same arguments over and over and over again. History repeats itself, it seems like, every week. So here we are, right back from the district work period, and history is repeating itself all over again. We are talking about energy, but we are talking about the wrong solutions.

The reason we have an energy problem in this country is due to the policies of this administration. It is so simple. We've said it over and over. In fact, last year, we addressed the issue of trying to increase the energy supply, American energy, to create American energy jobs. Unfortunately, only a few on that side voted with us. Now the other side is starting to get it. Energy matters in this country. We need to develop American energy. This is history repeating itself. Vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 112, the budget resolution offered by my colleague Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, which cuts federal spending, faces our nation's debt crisis head on, and spurs economic recovery and job creation.

When President Obama was running for President four years ago, he promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his term. Instead, his spending policies have left the American people with our nation's first, second, third and fourth year of trillion-plus dollar deficits-- contributing more to the national debt than the 40 previous Presidents combined.

Unfortunately, the budget request that President Obama submitted to Congress last month is more of the same failed policies. It calls for spending increases to record levels, tax hikes on families and small businesses and still it adds more to our nation's debt for future generations to pay off.

President Obama's plan passes this compounding debt on to our children and grandchildren instead of making the difficult decisions necessary to protect our country's future. But at least he has a plan. The Senate has failed to even pass a budget in three years.

Chairman Ryan's proposal offers a real alternative to these failed policies. H. Res. 112 cuts federal spending by $5 trillion dollars. It takes on the true drivers of our debt--entitlement spending that takes up more than 60 percent of the federal budget--while strengthening Medicare and Medicaid so that these programs will continue to be available for future generations.

It reduces the size of the federal government to the historic average of 20 percent of the economy by 2015--allowing the private sector to grow and create jobs.

It reforms our broken tax code to spur job creation and economic opportunity by lowering tax rates, closing loopholes, and putting hardworking taxpayers ahead of special interests.

And it places our country on a path to pay off our national debt in as few as seven years. Americans need real jobs, real solutions, and real results--not more budget tricks or accounting gimmicks.

I strongly urge my colleagues to join me creating an efficient, effective government that spends less and serves better, by supporting the Ryan budget resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the serious state of health care in our country as we approach the second anniversary of ObamaCare.

When ObamaCare was drafted behind closed doors without bipartisan input and slammed through the legislative process in 2010, President Obama and Nancy Pelosi promised us that this government takeover of health care would allow people who like the health care plan they have now to keep it.

But I and my Republican colleagues knew better when we voted against the bill--and we were right. In the two years since ObamaCare was signed into law, Americans have already experienced significant increases in premiums, loss of choice in medical coverage, and less access for seniors to obtain quality health care.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office stated that as many as 20 million Americans could lose their employer-provided health care coverage as a result of ObamaCare--half of who are low-wage workers whom depend on their employer health coverage. Even the Department of Health and Human Services admitted that portions of the President's health care law, which were originally projected to lower costs, would in fact increase taxes on hardworking American taxpayers.

Americans deserve access to the quality health care they need when they need it and at a cost they can afford. Improvements must be made, but reforms need to focus on putting patients first and lowering costs. Lowering costs for hardworking American taxpayers can be achieved by expanding health care choices and tools to help families save, making it easier for small businesses to afford to offer care, ending lawsuit abuse, and protecting the doctor-patient relationship from government intrusion.

After several years of uncertainty and stagnant economic conditions, the American people need real solutions and real results. This cannot be achieved by budget tricks or accounting gimmicks that do nothing to help hardworking American taxpayers and only result in higher taxes and burdensome federal government mandates.

Efficient, effective government that spends less and serves better is the only answer to restoring genuine accountability and faith in our government. The House of Representatives has voted 25 times to repeal, defund or dismantle this law. It is my hope that before the next anniversary of ObamaCare, the Senate and President will join the House to repeal this trillion-dollar government takeover of health care and work on real reforms that lower costs for the American people.

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. 2087.

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 2087, an authentic, no-cost jobs bill aimed at removing government hurdles to economic development.

This bill by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell) would allow Accomack County in Virginia to move forward with plans to develop--and, Mr. Chairman, I want to say this very explicitly--not 32 million, not 320,000, not 320--a 32-acre parcel of land adjacent to a NASA airstrip into a technology and research facility.

Currently, the parcel has a restriction limiting use of the property to recreational purposes. This was a condition placed on the property when the county obtained the deed through the Federal Land to Park program in 1976. Unfortunately, the park has been of little benefit to the community. Though the county has made diligent efforts, the park has fallen out of use and is currently overgrown and unmaintained.

Now Accomack County has found a better way to serve its citizens, and has determined that with this legislation they can create hundreds of short-term and long-term jobs.

Mr. Chairman, again, this property is already owned by Accomack County, not the Federal Government. Congress created the program that allowed the county to take title to this land. The

purpose at that time was to help communities like this do exactly what the bill says it should do. Congress has the authority to do this, and it should have the common sense to allow the county to do this.

But there have been concerns raised that this bill would create a precedent leading to an avalanche of these types of requests. Let's be clear: This is simply one specific proposal dealing with one parcel of land totaling 32 acres--not 32,000, not 320 million, just 32 acres.

To put this into perspective, there are nearly 170,000 acres of land that have been transferred to State and local governments through the Federal Lands to Park program. Nothing in this bill would affect those other acres. This bill is narrowly focused, involves an extremely small area of land, and, frankly, it's unfortunate that this bill is even before us today.

However, I will state that there absolutely are instances in which communities and States would be better off if the Federal red tape on private land ownership was lifted, just as there are instances where reducing Federal landownership would be beneficial to local communities and States. Yet here we are debating this specific bill, and it is simply not reasonable to argue that the sky is going to fall if this bill affecting, again, Mr. Chairman, just 32 acres in Accomack County becomes law.

With unemployment still over 8 percent, Congress should be looking for every opportunity possible, no matter how big or how small, to create new American jobs. Gas prices are rapidly rising and families and businesses are struggling to make ends meet. Now more than ever, Congress should make it a priority to eliminate hurdles to economic development; and, Mr. Chairman, that's exactly what this bill does.

The gentleman from Virginia has given us an opportunity to immediately help a community with a plan to create jobs. We need to pass this legislation today, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2087.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the author of this legislation, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the cosponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris).

Mr. Chairman, I advise my friend that I have no requests for time. If he is prepared to close, I'll close.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the rhetoric on the other side of the aisle on the debate on this issue is rather interesting. Let me take a couple of the issues that were brought up and try to address them.

First, the issue of an earmark. Now, just to remind our body--we must have a very short attention span--but this House acted not too long ago on the question of earmarks and said we should proceed. That's why we are debating this bill. Why? Because H.R. 2087 does not contain an earmark. It is in full compliance with the earmark definition provided for in House rule 21 in the earmark ban that was instituted by the House Republicans in January of 2011.

Why is that or how is that? Because the House definition of an earmark requires that there be spending in some form directed to an entity. In H.R. 2087, we do not direct any spending of any money in any form. It has no fiscal impact. So, Mr. Chairman, to repeat once again-- we had this debate earlier, and the House confirmed that debate, by the way--there is no earmark in this bill. Let me make a couple other observations of the previous speakers that have spoken.

One of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle came down here and said it's been X number of days--I forget how many he said--without one job bill. Well, he's right, Mr. Chairman. There is not just one job bill. There are a multitude of job bills that have been addressed by this body, generally on a bipartisan basis. I might add, if you go back just prior to our last district work period, we passed some bills, which were a series of bills that had passed with bipartisan support, over to the Senate. I'd advise my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, rather than talking here about a lack of activity, go talk to your colleagues on the other side of the Rotunda over there and say: Move these jobs bills. That's what we ought to be doing.

Furthermore, if there are two big issues that the American people are confronted with today, it's jobs and energy. Way last year, we passed energy bills that created American jobs. Don't come down to the floor and say we have not addressed energy jobs. This House has done its work, generally with bipartisan support, but I will note that those that spoke on that voted ``no.'' I don't know what they want to do-- create government jobs? Is that the idea?

So, Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that, I guess in rhetoric and debate on the floor, you get all sorts of different takes, but the facts are the House has passed job-creating bills. They have passed energy job-creating bills. This bill here potentially falls in line with that. I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona does not help Accomack County create jobs, and that is the underlying purpose of this bill.

Recall that this property was obtained by Accomack County because the Federal Government did not need it or want it anymore. The Federal Government washed their hands of this land. Indeed, there was a deed restriction, but the underlying intent was to benefit the citizens of Accomack County. Today, we are acting again to help those same citizens by allowing them to use the property as they see appropriate.

This deed restriction was put in place 36 years ago, and it no longer serves as a benefit to the county. Just because we could demand that they give the land back to the Federal Government does not mean that we should do it, and demanding that they buy the land they already own makes even less sense. In the same vein in which Accomack County requested this land in 1976, they're back asking us again to help their citizens.

I understand the gentleman is looking out for the Federal Government--and I respect that--out of fear that somehow a small county in rural Virginia might take advantage of it. But I do want to assure my good friend from Arizona that the Federal Government and its countless millions of acres of land can and will go on without these 32 acres.

We hear time and again how grateful we should be for massive Federal ownership in the West and of the bounty of tourist dollars it produces. Now, in this very narrow example of 32 acres, perhaps you will see the blessing of local control and what you can do without Washington's central planning and land management.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment because it is unwarranted and does nothing to produce much needed jobs.

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

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

I would really like to commend my good friend from Florida on his very unique approach to this bill with this very unique amendment. But make no mistake. If it were to pass, the effect would be to hobble and to kill this job-creating bill, so let's set that aside.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would require appraisals to be conducted in each of the following years: 1776, 1865, 2013, 2017, 2032, and 2212. In this amendment as the amendment is written, these appraisals must be done in those years.

We did not have a Federal Government in 1776, for example. In 1865, Virginia was part of the Confederacy. That means, however, if we have a requirement to have an appraisal in each of these years, that would require that we go back 236 years and into the future 200 years before this legislation would go into effect.

Now, there may be a misconception or maybe a misidentification, I would tell my friend. I am Doc Hastings. I am not Doc Brown, the mad scientist from ``Back to the Future.'' I do not own, nor do I have access to, a plutonium-powered DeLorean that will allow me or Michael J. Fox to complete the complexities of this amendment. I can't go back 236 years; I can't go forward 200 years.

So, notwithstanding some new technology, I have to say, Mr. Chairman, in all sincerity, we should defeat this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the author of this motion to recommit clearly did not hear the debate. This land is owned by Accomack County in Virginia. It is not a transfer. It's a deed restriction lift. That's all it is. The land is owned by a county in Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, when we had testimony on this bill in the committee, the government of Accomack County testified, obviously, in favor of it, and they said they wanted this for industrial use. Now, this is local control. Doesn't the other side even trust local control, for goodness sake, in testimony in front of a committee?

I have to say also that history tends to repeat itself. In this body, it tends to repeat itself, it seems like, on a weekly basis. Now, why do I say that? Because the two issues that are facing the American people are jobs and the price of energy. Yet here we have a bill in front of us that would certainly create jobs. And what does the other side do? They want to put up more impediments to it.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I first want to note that the author of the motion to recommit voted for the bill out of committee without this amendment. So there certainly is some basis of support for this bill. But I find it very, very ironic that we continue to have what I consider impediments to job creation in this country made by the other side, because the other side has generally--not everybody, to the credit of some of those that understand energy creation--but generally they oppose all American energy.

Look at the vote on developing the resources in the Outer Continental Shelf. Look at the vote on developing resources in Alaska. Look at the vote on developing resources in the intermountain West. They have always been generally opposed to it on that side of the aisle. So now we have here in front of us a bill that would create American energy, and they want to put another qualification on it.

Now, the gentleman--as a matter of fact, in the debate he did somewhat mischaracterize because the amendment says ``materials.'' We don't mind, for example--one example, all of the rare Earth we need for high technology, we have to import it. And yet he would have us do it here when we don't even have a source for those materials. That's what this bill says.

So, finally, Mr. Speaker, let me just tell you what this bill does.

I will not yield. The gentleman had 5 minutes to make his case.

Let me just tell you what this bill does. This bill creates American jobs with American energy at no cost to the taxpayer. What else do you need to say? Vote against the motion to recommit.

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

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. 2842.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2842, the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act of 2011. It authorizes hydropower at existing Bureau of Reclamation facilities and, by doing so, it allows placement of hydropower generators on existing man-made canals and pipes that have already gone through extensive environmental review.

This is a bipartisan plan to create new American jobs, cut government red tape, and expand production of clean, renewable and low-cost hydropower.

This past weekend President Obama once again tried to claim support for an all-of-the-above energy production, but unlike President Obama's empty rhetoric, House Republicans are taking real action to prove our commitment to expanding all forms of American energy.

Americans have now experienced 27 consecutive days of rising gas prices, and now the national average is pushing closer to $4 a gallon. In order to address the skyrocketing prices, Republicans will continue to pursue an all-of-the-above approach that responsibly develops the natural resources that we have right here at home.

The facts are, Mr. Chairman, we have followed through on this commitment by passing through the House bipartisan reforms to break down government barriers to American energy production. Just weeks ago, the House passed a bipartisan jobs plan to vastly expand access to our oil and natural gas resources offshore and in ANWR. Today we're putting forth a plan to expand production of clean, renewable hydropower.

As families and small businesses across the country are worried about rising gasoline prices, they are also worried about escalating electricity costs. Rising energy prices are a drain on our economy, pure and simple. It increases business costs and makes everything we do more expensive.

Hydropower is one of the cleanest and cheapest forms of electricity. In my view, coming from the Pacific Northwest, where nearly 70 percent of our power comes from hydropower, hydropower is the poster child for clean, renewable energy. Unfortunately, as is too often the case, the Federal Government is one of the biggest obstacles to increasing the development of hydropower projects, especially small projects.

This bill would remove government roadblocks and streamline the duplicative regulatory process for developing small canal and pipeline hydropower projects on existing Bureau of Reclamation facilities. This commonsense plan would help generate thousands of megawatts of clean, cheap, abundant and reliable hydroelectricity. Furthermore, it allows for hydropower generation without a single new dam, and at no cost to the Federal Government.

Now, let there be no mistake. I am a proponent of new dams. But this bill rightly harnesses hydropower potential at existing facilities. Water users throughout the West will be empowered to develop hydropower at the Federal canals they operate and maintain.

It's once again important to note that this bill only allows for small hydropower projects on existing canals and pipelines. Such manmade facilities are already on what I would call disturbed ground and have already gone through extensive environmental reviews.

Furthermore, this bill is a revenue generator for the Federal Government. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, estimates that it will generate $5 million over the next 10 years through increased hydropower production and rental fees associated with it.

H.R. 2842 affirms Republicans' commitment to a true, all-of-the-above energy plan. It will create jobs in rural areas, lower energy prices, and expand production of clean, renewable American energy by simply getting the Federal Government out of the way.

This bill received bipartisan support in the Natural Resources Committee and is endorsed by the Family Farm Alliance, the National Water Resources Association, the American Public Power Association, and the Association of California Water Agencies.

I want to commend the bill's sponsors, Mr. Tipton of Colorado and Mr.

Gosar of Arizona, for their work on this.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 4

minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the sponsor of this very important legislation.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee that dealt with this legislation, the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to a cosponsor of this legislation and a very valuable member of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

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

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out what this bill does and the simplicity of this bill.

In 1902 when this House, along with the other House, created the Bureau of Reclamation, which was to reclaim the land--that's where ``reclamation'' comes from--it was designed to develop areas that heretofore did not have the resources with which to develop. Mainly, the resource they were lacking was water. And so the Bureau of Reclamation was created so that those arid areas, certainly my area of central Washington qualified as that because Grand Coulee Dam is a facility that irrigates the 500,000-plus acres in central Washington, but it was designed to develop areas that couldn't be developed before.

So now we have these facilities in place all over the West. They've gone through extensive environmental reviews in order to be put into place. Yet even with the technology that makes irrigation better and better and more and more efficient, there still is water in these canals that goes back to the river, in my case the Columbia River. It starts in the Columbia River and ends up in the Columbia River some 120 to 130 miles downstream. And during that process where the water goes to irrigate various parts of the project, we can better, more efficiently use that water by producing power, and that's what this legislation does.

Again, we have gone through the extensive environmental review to build the ditch, the canal. We saw pictures of that earlier. All we're suggesting now is we put something in there to capture the water power to generate electricity. It's no more complicated than that. That's all this bill is about. So with that, while there is an objection to the NEPA process, there is an amendment that will address that, and we will have more extensive debate on that.

But I would just repeat, Mr. Chairman, all of the building of the ditches, which is what really disturbs the land, that went through extensive environmental reviews to get to that point. We are now building within what we disturbed. Boy, to say that you have to have another process, environmental process, doesn't make sense, at least to this Member.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask my friend from California if she has anymore speakers on the debate portion of this.

If not, I am prepared to yield back and start the amendment process if the gentlelady yields back.

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

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Please put that poster back up again. That, I think, real-life example demonstrates why America is so fed up with what happens in Washington, DC. Here is a project that is affordable at $20,000, and so somebody wants to take that opportunity to perhaps make some money-- there's nothing wrong with that in our country--and you find out that the cost of regulation is 2\1/2\ times what the project is. Now, what certainty does that send to the marketplace that we want to do business? That is absolutely incredible.

And its environmental permitting costs here, in this particular example, which, of course, are exemplified by what? NEPA. And this amendment would take the waiver of NEPA out of the equation. In other words, under the bill that you have authored--correct me if I am wrong--that red dot, that red slice there would be dramatically, dramatically reduced; is that correct?

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I find this debate rather interesting because the gentlelady from Texas who spoke, of course, did not speak on this bill. She spoke on another piece of pending legislation that dealt with jobs. That's good.

That pending piece of legislation, I might add, had two components to it. It had the energy component, and it had the transportation component which, of course, is pending. We know that expires at the end of this month.

But we did pass the energy component of that bill which creates tens of thousands of jobs. And I just want to point out, Mr. Chairman, the gentlelady voted against that piece of legislation. Sometimes we hear mixed messages here, but I just wanted to set the record straight.

This bill is another extension of energy production and, of course, creating American energy jobs. And with that, I find the gentleman from Minnesota's amendment really very interesting, because what he is saying by his amendment is, unless the bureaucracy decides, by giving all this authority to the Secretary--and by the way, I'm not sure which Secretary it is because it's not delineated in the amendment. But leaving that aside, he is saying there will be no jobs unless--what? The bureaucracy decides there will be jobs. Now, how ludicrous is that?

But that is precisely where we seem to be today. And I think this is, as I mentioned earlier, this is one of the reasons why I think Americans are so fed up with what's happening here in D.C. with this sort of back and forth.

Let me repeat, this is infrastructure that is in place. There is water running through this infrastructure. All we're trying to do is capture that energy, at no cost to the Federal Government, and create jobs and lower the cost of energy. There's nothing more simplistic than that, Mr. Chairman.

So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

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. 1387.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1837, the Sacramento- San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act.

Like California, my central Washington district is heavily dependent on irrigated water to support my agricultural industry. I understand the importance of having a stable, reliable water supply. I've witnessed how government regulations and environmental lawsuits can create conflicts for people, and jobs are the losers. However, Mr. Chairman, I have never seen anything like the economic devastation that California's San Joaquin Valley has experienced as a direct result of Federal policies that restrict water supply and that created this man- made drought.

Mr. Chairman, in 2009, Federal regulations to protect an endangered species 3-inch fish led to the deliberate diversion of over 300 billion, Mr. Chairman, 300 billion gallons of water away

from the San Joaquin Valley farmers. This caused hundreds of thousands of acres of fertile farmland to dry up. It put thousands of people out of work, and it caused unemployment to reach 40 percent in some communities.

Last April, the Natural Resources Committee traveled to Fresno, California, for a field hearing where we heard directly from farmworkers and valley growers who have been devastated and seen their livelihoods pushed to the brink by this man-made drought. We heard stories of farmworkers who normally feed the Nation, being forced to stand in food bank lines to receive handouts of carrots--carrots from China.

Mother Nature temporarily rescued this region with historic precipitation last year, but another man-made drought is just around the corner if we do nothing. Rain and snow levels have declined, and just last week the Federal Government announced that the San Joaquin Valley farmers would receive only 30 percent of their initial water allocation for this year. This is unacceptable, and if Congress doesn't act now we will once again see farmworkers having to abandon the fields and return to the food lines.

Families and communities in California have waited far too long for Congress to act. In 2009, Mr. Chairman, and in 2010, Mr. Chairman, while this man-made drought was devastating California, the Obama administration and a Democrat-led Congress did nothing. Republicans are ready to act today on bipartisan legislation that will end this man- made drought and protect up to 30,000 jobs.

This comprehensive solution would restore water deliveries that have been cut off due to Federal regulations and environmental lawsuits. It will ensure a reliable water supply for people and for fish and it will secure water rights just generally, and it will save taxpayer money by ending unnecessary and dubious government projects.

I want to stress, Mr. Chairman, that this man-made drought does not just impact California but has rippling effects across the entire Nation. California's San Joaquin Valley is a salad bowl for the world and provides a significant share of fruits and vegetables for our country. The inability of these farmers to do their jobs would lead negatively to increased reliance on foreign food sources. Why, Mr. Chairman, would we want to do that?

Also, according to an initial analysis by the nonpartisan CBO, this bill will repeal and reduce nearly $300 million in Federal spending over the next 10 years while also generating nearly $250 million in revenue. To repeat, this bill cuts spending by $300 million and it increases revenue by a quarter of a billion dollars.

This bill is a chance to right the regulatory wrongs of the past, to end future man-made droughts, and to protect jobs and economic livelihood of farmworkers, farmers, and their families. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), the chairman of the subcommittee that developed this legislation on the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, before I yield to the sponsor of this legislation, I yield myself 30 seconds to simply point out that the statistics I used as it relates to unemployment come from Fresno County. That is a county where all of this was impacted. The statistics that were cited by my friends across the aisle were from outside that area.

The second point I want to make is that I have letters here from 14 senators and 18 members of the California legislature. I insert their letters in support in the Record.

Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act--Organizations in

Support

Water Agencies/Organizations

California Water Alliance

Families Protecting the Valley

Northern California Water Association *

Family Water Alliance

California Watershed Posse

Westlands Water District

San Luis Delta-Mendota Water Authority: Banta-Carbona

Irrigation District, Broadview Water District, Byron Bethany

Irrigation District (CVPSA), Central California Irrigation

District, Columbia Canal Company, Del Puerto Water District,

Eagle Field Water District, Firebaugh Canal Water District,

Fresno Slough Water District, Henry Miller Reclamation

District #2131, James Irrigation District, Laguna Water

District, Mercy Springs Water District, Oro Loma Water

District, Pacheco Water District, Pajaro Valley Water

Management Agency, Panoche Water District, Patterson

Irrigation District, Pleasant Valley Water District,

Reclamation District 1606, San Benito County Water District,

San Luis Water District, Santa Clara Valley Water District,

Tranquillity Irrigation District, Turner Island Water

District, West Side Irrigation District, West Stanislaus

Irrigation District

Placer County Water Agency *

Nevada Irrigation District *

El Dorado Irrigation District *

Exchange Contractors **

Modesto Irrigation District **

San Joaquin Tributaries Association

**

Kern County Water Agency: Belridge Water Storage District,

Berrenda Mesa Water District, Buena Vista Water Storage

District, Cawelo Water District, Henry Miller Water District,

Kern Delta Water District, Lost Hills Water District,

Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District, Semitropic Water

Storage District, Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District,

Tejon-Castac Water District, West Kern Water District,

Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District

Tehama Colusa Canal Authority: Proberta Water District,

Kirkwood Water District, Thomes Creek Water District, Corning

WD, Orland-Artois Water District, Glide Water District,

Kanawha Water District, Holthouse Water District, Cortina

Water District, Davis Water District, LaGrande Water

District, 4M Water District, Dunnigan Water District, Colusa

County Water District, Westside Water District

Bella Vista Water District

Reclamation District No. 108 *

Maxwell Irrigation District *

Sutter Mutual Water Company *

Provident Irrigation District *

Natomas Mutual Water Company *

River Garden Farms *

Glenn Colusa Irrigation District *

Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District *

Princeton-Codora-Glenn Irrigation District *

Chowchilla Irrigation District*

National Organizations

U.S. Chamber of Commerce

National Federation of Independent Business

Americans for Limited Government

National Taxpayers Union

Americans for Tax Reform

Citizens Against Government Waste

American Land Rights Association

Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council

Western Business Roundtable

National Farm Organizations

Western Growers

Family Farm Alliance

Agricultural Retailers Association

National Turkey Federation

National Cattlemen's Beef Association

National Agricultural Aviation Association

National Cotton Council

American Pima Cotton Producers

National Chicken Council

Milk Producers Council

National Onion Association

Supima

Western Plant Health Association

Dairy Farmers of America

Western Agricultural Processors Association

Irrigation Association

California Farm Organizations

California Wool Growers Association

California Cattlemen's Association

California Grain Feed Association

California Cotton Ginners & Growers Assoc.

California Citrus Mutual

California Olive Growers Council

California Grape and Tree Fruit League

California Dairies Inc.

California Poultry Federation: Foster Farms; Aviagen

Turkeys, Inc.; Zacky Farms; Squab Producers of California;

Willie Bird Turkeys

Apricot Producers of California

Allied Grape Growers

Almond Hullers & Processors Association

Local Farm Organizations

Fresno County Farm Bureau

Kern County Farm Bureau

Tulare County Farm Bureau

Kings County Farm Bureau

Madera County Farm Bureau

Merced County Farm Bureau

Fresno-Kings Cattlemen

California Businesses

Paramount Farms

Harris Ranch

Harris Woolf Almonds

Borba Farms

Land 0' Lakes

Sagoupse Enterprises LLC

Sagouspe Family Orchards I, II, III, IV

Lyons Magnus

Wawona Packing

Lyons Transportation

Triple J Partners

Ghost Ranch LLC

Old West Management LLC

Panoche Creek Packing, Inc.

Double D Farms

Penny Newman Grain Company

Chaney Ranch

Wind Fall Farms

Panoche Creek Farms

J.G. Avila Farms

Rock'n JK Farms

Sano Farms

Quad Knopf--Civil Engineering

Alvarado Building Group

Kingsburg Federal Land Bank

AGRI Crop Insurance Agency

Redding Electric Utility

Proteus Inc.

Aquarius Aquarium Institute

Ferguson Farming Company

Lost Wagon Wheel Ranch

Brooks Ransom Associates

Bettencourt Farms

Kings Ranch

Waymire Farms

Nelson Ranch

Triple J Trust

Westside Ranch

Freitas Farms 1

JHP Ranch Inc

Joseph G Freitas Farms

Brooks Farms

GCM Farms

Farmer's Fury Winery

Stone Land Company

Errotabere Ranches

Houlding Farms

Tea Party Supporters

Mark Meckler, Co-Founder Tea Party Patriots

Central Valley Tea Party

North Valley Patriots

Other Supporters

Stewards of the Sequoia

Kelly Lilies, Area Administrator, Catholic Charities

Tribal Governments

Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians

I yield to the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from northern California (Mr. Herger), an individual who unfortunately is leaving Congress after this, but who has been a leader on property rights in that part of his State of California.

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham), a new Member who represents part of this area that has been devastated and who was an integral player on developing this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), another Member from the West, and the chairman of the Western Caucus who knows this issue very well.

Mr. Chairman, here are a number of organizations that have written in support of this legislation on both sides of these pages; and at the appropriate time I, too, will insert them in the Record to show that there is broad, broad support for this legislation.

I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished majority whip, another gentleman from California who has seen the effects of what this man-made drought is, Mr. McCarthy.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I just want to point out that this bill came out of committee with bipartisan support, and we've had bipartisan debate for this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the author of this legislation, the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Will the gentlelady yield?

I just want to say to my friend that, as I am the last speaker on my side, I am prepared to close when she is done with her speakers.

Mr. Chairman, am I correct to assume that all their time has expired?

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

There has been much discussion on the floor about preemption. In fact, the previous speaker emphasized that in his close.

I am from a western State; I'm from Washington. If anybody should be cautious about preemption, it is certainly me. And I say that because I represent an area that has two over-half-a-million-acre, or half-a- million-acre, irrigation districts. So I understand about preemption and Western water law.

But in the context of today's debate, the California water system is unique. Here we have a massive Federal system, the Central Valley Project and a massive State water project called the State Water Project, and it operates as one combined unit.

This is what is very important, Mr. Chairman. The coordinated approach was requested by the State and codified by the Federal Government in 1986. That's when water law was preempted. They asked for it in 1986.

In 1992, it was further preempted by amendments to the law in the Central Valley Project in 1992. So what we did in committee is we offered an amendment that was adopted. Let me read the amendments by Mr. Tipton and Mr. Gosar, and it says:

Congress finds and declares that (1) coordinated operations

between the Central Valley Project and the State Water

Project, previously requested and consented to by the State

of California and the Federal Government, require assertion

of Federal supremacy to protect existing water rights

throughout the system.

That's in California. It says:

(2) these circumstances are unique to California.

Therefore, nothing in this act shall serve as precedent in

any other State.

When we offered that amendment, everybody on our side of the aisle voted for it. Only four on their side of the aisle, when they had an opportunity to make sure preemption wouldn't happen, they voted ``no.'' You can't have it both ways, Mr. Chairman.

So with that I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), the author of the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of the time to a member of the committee and somebody who has worked on this legislation, Mr. McClintock.

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

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on both sides?

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), the author of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, we only have one other speaker, and we have the right to close, so I'll reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of the time again to the author of this legislation, the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Chairman, and I heard the author of the amendment state something, and I will paraphrase, that he spoke to the chairman of the committee on the allocation of the water, and supposedly the chairman of the committee responded back ``take the water away.''

Number one, I do not recall ever having that dialogue with the maker of the amendment. But had he asked me, my answer would have been an equitable distribution of the water. So I just wanted to set the record straight, Mr. Chairman, because that's what I heard in the debate just previously.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, which has partial jurisdiction on this bill, I support S. 1134.

For over two decades, Wisconsin and Minnesota have been working on a plan to replace this bridge, which is over 80 years old. This two-State project has been delayed by lawsuit after lawsuit and by the interference of Federal bureaucrats. These nuisance lawsuits and bureaucrat attacks are all based on the fact that the bridge spans the St. Croix River, which was listed in 1972 under the Federal Wild and Scenic River Act. This bipartisan bill simply says that this ``wild and scenic'' label on the river, under Federal law, cannot stop these States from building a safe, new bridge.

It's as simple as that.

In regards to earmarks, which was brought up by the gentlelady from Minnesota, this bill has been reviewed and is in compliance with the earmark definition in clause 9 of rule XXI. The bill does not contain congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits. The bill is aimed at ensuring the Federal Wild and Scenic River Act doesn't prevent a safer bridge from being built. It affects multiple States.

So, Mr. Speaker, the people of Minnesota and Wisconsin have been waiting decades to build this project. Let's pass this bill and allow them to do so.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

With all due respect to my good friend and colleague from West Virginia, each person may have his own definition of an earmark, but we are governed by the definition in House rules, not by a cavalier ``quacking duck'' standard. The bill has been reviewed and is in compliance with the earmark definition in clause 9 of House rule XXI. The bill does not contain congressional earmarks. I know the gentleman has been very open about his support for earmarks, but we are governed by the rules of the House, and the ``quacking duck'' comparison does not stand here.

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

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. Last year, during our offshore debate, an identical amendment was offered, and it failed in the House by a bipartisan vote. In fact, 263 of our colleagues voted ``no'' on this amendment. Right now, under existing law, the Northern California Planning Area is available for leasing. It's been available since 2008 when gasoline prices hit $4 per gallon and the President and the Congress at that time lifted the offshore drilling moratoria.

I'll remind the House that in 2008 when gas prices were rising and the Democrats controlled the House, nothing was done regarding these $4-a-gallon gasoline prices until after the session ended and the President ended his moratoria and the Congress entered that moratoria. So going into 2009, there essentially was no moratoria that existed.

This legislation, then, aims to open up our Federal resources and increase energy production despite President Obama's failure to do just the opposite. This amendment would simply block additional areas from energy production in the future. The Outer Continental Shelf and the resources it contains are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. It belongs to all of the people of the United States.

The State of California--and I need to remind colleagues of this--the State of California's top import is petroleum from overseas. This amendment would block the domestic production potentially of petroleum off their coast--production that could be used to help California consumers and provide California people with jobs.

This amendment would do just the opposite of what the underlying bill intends to do, so I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I just want to tell my friend that going into 2009, there were no moratoria. And the reason there were no moratoria on the Pacific or the Atlantic coasts was because the American people demanded that we seek areas where there is potential resources of energy.

Why did they demand that of Congress? Because gas prices hit $4 a gallon and potentially were going higher. We are now in that same situation again. And this underlying legislation, as I mentioned, because the gentleman rightfully said there may not be resources off northern California because this legislation directs the Department of the Interior to offer leases where there are known resources, now, there may be some resources, maybe new technology will find it. We need to keep that option open.

But I think this amendment will start the precedent of blocking off areas when the American people want to have more American energy, more American energy jobs; and this underlying legislation will do precisely that. And I think this amendment will harm that prospect.

I will yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I believe that we should open all areas where there are potential resources. I would just remind my good friend from California that you could make the same argument in Alaska, and yet we drill off the coast in Alaska. You can make the same case that there are fault lines in southern California, and the gentleman knows very, very well that there are huge potential resources in southern California.

So the answer to the gentleman's question is, yes. I believe that we should keep these resources open for potential, and that's what the underlying bill does.

But I will yield to the gentleman if he wants to comment.

Reclaiming my time, I know that's what the gentleman says. I'm arguing against the precedent, like the precedent yesterday, where there's an attempt to block offshore drilling from essentially northern Maryland north, and that was defeated by the House. So what I'm afraid of in the long term is the precedent, and I believe we should keep these options open.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment really is not needed because you can look with a magnifying glass through this whole bill and you will see absolutely no mention whatsoever of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. There's nothing in here that impacts that.

I know the gentleman, my good friend from New Jersey, has a real passion for this particular fund--sometimes we don't agree on that, but, nevertheless, he has a real passion for it--but there is nothing in here at all that even talks about the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

I understand the gentleman wanted to make a statement--I appreciate that--and his desire would be to withdraw the amendment. So with that, I'll reserve my time pending his action.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. We have seen amendments of this nature multiple times throughout the debates, both in the committee that I have the privilege to chair, the Natural Resources Committee, and here on the House floor. And every single time amendments of this nature have failed, often with bipartisan votes.

The amendment would write into law the imposition of strict safety requirements as part of the lease terms. This amendment would override the judgment of two agencies that have the authority to set and enforce safety regulations. Those agencies are the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. I might add, these agencies within this administration have, on multiple occasions, testified that offshore drilling operations are being

done safely. This is post-BP, I might add.

It seems like the effort is to continue to try to divert attention away from the real issue of increasing American energy production, increasing American jobs, lowering energy costs, and improving our national security. How? By lessening our dependence on foreign oil.

Our good friends on the other side, they simply do not want to face the fact that this bill says that we can move forward with responsible oil and natural gas exploration and production here in America while, at the same time, ensuring that increased safety measures are undertaken. These are not mutually exclusive goals.

Republicans want to make U.S. offshore drilling the safest in the world so that we can produce more American energy, thus creating more American jobs and thus strengthening our national security.

As I mentioned, Mr. Chairman, amendments of this nature have repeatedly failed in the House. I hope it will do so again, and I urge opposition to this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I just want to point out to my good friend from Hawaii, after the BP spill we had a committee hearing down in Louisiana, and part of that was to ascertain the economic impacts in that part of the country, but also to work with or seek from the industry what would happen if there were, heaven forbid, another spill like this. The industry has responded by building a consortium, funding a consortium, I should say, in order to respond to a spill like this.

There were two of them that were testifying at the hearing that day. I said, In the event--and hopefully it doesn't happen--if there were an event like BP again, how quickly could you respond to something like that? Because that's what the issue is. You want to make sure that people respond if there is, in fact, another spill. And in both cases, both of them said they could respond immediately and probably cap it, something like this, in less than 3 weeks. That was over a year ago. I suspect now that that technology is even greater than that.

But my point is that we have the regulations. We have to have American energy and the ensuing jobs that that has created, and I'm afraid that adopting this amendment would hinder that. So I would urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment passed the House Natural Resources Committee last year in the form of stand-alone legislation on a bipartisan vote. My amendment would accelerate the development of clean, renewable energy projects on Federal lands by streamlining and simplifying government regulations while ensuring thorough environmental reviews.

House Republicans are committed to utilizing America's abundant and diverse energy resources to implement the all-of-the-above American- made energy strategy that we put forth last year. This includes utilizing our public lands for renewable energy projects. These projects have the potential to create thousands of American jobs, to generate economic benefits, and contribute to our energy security.

Unfortunately, renewable energy projects on Federal lands frequently get caught up in bureaucratic red tape. Regulatory roadblocks and burdensome lawsuits continue to plague and delay these projects, sometimes by many years.

This amendment will facilitate the development of clean, renewable energy on Federal lands by providing a clear, simple process for completing important environmental reviews.

The amendment would require an environmental review to be conducted

only for the specific location where the renewable energy project would be located, rather than requiring thousands of pages of environmental review for numerous different locations. This would significantly reduce the number of years it takes to develop clean, renewable energy projects.

So I want to stress that this amendment includes no subsidies, only the streamlining of government regulations. America has been blessed with an abundance of energy resources of all kinds. We all know that. And we should be actively looking to use these resources to create jobs and to improve American energy security.

So I urge my colleagues to support the renewable energy development regulatory relief plan I have, and support this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment because part of the process of creating American energy jobs is to reduce regulation.

I was struck when my good friend from New Jersey said that this amendment would lead to more litigation. For goodness sakes, when we heard testimony on this issue in front of our committee, the Cape Wind Project off Massachusetts testified something to the effect, and I don't have the exact testimony in front of me, but they are the poster child of litigation. Why? Because that litigation covered a very, very broad area.

This specifies where, if somebody has a problem with it, the regulations would deal with the specific area. This really clarifies the whole process more than anything else. So I urge adoption of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

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

This amendment was offered in committee markup, and it failed on a bipartisan vote simply because it was a bad idea. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, has one goal--to stop the development of natural gas on Alaska's North Slope. This amendment is completely unnecessary and irrelevant.

Currently, there is no way to export natural gas out of ANWR. There are no liquefying gas facilities on the shore. There is also not a single natural gas pipeline out of ANWR to transport natural gas anywhere in the United States. In fact, there are limited ways to export Alaska natural gas.

One of the preferred methods, of course, would be to build a pipeline to cross the U.S.-Canada border and then back into the United States; but under the gentleman's amendment, this wouldn't be possible. I might add, we all know how the gentleman feels about pipelines in general.

Another method would be to convert gas to LNG and ship it to the United States. I know the gentleman is well aware of this process because his home State gets about 40 percent of its natural gas from countries like Yemen, Egypt, or Trinidad. However, should Alaska choose to convert to LNG and try to ship it to California, this amendment would stop them from considering that because the import terminal in southern California is in Mexico, where they get their natural gas from Gazprom, which is in Russia.

The transportation of natural gas across Alaska is a tremendous challenge. As with any major pipeline in construction, the investment will be in the billions of dollars, but it would certainly employ tens of thousands of people. It is something that should and can happen. However, without a market for the natural gas, it is unlikely that this pipeline will ever be built. As mentioned, this amendment then would stop gas from reaching the U.S. markets both by pipeline and by ship.

On this side of the aisle, we hope that a pipeline like this can be built for all of the reasons that we have said in the past. We want the gas to come to America. Our hope is that this gas will displace the natural gas shipments from Russia coming into southern California and possibly even the Yemeni shipments to Boston. This is our hope, and that would be a challenge if this amendment were to be adopted.

This amendment goes against the main objective of the bill--American jobs, American energy and American energy security. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I am very pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. Chairman, I advise my friend from Massachusetts that I have requests from two other Members, so there are three including me.

I am very pleased, Mr. Chairman, to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).

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

My friend from Massachusetts makes a great point with great, great passion. I thought that the gentleman was arguing in support of the underlying bill. And the reason I say that is because the underlying bill opens up areas on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts for drilling for oil and gas.

The gentleman said yesterday that he is very much in favor of natural gas. There is natural gas off the north shore of the Atlantic. Shipping costs would be very, very little. I'm somewhat confused. But I don't think that the gentleman's amendment will accomplish what he says. But his rhetoric--I can tell you, Mr. Chairman--will accomplish what the underlying bill says, and that will make us less dependent on foreign sources of energy and create American energy jobs.

With that, I urge rejection of the Markey amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is virtually identical once again to amendments that have failed on the House floor by a bipartisan vote, and I'm speaking specifically of last year.

Let me give a little bit of a history. In 1995, a Democrat Senator and the Clinton White House negotiated the Deep Water Relief Act. The intent was to promote interest in deepwater leases. According to the 1995 law, the royalty relief is on the volume of oil and gas produced on a lease. While other royalty-relief provisions are dependent upon economic hardship, these are solely dependent on volume produced.

While the gentleman's amendment aims to fix the problem by including price thresholds, this issue has been repeatedly settled in courts of law and the courts have determined that including price thresholds to this law would be a violation of the contract law. The U.S. Supreme Court found that the Department did not have the authority to include price thresholds on lease agreements issued under the 1995 law. In fact, the Department of Interior has lost this issue in the district court, the appellate court, and the Supreme Court. Simply stated, including price thresholds on these leases would be illegal. If this amendment passed, the issue would almost certainly be challenged in court, where the Department would again use taxpayer dollars to lose again. Ultimately, this amendment seeks to force U.S. companies to break a contract negotiated under government law or else be denied the opportunity to do business in the United States.

The ranking member aims to back companies into a corner and force them to break an unbreakable contract. I think this is a bad amendment. The House has rejected it in the past, and I would urge the House and my colleagues to again reject it this time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

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

Mr. Chairman, there is a very important principle here, and that is a contract is a contract. You abide by what you negotiate under the existing law. And this existing law has worked its way through the courts all of the way to the Supreme Court. And in every case, the 1995 law in these leases was upheld. Why would we want to jeopardize and send the wrong message to those who would want to take the risk and make the investments under this law? It would send a very, very wrong signal, in my view.

Once again, this amendment has been defeated on this floor a number of times. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' one more time to defeat this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate my friend and colleague from Idaho for this amendment. And let me correct just one statement that was made just a moment ago. The geothermal industry testified in our committee in favor of this bill. But there seems to be a pattern here when we talk about activity on Federal land, which, of course, is under the jurisdiction of the committee that I have the privilege to chair. And if I hear it once, I hear it dozens of times, and we hear it virtually in all the testimony when we hear of issues that come before our committee, and that is the red tape that you have to go through to utilize our public lands for multiple-purpose use.

Let me just say this, Mr. Chairman. Our public lands were designed, unless Congress sets aside specifically, for multiple use. That means commercial

activity and that means recreational activity, a wide variety of activities. But when we have these other laws that inhibit that use, then I think it works against what the American people are trying to accomplish.

This is a very simple process that says, goodness, if you have a lease in an area, why do you have to have so much redundancy to do the same thing over and over again? I think this amendment is a good amendment. As I mentioned, it passed out of committee on a bipartisan vote, and I urge adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3408.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is one more example where the other side is playing politics with American energy and American job creation.

At a time, Mr. Speaker, when Iran is threatening a global energy meltdown, the Middle East is undergoing numerous uprisings, China's thirst for oil is growing and our consumers are facing rising prices at the pump, it's time to secure our own future with American-made energy.

The other side talks about energy security. This legislation, the underlying legislation, offers real opportunity to expand our domestic energy production and secure our Nation.

The other side talks about Federal revenue. This legislation would bring in billions of dollars to the Federal and State governments and bring tens of billions of dollars of investment into this country.

Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, while the other side talks about creating jobs for Americans, this legislation will create hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs for American workers. And while the other side cheapens these jobs by calling them temporary, we call these jobs what they really are--American jobs.

The underlying legislation sets out a commonsense action plan to secure our future, create jobs, and increase Federal revenue and investment into this country. Oppose this motion to recommit and vote ``no,'' and vote ``yes'' on the underlying legislation.

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

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. 3408.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3408, which contains the energy provisions in the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act. This is an action plan to create jobs that will vastly expand American energy production, lower gasoline prices, strengthen our national and economic security, and generate new revenue to help pay for infrastructure, and, Mr. Chairman, all without raising taxes or adding to the deficit.

In this year's State of the Union speech, President Obama proclaimed his support for expanding American energy production with an all-of- the-above energy strategy. Sadly, Mr. Chairman, the President's actions while he has been in office have been anything but pro-energy. In fact, his rhetoric--and I don't say this lightly, Mr. Chairman--is 180 degrees from his actions.

Since taking office, this administration has repeatedly blocked U.S. energy production. The offshore drilling moratorium and the Keystone pipeline are just the tip of the iceberg. He has canceled and withdrawn scheduled lease sales, shut off promising areas to new drilling, blocked mining in mineral-rich areas, and issued countless job- destroying regulations.

Mr. Chairman, actions do speak louder than words. The bill we are considering today is an action plan that clearly contrasts President Obama's anti-energy policies with the pro-energy, pro-American jobs policies of Republicans.

While President Obama has closed off new areas for offshore drilling, this bill will open areas known to contain the most oil and natural gas resources in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic Oceans. As a result, economic analysis has shown that well over 1 million jobs--long-term jobs, long-term American jobs--can be created.

While President Obama opposes energy production in ANWR, this bill will open less than 3 percent of the total area to responsible and safe drilling. That issue has been around a while, Mr. Chairman. ANWR represents the single greatest resource of onshore area production in the United States. This is one of the reasons that way back in 1980, when Jimmy Carter was still President and the Democrats controlled the Congress, they specifically set aside the north slope of ANWR for energy production.

Safe and responsible energy production in ANWR will protect the environment while creating tens of thousands of jobs and providing upwards of 1\1/2\ million barrels of oil per day. By the way, this is more than the U.S. imports daily from Saudi Arabia.

While the President has delayed leases and withdrawn over a million acres in the Rocky Mountains to oil shale development, this bill will set clear rules and require additional oil shale leases to be issued. According to the government estimates, this region may hold--and, Mr. Chairman, this is a significant number. This region may hold more than 1\1/2\ trillion barrels of oil equivalent. That's six times Saudi Arabia's proven reserves and enough to provide the United States with energy for the next 200 years. And I'm just

talking about oil shale. Robust oil shale development could also create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and that should be self-evident.

Finally, while the President refused to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, this bill would require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, to approve it within 30 days. The Keystone XL pipeline will create more than 20,000 American jobs and displace less stable energy imports with millions of barrels of safe and secure North American oil.

Since this President took office, Mr. Chairman, gasoline prices have climbed by 91 percent. Meanwhile, Iran is threatening to close off the Strait of Hormuz, which is responsible for transportation of almost 17 million barrels of oil a day, or 20 percent of all oil traded. Prices will only climb higher if we don't take action now to increase our energy independence and develop our own energy resources.

Today, Mr. Chairman, Republicans are moving forward with a plan to create more jobs and create more American energy.

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

I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the former chairman of the Natural Resources Committee and the former chairman of the Transportation Committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

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

I yield the gentleman another 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, Senator Inhofe's quote has been thrown around here recently. Let me give another quote by Senator Inhofe:

As I have said, we can make great strides toward increasing

North American energy independence by developing our own

domestic resources. We can do this and support millions of

American jobs, produce affordable energy for consumers, and

reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

He said that in March 2010. I think that's important.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make one other point. There's been an implication here that it has been the policies of this administration that have increased oil and gas supplies; but if you look at the President's own budget that came out this week, there are two aspects of revenue coming in from oil and gas production. You have the lease sales, and you have the royalties. If you look at the President's own budget that came out just 2 days ago, you will see that this year and in the out-years, money coming in from lease sales decreases. That means that the policy of this administration is not more energy production on public lands. It's less.

He has taken advantage of the situation that's going on on State and private lands and is taking credit for it with what's happened in North Dakota. This plan here puts together a solid footing for American energy production on public lands.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

My intent, Mr. Chairman, is to hold that 1\1/2\ minutes at the end of the overall debate in case the gentleman says something that needs to be responded to.

I reserve my remaining 1\1/2\ minutes until the end of the overall debate.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this is essentially a technical manager's amendment making changes agreed to with the Armed Services Committee in order to ensure that we are fully respecting the needs of our Nation's military.

It adds further protections to those already included through the bill to ensure any production and our Nation's national defense cooperatively coexist in our Nation's offshore areas.

This amendment also includes a slight adjustment to the timing of the leasing of one offshore area off the coast of Alaska. In fact, it moves it back to 2015.

So these have been talked over with the minority. I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would totally agree with you. Progress in any way is beneficial. So I appreciate the gentleman's accepting the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, according to the U.S. Census, the State of California's largest import is petroleum. Let me repeat that, Mr. Chairman. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the State of California's largest import is petroleum. So I guess it's a good thing that private geologists estimate that over 1.6 billion barrels of American-made energy are ready and waiting to be developed from existing infrastructure in southern California.

What does existing infrastructure mean? Well, there are currently about 23 oil and gas platforms located offshore in southern California which account for about 24 million barrels of oil and 47 billion cubic feet of gas annually. The lease sale proposed in this legislation allows drilling from existing platforms or, to put it in another vernacular, those that are already in place. If we are going to have a serious discussion about offshore drilling, it makes perfect sense to drill not only where there is already drilling going on, but from where the platforms already exist, which is why this bill specifically states: ``no new infrastructure.''

We need to drill where there are known resources, and this California lease sale is a commonsense way to limit the drilling footprint while accessing our resources that are known in southern California. In fact, Mr. Chairman, the State of California is already working with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management on a permit to allow a company to drill from an existing platform in Federal waters into State waters for State resources.

Let me say this: the State of California has entered into the same concept that's embodied in this bill. So let me repeat here one more time. It's Governor Brown's administration that is pursuing drilling off these same platforms closer to the coast.

Additionally, this amendment completely eliminates all coastal States and U.S. territories from receiving fair and equitable income for drilling that would occur potentially off their shores. This means States like Florida and Virginia will not receive any portion of any revenues for drilling that will occur off their coasts under this bill if this amendment were to be adopted.

The underlying bill is a drill-smart plan that directly focuses on those offshore areas where there are known resources. That includes the vast resources of southern California. This amendment would lock away significant resources that belong to the American people. It would keep our country shackled to the foreign powers upon whom we rely for oil and gas imports. It would also hinder our Nation's energy security.

This amendment also ignores the soaring gas prices that American families are facing at the pump right now. Many of those families don't have room in their budget to pay hundreds more dollars just to drive to work or drive their kids to school. And by the way, I might add, Mr. Chairman, I think if there is an epitome of an area in the country that does a lot of driving, it's in California.

We need to get America producing energy again. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and vote for the underlying legislation.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chairman?

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate once again--and this is understanding that people in our great country have different views--I certainly understand what happened in southern California some 40 years ago. Listen, that picture is indelibly in everybody's mind. But nobody can argue there have not been advances in oil exploration in this country, and certainly in the OCS. But as a recognition of that, in this bill we didn't say just go anywhere you want to go in southern California. We said go to the existing platforms where you're drilling and existing infrastructure where there has been drilling.

Now, that seems to me to be a perfectly acceptable way to utilize the resources that we have--by the way, in Federal waters, not in State waters, in Federal waters--so that we can make ourselves less dependent on foreign energy.

The last thing I would say is the State of California is pursuing precisely the same thing that's embodied in this underlying bill, only in State waters.

So I urge my colleagues to oppose my good friend's amendment from southern California.

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

Mr. Chairman, just a point. The issue is not claiming time in the minority or majority. The time is in opposition, and with that in mind, I would rise to claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The gentleman's amendment will conduct this economic impact study only for the Eastern Gulf of Mexico OCS Planning Area, as defined in the bill. I understand and appreciate the gentleman's interest in protecting the multiple use of the OCS, and I join him in that interest. For decades, tourism, fishing, and oil and gas drilling have been compatible in the Gulf of Mexico, and there's no reason that the new areas opened up under this bill would not operate in the same way.

While I understand the interests of the gentleman to have this study for those areas in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, I wish that he could have expanded the study to jobs that could have been created by new drilling and the support that comes with that activity.

While that's not embodied in the gentleman's amendment, I would only have to think that because you're having the study on that, there may be some residual, and I would look forward to that residual potentially also.

So I thank the gentleman and congratulate him for offering this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the Outer Continental Shelf and the resources it contains are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, and therefore it belongs to all of the people of the United States as a whole. These Federal offshore resources are unlike Federal lands and onshore resources outside the borders of the States. Each individual State controls several miles offshore of their coasts, and that varies State by State. But beyond that point, the Federal lands are owned by the Federal Government and its resources.

This bill, underlying legislation, is a drill-smart plan that directly focuses on those offshore areas where there are known resources. Federal assessments estimate that the North Atlantic contains nearly two billion barrels of oil and nearly 18 trillion cubic feet of gas. Using modern technology, it's highly likely that the find could be even more than what is estimated.

This amendment, then, would lock away those resources from the American people who, as I mentioned a moment ago, own them.

Not too long ago, the entire OCS was under moratoria. Offshore drilling in this country was prohibited. When the gas skyrocketed past $4 a gallon in 2008, the American people collectively said, No more. The American people cried out and demanded that Congress act, and we did by lifting the moratoria.

In fact, what the American people found out, Mr. Chairman, at that time is that we had tremendous potential resources here that we weren't utilizing. That's why they cried out and said, Okay. Let's end the several moratoria.

Now, this amendment proposes to reverse the will of the American people, to ignore the high cost of gas at the pump, to ignore that prices are again climbing towards $4 a gallon, and to ignore that our Nation's security is strengthened when we get our energy from here in this Nation and not from hostile foreign nations.

The American people want to increase American energy production and jobs, not stifle American energy production. Let's not forget that we are creating American oil and gas that can be refined and used here. Some of the States that want to shut down production off their coasts are the highest consumers of these fuels that they would have shut down.

Additionally, this amendment completely eliminates all coastal States and U.S. territories from receiving a fair and equitable revenue for drilling that would occur off their shores. That means States like Florida and Virginia and others that would like to participate could not receive a portion of the revenues for drilling that would occur off their States under this bill.

Finally, I would like to say this because we have had a long discussion today in debate, and I've heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, We love natural gas. I'm not sure if it was said with that same cadence, but the message was there.

Listen, Mr. Chairman, nearly 18 trillion cubic feet of natural gas lies off the Atlantic Coast. Can you imagine how much easier it is to get that to market than shipping it from someplace else?

So I would urge rejection of this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time since I have the right to close.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Two points, Mr. Chairman: first of all, the gentleman suggests that this Congress and this House, led by Republicans, have not done anything as far as safety offshore. I would just remind the gentleman that through the appropriations process there has been a tremendous increase in precisely what the Obama administration was asking for safety. The Obama administration has said essentially that it is safe, although I would argue they should be more aggressive; but they say it's safe to drill. So that argument I don't think really has a great deal of bearing.

But more importantly, I would say this: the port of Boston has a liquid natural gas terminal, and they are importing natural gas from Trinidad and

Yemen, hardly a stable community or country in the Middle East. Right now, right off the coast of Nova Scotia, just north of this area that we're talking about, there is natural gas drilling going on.

So certainly, if we want to be less dependent on foreign oil and foreign energy and we like natural gas, like a lot of my friends on the other side of the aisle have talked about, then we should reject this amendment and adopt the underlying bill.

With that, I urge rejection of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

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

The proposal of the gentleman from Louisiana has merit. I commend him for proposing it, and I do urge its adoption.

The goal of revenue sharing in the bill is to allow States the flexibility to use the money they want with their local States. If this is what the gentleman's State wants to use its money for, I have no problem, and I certainly agree with him. In fact, I would emphasize one other point:

Since I've had an opportunity to visit the gentleman's State and to see firsthand what it has done with the initiative, I think that it is a tremendous template for other States, which is precisely why, in the underlying bill, we have the component of revenue sharing. It is for other States to, maybe, emulate what Louisiana has always done.

So I think the gentleman's amendment is certainly compatible with what we're trying to do. It is a good amendment, and I commend the gentleman for that.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would just point out, the underlying bill vastly expands the number of States that would be eligible for revenue sharing to far beyond those four States that the ranking member mentioned.

But when our committee held a markup on this legislation 2 weeks ago, I pledged to work with the gentleman from Louisiana and Gulf Members to help bring parity to the differences between the existing revenue sharing currently enjoyed in the four Gulf States and all the other coastal States, which, up until this legislation today, as I mentioned, were not entitled to a share of the revenues from oil and gas production off their shores. Let me repeat that again. Under this legislation,

more States will have an opportunity to share this.

But this amendment seeks to bring existing revenue sharing in the Gulf more in line with the plan that was included in the underlying bill. And I congratulate the gentleman for bringing this amendment to the floor. I support it.

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

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, since the Deepwater Horizon tragedy, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement have put forward significant regulatory measures governing offshore drilling. This is very important, Mr. Chairman, because existing Federal regulations--specifically, 30 CFR 254.26--already require a worst-case discharge scenario in all lease applications, which includes an evaluation of economic resources that may be impacted. So that's in the law already, Mr. Chairman.

So I find it interesting that we have an amendment before us that we are debating on essentially legislation and regulatory issues that are already currently in place.

Let me make another point to hopefully point out the disconnect of what we are talking about because one of the issues that we are talking about here is the creation of American energy, American jobs, American security, less dependence on foreign sources of our energy.

This last January, for example, the State Department expelled the consul general of Venezuela in Miami for plotting a cyberattack on the U.S. Government. And yet here we are, debating an issue that could affect our getting to

be less dependent on foreign energy sources and ignoring what is the obvious. We, obviously, ought to be trying to be less dependent on foreign oil, and yet that debate isn't even going on. We are talking about a debate on an amendment that is simply redundant of current law.

I don't know why we are having this debate, but I think that the redundancy of it here--we always have a worst-case discharge scenario in current law. We simply don't need this.

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, since I have the right to close, I will reserve.

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

Mr. Chairman, from time to time there shows, really, progress in the course of debate. The gentleman from Florida correctly pointed out that my side of the aisle has some real heartburn on a lot of regulations. I'll be the first to admit that. Apparently he does, too, by his acknowledgement that we have that acknowledgement, and he doesn't want to be governed by regulations. So I think we're making progress, at least in that way, and I congratulate him.

But here's the point. On this specific issue, this Congress has responded, and to their credit, this administration has responded, not probably to the extent that I would like, seeing that the regulatory oversight on potential spills in the gulf or any place in the OCS will be responded to in a timely manner. That was done through the appropriation process by a Republican-led Congress. I congratulate the chairman of the Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations for doing precisely that.

But I will repeat again, in my view, in this particular case this amendment is redundant to what the law, through regulations, already is; and I would urge rejection of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 306) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to enter into an agreement to provide for management of the free-roaming wild horses in and around the Currituck National Wildlife Refuge, 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, in 2007, the State of North Carolina, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the County of Currituck, and the Corolla Wild Horse Fund completed a Wild Horse Management Plan for the colonial Spanish Mustangs that live on the 7,544 acres of public and private lands in coastal North Carolina. This plan expires in April, and the Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated that they will not sign the 2012 plan.

H.R. 306, authored by my friend and classmate Congressman Walter Jones from North Carolina, requires the Secretary of the Interior to enter into a new agreement within 180 days of enactment.

It will also stabilize the number of horses to no more than 130, allow the introduction of a small number of Shackleford Banks horses to improve genetic diversity, and will ensure that the Corolla Wild Horse Fund will continue to pay for the costs of caring for and managing these horses.

Mr. Speaker, these horses are living symbols of our colonial history. H.R. 306 ensures that they will survive in the future at no cost to our taxpayers.

I want to thank my friend from North Carolina for his leadership on this matter, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the author of this legislation, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

I urge the passage of this important piece of legislation for North Carolina, and I yield back the balance of my time.