Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to thank you for restoring a portion of the administration's proposed cut to the Richland Operations Office at Hanford in my district. I appreciate your willingness to work with me on funding, and I know the provisions on Yucca Mountain and MOX that are in this bill are also key to the Hanford cleanup success.

Madam Chair, the Richland Operations Office is responsible for many critical cleanup projects and legal commitments, and progress there has largely been a success. This represents a new model for cleanup. And it has been successful. It is nearing completion and will save taxpayers $250 million.

I am encouraged that the $235 million in this bill provided for cleanup for the River Corridor will focus on the 300 Area milestones under the River Corridor Closure Contract.

As the appropriations process continues, I look forward to working with you to ensure appropriate restoration for Richland, given the budget constraints that we have.

Mr. Chairman, this is my last Energy and Water bill, yet I am confident that Hanford has a friend and an advocate in your leadership.

When it comes to the other project at Hanford, the Office of River Protection, there are a number of challenges. Among other things, I am hopeful that DOE and the State of Washington will reach an agreement on an achievable path forward for WTP.

I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.

I thank the gentleman.

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. 4899.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for offering this amendment.

In many ways, Madam Chairman, this is indicative of the bureaucratic hoops that people have to jump through. Now, keep in mind, this lease sale in Virginia went through all of the environmental hoops and then was taken off the roles, if you will.

Under current law, you have to jump through the same environmental hoops again, notwithstanding the fact that all of the work has been done. I say this is indicative of what goes on with the bureaucracy in a great many ways throughout our country, but this is especially, I think, troubling to the people of Virginia because not only has their Governor and their legislature spoken very loudly that they would like to have an opportunity to drill offshore, to deny them that opportunity because of what I would call a bureaucratic morass of having to jump

through hoops doesn't make any sense at all.

I think the gentleman's amendment makes immensely good sense, and I think it is something we should look at in a broader scale in a lot of other areas.

I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chair, I just want to make this point, which the gentleman from Texas pointed out.

What we are saying, essentially, in the underlying bill is that we are not going to fund an executive order. Now let's think about that. It is an executive order that has no statutory authority.

In many ways, this is one of the examples of this administration, I think, far overstepping its ability to faithfully execute the laws of the land. This may be one of those examples that the Speaker was alluding to yesterday when he suggested there may be a lawsuit coming from the U.S. House. Because there is no statutory authority for the National Ocean Policy.

What I find so interesting is that my friends on the other side of the aisle argue about how important the National Ocean Policy is, but when they controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency the first two years of this President's term, they did nothing with the National Ocean Policy. Why? Because there is a lot to be looked at in that.

So I think that opposition to this is something that we have done over and over and over again, and I congratulate the gentleman from Texas for taking the lead on ocean policy.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. I think it is a very good amendment. That part of the South Atlantic needs to be treated, I think, as one entity just because of the nature of how the State lines are. I think the gentleman's amendment makes immensely good sense. I support it, and I thank the gentleman for offering it.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment.

I think, once again, the combination of what you and the gentleman from South Carolina said about the new technologies that will help us in the long run to develop our own energy resources makes immensely good sense, and I think this amendment adds to that process. I commend the gentleman, and I support the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, the offshore leasing process is managed by the Federal Government because the Outer Continental Shelves are under Federal jurisdiction; therefore, you have that regulation from the Federal Government.

While there is always process, I suppose, with any regulation, this process is transparent, and the Department is already required to publish a Federal notice prior to any lease sale. In fact, when creating a 5-year plan, the Department is also required to consult with States and localities, and this administration has just started its process right now for the time period of 2017-2022.

This amendment is really a red tape, paperwork nightmare. It would have an overwhelming burdensome effect on all existing offshore operations conducted today in the Outer Continental Shelf by adding an additional layer of bureaucracy and by requiring a notice for every permit application received. The amendment is so broad in its description of well enhancement activities that, essentially, every time a permit application would be received by the Bureau, it would then require a Federal notice.

Just think about that. Every time you have an action like that that requires a Federal notice, does it not logically suggest that that might be open to some sort of legal activity? Maybe that is, perhaps, what the sponsors of this amendment really want to do is to slow the paperwork down so much as to not have the activity of utilizing these resources. This amendment would inhibit offshore safety by turning the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement into a publishing behemoth rather than allowing them to focus on their mission of ensuring safe offshore operations to continue.

Finally, I would make this notation, Mr. Chairman, that all permit applications are made public on the Bureau's Web site--and I will just put it in as part of the Record--www.bsee.gov. Why add additional requirements to publish information that is already open and part of that Web site?

This amendment is unnecessary. As I say, I think it would add to the burdensome steps and hoops that one has to go through to utilize these resources that, I think, all Americans want. Keep in mind that the issue here is in the long term, utilizing our resources to become more energy independent and utilizing these resources in the long run to have a vibrant energy component of our national economy. You can't have a growing economy unless you have certainty in the energy sector. This amendment, from my point of view, would slow that process down, so I urge the rejection of the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, again, I rise in opposition to this amendment because of the burdensome paperwork that I think that this would create, but the gentlewoman made an observation that needs to be addressed because she does live in the Santa Barbara area--and yes, they did experience a spill there many years ago.

I would remind my friend from California that also within this legislation is language that strengthens the oversight in a statutory way of activities in the Outer Continental Shelf.

Currently, that is done, not with statutory authority, but with regulatory authority going back to the Reagan administration, so if the gentlewoman really wants to make sure that there is some certainty, so that we won't have these devastating spills in the future, I would invite her to join us in supporting this legislation because we put into law--statutory law--how we should regulate the offshore.

Again, I rise in opposition to this amendment because I think that it is too much--burdensome--from a paperwork standpoint, when the issue is to have certainty in the long term in the energy sector.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I obviously rise in opposition to this amendment, and let me talk about the underlying legislation.

The underlying legislation streamlines the judicial process to ensure that there are timely resolutions of lawsuits that seek to block and slow down American-made energy. That was what the whole idea was.

In fact, I referred to this in my comments on the previous amendment, where we have a lot of litigation slowing down the process, so the intent of the underlying legislation was to make sure that there was a timely response to this, so that there can be, again, some certainty in the process.

Now, what I find interesting--I think the gentleman from Florida makes some valid points as to what, perhaps, the interpretation of the underlying legislation, but I would remind the gentleman that--when this legislation was on the floor as an individual amendment--exact language was in here, the Judiciary Committee--who has jurisdiction, obviously, over this--waived their jurisdiction and felt that the language was very good.

I would certainly be willing to--if the gentleman has a way to maybe fine-tune that, I think that is something that we should look at, but-- and this is the important point here, Mr. Chairman, as we debate this amendment--his approach to this is like taking a sledge hammer to a fly.

I don't think that that is the proper way to go because he strikes the whole section dealing with giving priority and trying to get certainty in the judicial process, so I rise in opposition to the gentleman.

I will say to the gentleman, as this legislation moves forward and he has some suggestions--if and when the Senate, by the way, passes legislation and we can fine-tune this--to address, I think, some valid concerns that he has, while still making sure that energy-produced litigation is dealt with in a timely manner. I think there might be some common ground on that.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that his approach, by striking that whole section out of this legislation, is not the proper way to go.

Mr. Chairman, I urge rejection of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I just want to point out, again, that the Judiciary Committee last year did waive jurisdiction on this, but I do think that the gentleman makes a valid point.

We all know that legislation is a work in progress, many times. As I acknowledge, I think the gentleman raises the point; but, again, Mr. Chairman, the reason why this amendment ought to be rejected is because it takes out the whole section, and now, you are left with a situation where there is not a certainty whatsoever in these lawsuits.

I don't think that is a proper way to go, especially with the volatility of the energy market worldwide. When we have an opportunity to use the resources we have in this country, whether you are talking about offshore or onshore, to ensure not only the safety, but to add certainty to a growing economy, we should take advantage of that.

I would urge rejection of this amendment because I think that what we put in the underlying legislation is valid for what it is attempting to do.

Mr. Chairman, I urge rejection of the amendment, and 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, I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment, and I thank the gentleman for his kind remarks. I guess my career would never be complete unless we did this one more time.

But this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is identical to an amendment that failed 2 years ago in this House, and, I might say, it failed by a broad bipartisan vote.

I will also remind my friend from Oregon that this issue has been repeatedly settled in the Nation's courts of law, with the courts determining that rewriting the terms of these leases to include price thresholds would be a direct violation of contract law. That is what the issue is here really with this.

Now it was during the Clinton administration that this happened. And I agree with the gentleman; it shouldn't have happened. But it happened. And the courts have spoken very clearly on this.

The U.S. Supreme Court found that the Department of the Interior did not have the authority to rewrite these contracts that were issued under the 1995 law. And I will remind the gentleman that the Department of the Interior has lost this issue in the district court, the appellate court, and the Supreme Court.

Ultimately, this amendment seeks to force U.S. companies to break a contract legally negotiated under government law, or else be denied the opportunity to do business in the U.S. The amendment aims to back companies into a corner and attempts to force them to break legally binding contracts. And that, from my point of view, is essentially extorting these companies to undo these contracts.

Now, I want to, again, speak on this just a little bit broader. I would acknowledge that we have the right in this Congress to pass legislation to change that. After all, we are the body that makes the law. But there is a fundamental issue here that I think that we really have to address beyond this: Should Congress be passing legislation that breaks contract law when courts have said repeatedly that contract law should be inviolable? I think that is what the issue is here today.

I understand my friend from Oregon having perhaps some heartburn because this is dealing with oil and gas. I understand that. And frankly, I respect that. But I think that the larger issue here is that we should not be doing what we could do because I think that we should hold contracts, private sector contracts with government, in a higher area than probably some people think we should.

So with that, I urge rejection of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time and am prepared to close.

So at this point, I will reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of the time.

The observation has been made that these maybe should be renegotiated. Listen, Mr. Chairman, any contract can be renegotiated, as long as both sides want to renegotiate. But that was the law at the time. And what concerns me with this piece of legislation is that it implies there has to be a renegotiation.

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to some that they would say that this is the heavy hand of government forcing somebody to do something that they could do under law right now. In some areas, they call that extortion. They may not use that strong of a word, but I am sure that would be implied by some people if they were subject to this.

Again, this amendment has been rejected on a bipartisan basis for the last couple of years. The courts have ruled against this. I think we should follow with that.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make this point again. What does this amendment say? It prohibits the Secretary from canceling lease sales previously announced to be auctioned based on public comments received after the comment period was ended.

In other words, what the gentleman is simply saying is let's follow the law. I know he said that, but it is worth repeating. You have a comment period, then a decision is made. Once that decision is made, that should end the issue. Why? Because there is a great deal of capital that has been invested, and as the gentleman from Utah said, that is the certainty that our energy producers need.

Mr. Chairman, what was done in Utah with the canceling of those sales at that time I thought was totally wrong. It was wrong then, it is wrong now, and the court has found that.

Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is the product of a collaborative process between the gentlewoman from Texas and the Natural Resources Committee. For most of this year, the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources has held a series of hearings on American energy jobs focusing on the tremendous job opportunities and demand for educated and skilled workers in the oil and gas industry. A number of those hearings focused directly on veterans, opportunities for veterans, opportunities for women, and opportunities for minorities, not only in the industry, but also within the Department of the Interior.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment builds on that work by establishing an office in the Department of the Interior to centralize and focus specifically on the dismal record of the Department in these areas. And why do I say that, Mr. Chairman? I say that because we have learned earlier this year from a GAO report that the Department of the Interior has trouble staffing these agencies and fails to utilize all of the tools at their disposal to hire, to train, and to retain staff in these particular areas. And so what this amendment does is centralize what DOE should already be doing, with the focus on veterans, women, and minorities.

So I am prepared to accept this amendment, and I look forward to working with the sponsor on this and other areas that we can agree upon.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is another attempt to prove the unfounded position that speculation in energy markets is impacting energy prices. Last year the Massachusetts Institute of Technology released a study showing that:

Speculation had little, if any, effect on prices and

volatility.

So this amendment then distracts from focusing really on future energy needs in our country and increasing our energy supply and production in our country.

The underlying legislation simply ensures that American energy production can move forward to create jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign imports, therefore increasing revenues to the Federal treasury, and, of course, contribute to economic growth.

Instead, this amendment I think would waste millions of dollars to try to find proof that speculation increases energy prices--a fact that has been disproven.

I might add too, Mr. Chairman, that an amendment of this nature has repeatedly been defeated on a bipartisan vote in the committee, and not only in the committee but also in the full House of Representatives. I urge rejection of the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Since it was established in earlier debate that the gentleman from Oregon is a Red Sox fan, let me quote here from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which of course they are in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and probably most of them are Red Sox fans. I will conclude here again on the issue of speculation. They conclude with this sentence:

When we focus on four specific periods of price runups, we

find that speculation may have decreased prices by about 1.4

percent on average.

In other words, what the gentleman is saying, in suggesting in his amendment that we should be studying speculation because it raises prices, here is a report from presumably a lot of Red Sox fans who believe that speculation might have driven prices down. Again, we have gone through this before not only in the committee but also in the House. It has been rejected. I urge we reject it one more time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is one more procedural motion, and it seems to me we see a pattern here of procedural motions that distinguish the difference in philosophies between the two parties here. This is a good case in point.

It seems like the Democrats' response to higher gas prices is to what? Tax, tax, tax. Our response to higher gas prices is to create an American energy system that creates jobs, jobs, jobs.

Let's be clear. If you want to lower gas prices in this country, you produce more gasoline here. If you want to stop OPEC's influence in an international market, you produce more here, and if you want to create a growing economy that can sustain itself over time, you produce more energy here.

This is a MTR that does none of that. Vote against the MTR and the underlying bill.

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

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. 4899.

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

Americans are all too familiar with the economic hardships caused by $4 a gallon gasoline prices. I routinely hear from families in my central Washington district whose budgets are already being stretched thin and who can't afford the rising prices at the pump. Commuting to work, running the kids to after-school activities, and putting food on the table are all becoming increasingly difficult to afford. Yet the pain is not only being felt during trips to the gas station--high gasoline prices are a drain on our entire economy. That means that school districts juggle to operate bus routes, that cities grapple with the cost of sending police cars on patrol, and that businesses adjust budgets that can affect the hiring of new employees.

The good news is that $4 gasoline does not have to be our reality. The U.S. is blessed with an abundance of oil and natural gas resources that can lower energy prices and grow our economy. H.R. 4899, the Lowering Gasoline Prices to Fuel an America That Works Act, is commonsense legislation to responsibly harness the American energy resources that we have right here at home.

Mr. Chairman, the Obama administration has spent the last 5\1/2\ years placing our energy resources on Federal lands and waters under tight lock and key. Offshore areas have been placed off limits. Scheduled exploration off Virginia was canceled, and over half of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, or NPR-A, has been closed to energy production. That is why it is no surprise that, since President Obama took office, total Federal oil production has dropped 6 percent and total natural gas production has dropped 28 percent. That is on Federal lands, Mr. Chairman. Meanwhile, gasoline prices have doubled during this Presidency. H.R. 4899 would reverse this trend and unlock our American energy.

The bill would implement a drill smart plan that would expand offshore energy production and safely open new areas that contain the most oil and natural gas resources, such as the mid-Atlantic, the southern Pacific, and the Arctic. It would require the Secretary to conduct specific oil and natural gas lease sales, including offshore Virginia, which was delayed and then canceled by the Obama administration. The bill would also establish fair and equitable revenue sharing for all coastal States and improve safety by reorganizing the Interior Department's offshore energy agencies.

In addition to increased offshore energy production, the bill would help expand onshore oil and natural gas production on Federal lands. It would reform the leasing and streamline the permitting process, encourage the development of U.S. oil shale resources, expand the production of the NPR-A, and much more.

While these policies will help lower gasoline prices, they will also create over 1.2 million new American jobs and generate over $1.7 billion in new revenue. In other words, Mr. Chairman, this bill is a win for our economy and a win for jobs.

It is also important for our national security. The current turmoil in Iraq has already caused the price of gasoline to increase, and it serves as an important reminder of why we need to increase production here at home. The best way to protect ourselves from price spikes caused by international conflicts is to increase the production of American energy resources.

As The Wall Street Journal reported last week, the recent energy boom here in the U.S. is ``putting slack in the global oil market.'' A senior petroleum analyst noted in regard to the recent conflict in Iraq: ``If this were 2005, we would have seen a 20-30 cent jump in gas prices, but it's lower today because domestic energy production is much higher.''

However, all of the increase in U.S. energy production is happening on State and private lands. Mr. Chairman, let me repeat that. All of the increase in U.S. energy production is happening on State and private lands. As I previously noted, oil and natural gas production on Federal lands has declined under President Obama. We can and we should be doing so much more when it comes to American-produced energy, and doing so will further strengthen our energy security and reduce our reliance on foreign imports and on OPEC.

Finally, we need to take action now because the Obama administration just announced the start of work on the next 5-year offshore drilling plan. With this bill that we are considering today, Congress can advance a responsible plan for developing America's resources. The President's plan, on the other hand, closes over 85 percent of offshore areas to energy production and includes the lowest number of lease sales ever offered in a 5-year plan. The administration's restrictive policies should not continue for another 5 years. That is why there needs to be a new plan, as outlined in this bill on the floor, that opens new areas and helps to put more than a million Americans back to work.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4899 will ease the pain at the pump for American families and small businesses and eliminate Federal Government hurdles that keep American energy locked up. It is good for our economy; it is good for jobs; and it strengthens our national security. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), a subcommittee chairman on the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), another member of the Natural Resources Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

I will make a couple points here, Mr. Chairman. My good friend, the gentleman from Oregon, was right, that we have debated these issues on the floor before. We passed the bills--the offshore bill and the onshore bill, two separate bills--with bipartisan support. But there seems to be a pattern in this Congress that we are trying to break because we know that any legislation cannot become law until the House acts on it and the Senate acts on it. And those bills are over there awaiting action in the Senate. So hope springs eternal. Maybe if we put these things together and then have some reforms on the offshore regulation, maybe, just maybe, the Senate will come to some sort of epiphany and say, we will pass these bills together. So that is the hope that we have here, and hopefully that will happen.

Now, I want to make a couple of other points that have not really been made here in the debate today. We need to understand that crude oil is a global product and, therefore, is subject to global price pressures. But there is also one other factor that is rarely mentioned, and that is that the global market is largely controlled by one cartel, and that is OPEC. The last figures I have is that they control roughly 40 to 45 percent of the world market.

Now, we know from basic economics, where you are talking about other commodities where there is a cartel holding prices up, the best way to beat cartels is to out-supply the cartels. When you out-supply the cartels, you have less speculation in the marketplace, as has been proven over time. And the point that we are making here with the potential resources we have in America, we have the opportunity to start the process of out-supplying cartels. That is what is so important in this debate. And that is why we should act on these bills, and that is why the Senate should act on these bills.

And finally, the last point: when we do have leases in this country, it takes a long time, from the standpoint of when the lease is let, until you produce oil or produce any product whatsoever.

At the start of this administration, back in 2009, this administration had the benefit of the lease sales that went into place under the Bush administration. So this administration had the benefit of high production on Federal lands because of the work of the Bush administration for the 8 years before that.

But as I mentioned in my opening remarks, lease sales have gone down now, production has gone down, the fact that this 5-year plan that was just introduced by the President will probably take more time. I think we are going to see more of a decrease in production on Federal lands. That is why this bill is needed so much.

So, Mr. Chairman, this is legislation that the House has faced in the past and has passed with bipartisan support. We need to do it again because, with rising gas prices, this is an answer to the long-term rising gas prices and energy prices in this country.

So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the bill, 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 (S. 1044) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to install in the area of the World War II Memorial in the District of Columbia a suitable plaque or an inscription with the words that President Franklin D. Roosevelt prayed with the United States on D-day, June 6, 1944.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, S. 1044 authorizes the Department of the Interior to place a plaque in the area of the World War II Memorial with the inscription of the words President Franklin Roosevelt prayed on the morning of D-day. This is especially appropriate because, only days ago, we commemorated the 70th anniversary of D-day and the tremendous sacrifice of American and Allied forces on that day.

I would like to note that there has been some controversy in recent years over the omission of the words ``so help us God'' from the inscription of Roosevelt's address to Congress following Pearl Harbor. This legislation will go in the direction of easing those concerns with the addition of the D-day prayer.

The inscription will be modest in size to complement the existing World War II Memorial and will be paid for through private fundraising efforts.

Our colleague from Ohio (Mr. Johnson) should be commended for authorizing and moving the House companion measure of this bill in the last two Congresses. This is a Senate bill. Nevertheless, the gentleman from Ohio has his fingerprints all over this, and I commend him for that.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), the author of the companion House bill of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a good piece of legislation. In the last two Congresses, both bodies have acted on this. It is now our time to pass this legislation and get it to the President's desk.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4002) to revoke the charter of incorporation of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma at the request of that tribe, and for other purposes.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4002, which is sponsored by our colleague from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin), is a one-line bill to grant a request submitted by the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma to revoke its charter of incorporation, which was issued in 1940 under a 1936 act of Congress.

The charter of incorporation is a New Deal era legal instrument through which a tribe may administer its business activities. However, the tribe has never used its corporate charter because it imposes undesirable restrictions on its activities. It instead manages its business activities pursuant to the authority of the tribal constitution.

Only Congress may revoke a charter of incorporation duly issued to and ratified by a tribe. In accordance with the express wishes of the tribe's leadership, our colleague who represents the tribe in the House sponsored H.R. 4002. The Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs held a hearing on this bill on March 27, 2014. The Department of the Interior testified that it had no objection to the bill, and we see no reason for any Member to object to it either.

I commend my colleague from Oklahoma for performing this important constituent service, and I urge my colleagues to pass this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin), the author of this legislation.

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 412) to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the mainstem of the Nashua River and its tributaries in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for study for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

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

H.R. 412 authorizes the National Park Service to study 32.5 miles of river in Massachusetts and New Hampshire for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

The legislation requires that, in the course of the study, the National Park Service consider the effect of designation on recreational uses, such as hunting and fishing, but also consider impacts to energy production and transmission. I would like to note that this legislation exempts a 4.8-mile segment that is currently the subject of a FERC licensing proceeding to avoid the inherent conflict between hydroelectric facilities and the Wild and Scenic Rivers program. H.R. 412 requires the study take steps to inform the public of the consequences a future designation may bring. The study will identify all authorities that could be utilized to take property through eminent domain and those authorities that compel the Park Service to involve itself in local zoning.

Property owners must not be left in the dark as to the result of this Federal designation on their properties. For the study process to be authentically derived from the community, the facts and limitations on property rights must be revealed in the process.

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

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

I want to thank my colleague from Massachusetts for her kind words on this. I know that she has been working on this legislation for the past at least two Congresses, and she knows that some of us on our side of the aisle have some concerns with that; but in working with her, we have legislation that we can support, and I urge the adoption of this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

For the past 15 years, a large part of the success of the salmon recovery in the Northwest and in other States has been through locally driven solutions funded through the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, and I continue to support this program.

This amendment will ensure, however, that these funds continue to benefit salmon through on-the-ground projects, but without questionable buffer guidelines imposed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, as a condition of their use.

Agriculture is the background of my central Washington district, and it is estimated that these and other similarly imposed land set-aside guidelines by NOAA could restrict the use of vital crop protection tools on as much as 50 acres of farmland per mile. I am not alone in my concern about NOAA's use of unverifiable salmon buffer requirements in other instances.

Last year, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found similar NOAA salmon buffer requirements in a biological opinion that were based on scientific standards that ``did not always appear to be logical, obvious, or even rational.''

In my home State of Washington, over two dozen agricultural associations strongly oppose NOAA's recommendation of large buffers on agricultural lands, and one local recovery board group that has successfully used these funds to improve salmon survival in the upper Columbia River opposes mandatory buffers tied to these important salmon grant funds.

Let me be very clear. This amendment won't cut Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery funds, nor will it prohibit riparian buffers where they are appropriate, but it will ensure that NOAA does not make them a prerequisite for these funds to be awarded for on-the-ground projects, respecting unique geographical priorities of agricultural areas and locally driven solutions to salmon recovery.

So, Mr. Chairman, I ask that this amendment be approved, so that the Federal Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery funds, which have been proven effective over the years for farmers and local projects, will not be used as a backdoor way for NOAA to implement other controversial guidelines for these buffers.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I respect that, but let me clarify what is going on here because the gentleman, with due respect, represents an urban area, and I represent a rural area. That is self-evident. That is not criticism. I am just pointing out the obvious.

I thank the gentleman for that clarification.

I just want to make this point. These are suggested guidelines, and we have gone through this before. In fact, the EPA is working on this precisely.

I oppose what the EPA is doing, as a matter of fact, and most people on the ground.

I am just simply saying that through the funding mechanism, NOAA should not be able to impose these guidelines that have a great deal of controversy in the Pacific Northwest.

I know this is the start of this process. I know NOAA had some problems with the initial language. We changed that language now. They can't say they oppose this because this only affects particularly these guidelines that are being proposed.

So I think the amendment is something that needs to be passed, frankly, to send a message.

By the time we go through this process, if they want to have some other adjustments, when they make their adjustments, I would be more than willing to talk. But I think this amendment should be passed so we can send a message to NOAA.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate that. I simply want to say that these are issues that I know are unique to mainly the Western part of the United States.

But in many respects, the gentleman made a statement that really supports my amendment. Because he said the American taxpayers are spending billions of dollars on salmon recovery. That is true. So are the ratepayers in the Bonneville power system. They are paying billions of dollars for salmon recovery.

The good news is the fish runs in the last 5 years have come back in record numbers.

To be very honest with you, these guidelines haven't been imposed, and the salmon are coming back. So why

would you want to impose these buffer zones when it probably wouldn't add anything, and when a Federal court has said it is questionable science anyway.

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

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I appreciate, again, the ranking member working with me. But I think this is sufficiently important that we should adopt this amendment.

Again, I will point out the American taxpayers, as have the ratepayers, spent billions of dollars recovering salmon.

The good news in the Pacific Northwest, as I mentioned, some of the salmon runs are coming back in record numbers in the last 4 or 5 years.

So if there is something that is before the final part of this bill becomes a law, and there needs to be some adjustment, I would be more than happy to talk about it. But I think it is sufficiently important to send a message right now to NOAA to not impose these guidelines when the evidence is contrary to what they are trying to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3366) to provide for the release of the property interests retained by the United States in certain land conveyed in 1954 by the United States, acting through the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, to the State of Oregon for the establishment of the Hermiston Agricultural Research and Extension Center of Oregon State University in Hermiston, Oregon, as amended.

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

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

H.R. 3366 would release the Bureau of Land Management's reversionary interest in 290 acres that were conveyed to the State of Oregon in 1954 for the establishment of the Hermiston Agricultural Research and Extension Center at Oregon State University in Hermiston, Oregon. It would also reunite that land with a 6-acre orphan parcel that the Bureau of Land Management has no use for.

In 1954, the Federal Government conveyed the 290 acres affected by this legislation to the State of Oregon. However, the Federal Government retained a reversionary interest in the property which now denies OSU and the city of Hermiston the control and flexibility needed to efficiently manage the property to advance new agricultural research programs.

As Hermiston continues to grow up around this area, lifting the reversionary interest will advance the goals of Oregon State University, benefit the local economy, and create job opportunities to meet the demands of the expanding region.

Adjacent to the 290 acres is a 6-acre parcel of land that previously reverted back to the BLM and that currently stands idle. This parcel is the subject of an amendment being considered with this bill.

If it is not dealt with, it will become an orphan land parcel that is of no use to the Bureau of Land Management, and it will be a challenge to manage. The 6 acres would be better managed when they are rejoined with the adjacent 290 acres that this bill addresses.

Congressman Walden, who is from that district, should be commended for his work on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the author of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague from Oregon mentioned the Columbia Basin. My district happens to be just north of that. That part of the Columbia Basin that I represent also is a very plentiful agriculture area, and I am glad my friend from Oregon, just to the south of me, recognizes that.

With that, this is a good piece of legislation, and I urge its passage.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 503) to authorize the National Desert Storm Memorial Association to establish the National Desert Storm and Desert Shield Memorial as a commemorative work in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

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

H.R. 503 authorizes the National Desert Storm Memorial Association to establish a commemorative work on Federal land outside of the closed National Mall reserve in the District of Columbia to commemorate and honor members of the Armed Forces who served on active duty in support of Operation Desert Storm or Operation Desert Shield.

Over 600,000 American servicemen deployed for Operations Desert Storm and Desert Shield and successfully led a coalition of over 30 countries to evict an invading army to secure the independence of Kuwait.

This memorial will recognize their success, but it will also serve as a commemoration of those nearly 300 Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice on our behalf.

The work would be planned and constructed using non-Federal funds, and unlike recent monuments' proposals, it does not exempt it from the Commemorative Works Act, which was established to place standards and a process for the placement of memorials in the Washington, D.C., area. This is a good piece of legislation, and I urge its passage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe, the author of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good piece of legislation, and I commend Dr. Roe and others for introducing it and bringing it to the floor. I urge its passage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 611) to make a technical amendment to the T'uf Shur Bien Preservation Trust Area Act, and for other purposes.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, S. 611 authorizes a transfer of land between the U.S. Forest Service and the Pueblo of Sandia in the State of New Mexico. The bill would complete a series of pending land exchanges that were originally authorized under a 2003 law. The exchanges were intended to resolve the Pueblo's ownership claims to Sandia Mountain and to retain certain lands and interests in public ownership as part of the Cibola National Forest.

Some of the land exchanges were not executed because of a disagreement over land valuation. In 2009, Congress attempted to resolve this matter through a technical amendment but, in the view of the Forest Service, the bill did not resolve the land valuation dispute. So, Mr. Speaker, it is hoped that round two of the technical amendments to the 2003 act will conclude the matter.

The Committee on Natural Resources has reported the House companion measure to this bill, H.R. 3605, and we have no objection to passing S. 611 in lieu of H.R. 3605.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will advise my friend from New Mexico that I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close.

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

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Madam Chair, our nuclear weapons production programs played a pivotal role in our Nation's defense for decades. It helped end World War II, and it helped end the cold war. But these programs created a large amount of radioactive nuclear waste, and the Federal Government has a legal responsibility to clean up this waste.

This amendment restores a portion of the proposed reduction for the Department of Energy's environmental management program, which is tasked with cleaning up the nuclear defense waste at sites across our country.

Hanford's Richland Operations Office in my district is one of the defense nuclear waste sites, and it is facing a cut of over $100 million, putting cleanup progress and legally enforceable cleanup commitments at risk.

Even at a time of tight budget constraints, the Federal Government must meet existing legal obligations to clean up its defense nuclear waste. Existing legal obligations of the Federal Government, like cleanup of its nuclear waste sites, must be met before funding optional activities, regardless of how valuable those other activities may be.

By adding back $20 million for the defense environmental management program--a small portion of the overall cut--this amendment helps to ensure that cleanup can move forward safely, efficiently, and in a timely manner.

It would help ensure that the Richland Operations Office can complete the successful and nearly complete River Corridor Closure Project and meet cleanup commitments.

I might add that the river I am talking about that this River Corridor Closure Project abuts is the Columbia River, which is a main waterway through central Washington, so I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I am prepared to close, and so I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I simply want to say, Madam Chair, that the environmental management program is a program that is the result of our war efforts going back to the Second World War. As I mentioned in my opening statement, we won the Second World War because of this activity and won the cold war largely because of this activity, but developing nuclear weapons creates a tremendous amount of waste, and that is the responsibility of the Federal Government.

I mentioned Hanford, and I mentioned one of the projects at Hanford, and I want to remind my colleagues of how much nuclear waste is stored underground at Hanford.

Fifty-six million gallons of radioactive/hazardous waste is stored underground on the upper plateau at Hanford. If you were to quantify how much 56 million gallons would be, it would fill up over 20 House chambers.

This amendment does not address particularly that program, but I just want to remind my colleagues that cleaning up this waste is a massive, massive taking, and it must be done, simply because what the programs did initially by ending the war, so I urge

my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise to speak in favor of my amendment, which directs the Department of the Interior to provide the American public with reasonable motorized, non-motorized, and pedestrian access to the summit of Rattlesnake Mountain, located in the Hanford Reach National Monument. This 195,000-acre monument, designated by President Clinton in 2000, is near the Hanford Nuclear Site and is the only one in the continental United States managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Although administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the site itself remains under the ownership of the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management.

At 3,600 feet, Rattlesnake Mountain is the highest point in the region, and it provides unparalleled views for miles around the monument, including the Hanford Site, the Snake River, the Columbia River, and the Yakima River. Unfortunately, it took the Fish and Wildlife Service eight years to write a management plan that effectively closed Rattlesnake Mountain to public access, despite the vast majority of public comments favoring just the opposite.

After I first introduced this bill in 2010, the Fish and Wildlife Service offered two public tours for selected individuals and then suddenly reneged on the offer just days before the tours were to occur. During a 2011 committee hearing on the bill, the Interior Department's testimony suggested that the Fish and Wildlife Service supports tours of Rattlesnake, but very carefully didn't go the extra step of ensuring the Service would allow public access to the summit.

Finally, last summer, the Fish and Wildlife Service granted a few dozen people the opportunity to access the Rattlesnake Mountain summit over two tours. These were the first two public tours offered since the monument was designated. The seats for the 2013 tours were snapped up online in just 21 seconds of being made available.

This year, the Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing tours on six days, and used a lottery system to distribute the tickets. While I appreciate the Interior Department's tentative steps in recent years toward allowing the public access to this area, it's clearly not enough, and even the limited opportunities being offered now can be reversed at any time.

My amendment is necessary to ensure reasonable and regular public access can be guaranteed by law to the citizens of that area. This language is supported by many stakeholders in the local area including the Benton County Commissioners, the Tri-Cities Development Council (TRIDEC), the Tri-City Regional Chamber of Commerce, the Tri-Cities Visitor and Convention Bureau, and the Back Country Horsemen of Washington.

I would also note that this amendment has passed this chamber previously as stand-alone legislation. Last year, and in the previous Congress, this body approved this language on strong bipartisan votes with no votes in opposition.

I appreciate the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee and their staff for allowing this amendment to be adopted en bloc today. Hopefully, this will move us closer to ensuring the American people have access to special places on their public lands, like Rattlesnake Mountain.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 3080, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act. The provisions included in this conference report will enhance our water infrastructure and will help communities throughout our Nation.

When the House considered its version of this bill last year, it adopted my amendment to ensure that the Army Corps of Engineers could not carry out a new purpose under this bill without the consent of Congress. This amendment was offered in response to the Senate version's provision that allowed the Army Corps of Engineers to change dam operations irrespective of congressionally authorized purposes.

The conference report's Section 1046 before us today contains my provision to ensure that the Army Corps of Engineers cannot change dam operations without congressional consent. The provision simply authorizes a study to update and revise the 1992 report on Authorized and Operating Purposes of Corps of Engineers Reservoirs. Revisions to this report will correct erroneous entries, but it is important to acknowledge that a revision of a report does not amount to a de facto endorsement by Congress of a change to project operations. This is a fundamental requirement that must be honored for the entire federal power project and not just limited to the Army Corps of Engineers.

I would also note that Section 1046 requires the Government Accountability Office to conduct a review of the revision to the 1992 report to ensure consistency with existing law and regulations. This provision applies to the applicable regulations that are notice and comment type of regulations that require due process under the Administrative Procedures Act and enacted pursuant to a Congressional mandate. Internal policy pronouncements that are termed ``engineers regulations'' can be changed by the Army Corps of Engineers without notice to stakeholders. While engineers regulations are fundamentally important to the Army Corps of Engineers operations, they are predominantly policy statements that do not have the same authority as regulations adopted at the direction of Congress. The Government Accountability Review should bear this distinction in mind.

In conclusion, a review of an Army Corps of Engineers dam does not amount to a new authorization. Congress retains the authority and responsibility to adjust project purposes. A recommendation for a change, even if suggested by a report will still require action by the Congress.