Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 404) to preserve the Green Mountain Lookout in the Glacier Peak Wilderness of the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, S. 404 would preserve the Green Mountain Lookout in the Glacier Peak Wilderness area of the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest in my home State of Washington.

The Green Mountain Lookout was constructed in 1933 on the summit of Green Mountain for the purpose of fire detection. It was also used to look for enemy aircraft during World War II. While the lookout is no longer used for fire detection, it has, however, become a favorite destination for hikers.

Several years ago, after the lookout was damaged in a snowstorm, the Forest Service disassembled and removed the lookout by helicopter with the intent of replacing the foundation and reassembling the lookout. In 2009, the lookout was reassembled, again using helicopter.

But in 2010, Mr. Speaker, an environmental group from out of State, from the State of Montana, filed and won a lawsuit claiming that the repairs violated both the Wilderness Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. As a result, a Federal judge in Seattle ordered the Forest Service to remove the historic lookout. Elimination of this popular hiking destination by this order would have begun this summer. This bill puts a stop to that nonsense and it protects the lookout.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately this is not an isolated incident. Too often, lawsuits from extreme groups seek to close off public access to public lands, and too often bureaucracies are happy to comply with eliminating existing recreation from public lands. At times they even take the lead in pushing such restrictions. Credit, however, is due to the Forest Service for using common sense in this case. In other cases, such as the subsistence cabin of the Alaska Native veteran addressed also in this bill, or the halting of stocking fish in the North Cascades, which is the subject of another bill, common sense hasn't always prevailed, so it falls to Congress to fix the problem.

The House has already acted once on this piece of legislation regarding the Green Mountain Lookout, in February, by protecting this lookout. By voting on this Senate bill today, the House will send the measure to the President to be signed and to become law.

The Senate approved the measure by unanimous consent last week at the request of our Senator from Washington, Senator Patty Murray. This action was prompted by a visit from Senator Murray to the Washington State communities affected by the tragic mudslide that claimed the lives of over two-dozen citizens. The Senator called me a week ago last Saturday morning. When she asked what she and her congressional colleagues could do to help, the mayor of Darrington, one of the communities that is affected, asked for enactment of this bill to save the lookout. It is a small action that cannot undo the tragedy, but it will help protect a recreation and economic asset in this corner of Washington State.

It goes without saying to all affected by the mudslide that our hearts go out to those of you who lost loved ones, and our sincere thanks is owed to all who have assisted in the rescue, search, recovery, and rebuilding of that area.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my optimism that this is just the first of other bills affecting public lands that will become law this year. There has been bipartisan communication between the House and the Senate on finding agreement on a number of bills of local importance to communities across the country--bills to solve problems, foster economic development, and to protect historic and special places. Had not the special circumstances prompted action on this bill today, I am confident it would have become law soon enough. Senator Murray and I, along with Senator Cantwell, also from Washington State, have been discussing a number of bills of interest to our particular State. I hope and believe these will be among those that can be accomplished later on this year. It takes one step at a time, so I urge my colleagues to support this bill and send it to the President for his signature.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), who is the author of the House version of the Alaska provisions in this Senate bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I advise my friend from Arizona I am prepared to close if he is prepared to close.

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

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

This is a good piece of legislation. I want to congratulate my colleagues from the western part of the State for introducing it and persevering on it.

It is just one of those issues, as I mentioned in my opening statement, where we many times in the West get influenced by somebody out of State. This is just one of those classic examples. There is no reason why the lookout should not be there for the people that surround the community of Darrington, and for the people that hike in that area.

But so many times I have come to the floor, and colleagues on my side, arguing about lawsuits, especially from the environmental emphasis. This is just one more example that we are correcting. In fact, I hope we can have more of those in the future.

This is a good piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. I urge adoption of the legislation, and 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 H.R. 1459.

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

Mr. Chairman, President Obama has not been shy about his willingness or his desire to circumvent Congress and take unilateral action on a variety of issues. This lack of shyness includes the designation of new national monuments.

In fact, during the President's first term in office, an internal memo was leaked that showed plans to potentially lock up more than 13 million acres of Western land with the simple stroke of the President's pen.

Major land use decisions such as this should not be made behind closed doors and should fully involve the local citizens whose livelihoods would be directly affected by such action.

That is why, Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 1459, the Ensuring Public Involvement in the Creation of National Monuments Act, sponsored by our colleague from Utah (Mr. Bishop). This legislation would require public participation before a President can designate a national monument under the Antiquities Act.

Mr. Chairman, let me repeat this last sentence that I gave because this is the heart of the legislation. This legislation would require public participation before a President can designate a national monument under the Antiquities Act.

Over 100 years ago, the Antiquities Act was passed to allow a President to unilaterally designate national monuments without any input or involvement from the people, communities, or elected officials of the areas that would be directly impacted.

However, this authority was intended to be used under narrow circumstances and in emergencies to prevent destruction of a precious place; but unfortunately, we have seen this power abused by Presidents of both parties. It has been used as a tool to score political points, rather than to protect areas facing imminent threat or harm.

National monuments are one of the most restrictive of all land use designations. They can significantly block public access and limit public recreation and other job-creating economic activities.

The American people and their elected leaders deserve to have a say in which of their lands deserve special protections as national monuments and which should, instead, be allowed to contribute to the full range of recreational, conservation, economic, and resource benefits that carefully managed multiple-use lands provide.

H.R. 1459 would guarantee public involvement and ensure that the designation process is transparent by requiring all national monument designations made under the Antiquities Act to comply with the NEPA process.

Most, if not all, major land use decisions are statutorily required to go through the NEPA process. Designations made by the President should be treated no differently than those other processes.

I will openly state, however, that I--and many of my Republican colleagues--believe that NEPA is a law that should be streamlined and updated. However, this bill is about transparency and ensuring that the public has a voice.

So let me ask the rhetorical question, Mr. Chairman: If my Democrat colleagues believe that the NEPA is a worthwhile law that works and that NEPA is important, why should they oppose making sure that Presidential designations should not go through the same process?

This bill continues to uphold the original intention of the Antiquities Act, which is to allow the President to act in emergency situations. It protects the President's ability to act if there is an eminent threat to an American antiquity by allowing for a temporary emergency designation of 5,000 acres or less for a 3-year period.

After that time, in order to ensure public participation in the process, the designation would be made permanent if the NEPA process is completed or if it is approved by Congress.

The bill would also limit national monument declarations to no more than one per State during any 4-year Presidential term and prevent the inclusion of private property in monument designations without the prior written consent of the property owners.

National monument designations deserve public input from the people and communities who are directly impacted. This bill is necessary to stop unilateral actions by the President and ensure participation by the American public.

I commend subcommittee Chairman Bishop for his work on this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes now to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart), a former member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), one of my classmates.

Mr. Chairman, before I yield to my colleague from Wyoming, I want to address what the previous speaker mentioned. She was talking about the Tubman bill.

Had this bill that we are debating here today been in effect, we wouldn't have had the problem with the Tubman issue right now. The Tubman issue was designated as a national monument, but it didn't go through the local process, and as a result--as a result of that--there are flaws in that designation. Thus, the bill that the gentlelady from Maryland is introducing is to correct the flaws that were put in place because of the monument designation.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask my friend from Arizona how many more speakers he has.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), the sponsor of this legislation.

I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman.

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

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a couple of points. It is pretty hard to follow-up on what the author of the legislation did, talking about the history of this legislation and why there needs to be some changes. I thought he did that in a very, very good way.

My friends on the other side of the aisle, at least the previous speaker, but also others, have mentioned about different pieces of legislation that we have passed out. I understand that they are probably in opposition to having more exploration, making us less energy dependent with offshore legislation, with onshore legislation, and so forth.

But, Mr. Chairman, what wasn't said in that argument was that in every case, in every case the legislation that the gentleman lamented that we passed, we had a hearing in the committee. We had a hearing and went through the normal legislative process. When you look at what the intent of this legislation is all about, it is simply to have a hearing with consultation and transparency with those that are affected, nothing more. You may not like it, but at least you have that transparency.

Several Members said we haven't passed national park legislation in several years, and that is true. There is some pending, and obviously we hope to have that done by the end. But this point needs to be made, too. The National Park Service, by their own admission, has over a $10 billion backlog in maintenance. Shouldn't we, as the keeper of the taxpayers' purse, look at that and say before we rush on some of this, let's make sure that we can afford to maintain whatever is going to be ensuing next.

Finally, let me make an observation about my colleague from California, from Mendocino County, Mr. Huffman. He was saying that his community was very in favor of that monument designation that is going to happen, I guess, later on this year.

I don't think the gentleman, however, mentioned that that precise piece of legislation, which was H.R. 1411, passed this House on a voice vote. In other words, there is no need to make a monument designation for that because this House had determined that it was the right thing to do.

The problem is the Senate hasn't moved on that piece of legislation; so, on the one hand, they say we haven't passed legislation, and when we do, the President steps in and, I think, overstates his authority on the Antiquities Act.

I am sorry. Before I close, I did have another speaker. I apologize to my friend. If the gentleman wants to take more time, I will give him more time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I want to, again, make the point there of my colleague from California (Mr. Huffman). He had a bill that passed the House and is pending in the Senate.

There is no need for the President to go through this. All you have to do is pass the legislation which, by the way, had a hearing and was marked up properly in our committee.

This piece of legislation, I think, is a good piece of legislation. I think it corrects abuses that have happened by the way of Presidents in both parties over the years.

I ask my colleagues to support the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I think his amendment adds to this legislation, and I support his amendment.

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. 2824.

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

It is well-known the Obama administration has waged a long-running war on coal, which last year a White House adviser admitted ``is exactly what's needed,'' but this is not only a war on coal. It is a war on jobs, our economy, affordable energy, small businesses, and the household budgets of American families. Already faced with higher home heating costs, middle class families will be further squeezed if the Obama administration is successful in its attempts to shut down coal production.

One of the ways the administration has carried out this war on coal is through the reckless rewrite of a coal production regulation, the 2008 Stream Buffer Zone Rule. Shortly after taking office, the Obama administration discarded the 2008 rule that went through 5 years of extensive public comment and environmental review. Since then, the administration has spent over 10 million taxpayer dollars in working to rewrite this rule, including hiring new contractors, then only to dismiss those same contractors once it was publicly revealed that the administration's proposed rewrite would cost 7,000 jobs and cause economic harm in 22 States. A report released by our House Natural Resources Committee staff in September of 2012, following years of oversight and investigations, exposed the gross mismanagement of the rulemaking process, potential political interference, and widespread economic harm the proposed regulation would cause.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of the Interior's Office of Inspector General, or IG, released a report with similar findings. However, what is more troubling is that the IG has identified significant ongoing problems with the rulemaking process. To make matters worse, they are refusing to disclose those problems to us here in Congress. For example, there is an entire section of the report that we have received, entitled ``Issues with the New Contract,'' that have been almost completely blacked out. Despite our repeated requests, Deputy Inspector General Mary Kendall has refused to give Congress an unredacted copy of this report. In a letter, she states that the Department of the Interior decided that it should be withheld from the committee.

The IG is charged with being an independent watchdog for Congress. It is completely unacceptable and inappropriate for the IG to be taking orders from the Interior Department, especially about what information to withhold from us here in Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I don't take what I am going to say lightly. That is why, today, I have issued a subpoena to the Department's Inspector General Kendall for this information that she has withheld from us. If the IG discovered ongoing issues with the way the Department is currently conducting this rulemaking process, they have a responsibility and a duty to share that information with Congress now. The committee is not asking the IG for materials produced by the Department, but we are asking for materials and interviews produced by the IG's staff.

The Obama administration's rulemaking process has been and continues to be an unmitigated disaster. Despite having spent millions of taxpayer dollars, they have absolutely nothing to show for it and, to date, haven't even produced a draft. Meanwhile, States, industry, and America's coal miners are left in limbo, unsure of what the operating rules are on the ground. Without the 2008 rule, we are left with a rule that was put in place in 1983.

That is why we are here today--to consider H.R. 2824, the Preventing Government Waste and Protecting Coal Mining Jobs in America Act. This legislation will put an end to the years of ongoing waste and dysfunction. It will put in place a responsible process to ensure there is no rush to recklessly regulate.

First, Mr. Chairman, it stops the administration's unnecessary rewrite and implements the 2008 Stream Buffer Zone Rule that I mentioned took 5 years to put in place. It then directs the Department to responsibly study the impact of the rule for a prescribed period of time prior to initiating another new rule. This will provide certainty to the economy, to the individual States, and allow a clear examination of what may be needed and changed in the future. This bill will make certain that a new rule is written properly.

Now, some will attempt to criticize this bill for the fact that it puts in place the 2008 rule that was vacated on a very narrow technical ground by a Federal judge last month. There is really nothing new here, however, because this is the exact outcome that the administration has been seeking for over 5 years--to get rid of the 2008 rule. But let's be clear what the court ruling and, subsequently, the Department's actions really mean.

The court ruling strikes down the more protective 2008 rule and sets us back 30 years to a less restrictive 1983 rule. The 2008 rule is more modern and more protective in limiting the impacts of coal mining than the 1983 rule, but one Federal judge ruled that the 2008 rule must be set aside due to a narrow procedural technicality. This judge ruled, because the 2008 rule didn't have formal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service on possible impacts to endangered species, the entire rule

should be set aside and, thus, revert back to the 1983 rule.

Mr. Chairman, for the record, there were multiple meetings and discussions and consultations with Fish and Wildlife in proposing the 2008 rule regarding species when the 2008 rule was written, and it was done in a published and transparent fashion over a multiple-year period. Comments were taken and recommendations were made, but the bureaucratic process wasn't done precisely so, and as a result, this judge struck it down. Compare this conscientious effort, which was done to protect species in the 2008 rule, with the fact that there was absolutely zero consultation of protecting species in the 1983 rule.

What could be the responsible thing to do? Clearly, it would be to implement the more modern and protective 2008 rule. What does the Obama administration say? It says let's go back to 1983. Why should we go back? It simply makes no sense to discard a modern rule, where we know the ESA consultation took place, for a 30-year-old rule that we know had no ESA consultations.

Perhaps we should look to the people whom the Obama administration hired to write a rule of its own. In case notes that the committee obtained from the IG's office during their investigation, it quotes one of the current contractors, admitting, ``The 1983 rule was less restrictive than the 2008 rule.'' In the same case notes, it also states about the current contractor that, although she is a Democrat, the Stream Protection Rule appears to be an ``effort to kill coal mining.'' There you have it--straight from the mouth of the person who is working on the current rewrite--an admission that the new rule is an effort to ``kill coal mining.''

That is why we must take action today to stop this administration. Not only are they attempting to impose a new coal regulation that will destroy thousands of American mining jobs, but they have also wasted 5 years and over 10 million taxpayer dollars on a process that has been completely dysfunctional and misguided.

Enough is enough. Republicans want to create an America that works, and that requires access to affordable energy. If we do not stop the administration from implementing its new coal regulation, thousands of Americans will be out of work, and home heating costs for working middle class families will rise.

Let's pass this legislation to protect American taxpayer dollars, to protect American jobs, and to end this administration's reckless, wasteful rewrite by putting in place a responsible process that will allow a proper new rule to be written.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the subcommittee chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee dealing with this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), the author of this legislation.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), a new Member, not necessarily a brand-new Member, but a newer Member.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes, again, to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the chairman of the subcommittee dealing with this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).

Mr. Chairman, I would advise my friend from New Jersey I am prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on my side?

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, to hear my friends on the other side of the aisle argue about this, they are making arguments that are pre-1977. Now, why do I say that? Because they are talking about their perception of mountaintop mining or surface mining probably in general. Well, it is precisely that argument that led to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 under the Carter administration--with a Democrat Congress, I might add. So that bill passed to allow for surface mining.

Now, there is always necessary rulemaking that comes after that, and the latest rulemaking prior to the turn of this century was in 1983 under the Reagan administration. So the Bush administration looked because of some court test that maybe we ought to rewrite this rule; and, Mr. Chairman, contrary to what my friends on the other side of the aisle said that that was a late-breaking rule, it took 5 years to put that together--5 years to put that together.

So, as a result, because of this court decision that ended up vacating because of the technicality of the 2008 rule, the issue before us is this: Do we put the 2008 rule in place, which is what the focus of this legislation is, and then look forward to further rulemaking, or do we vacate the 2008 rule and go back to 1983? That is what the choice is.

What I find that is so interesting about my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is that everybody acknowledges that the 2008 rule is more restrictive--more restrictive--but they want to go back to the 1983 rule. I find that hard to understand, but at least that is what appears to be their argument.

So, Mr. Chairman, we think the responsible way to do this is to take into consideration what the Bush administration did for 5 years, looking at proper rulemaking that, by the way, looked into the Endangered Species Act. That is something the '83 rule did not look at at all. So we think that is a better way to put that in place right now. It is a more restrictive rule that industry understands, the States understand, and it is probably better for energy certainty in this country.

So I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

I find it hard sometimes to listen to this debate, especially when I hear my good friends on the other side of the aisle defending anything that the Reagan administration did. But they are doing it, so I will acknowledge that there is some substance there, but let me just go back to what I mentioned in my closing arguments.

SMCRA was passed in 1977. The Reagan rulemaking was 6 years after that. So there has not been an update on that rule--right now--for 30 years,

but it was more likely probably 20 years when the Bush administration thought it should be updated.

Now I want to get right to the heart of the matter and the reason that the environmental community does not like the 2008 rule and instead opts for the 1983 Reagan rule. They don't like it because the 2008 rule will provide clarity and certainty in the SMCRA process, which of course will free up job creation, meaning that there is going to be some certainty in coal production; rather, the environmental community would like to use loopholes that they found in the 1983 rulemaking to take people to court.

That is exactly why, from my perspective, that this amendment is offered, to go back to the Reagan times so there can be probably more litigation and less certainty in rulemaking of surface mining.

The gentleman mentioned, for example the 100-foot buffer zone. The Bush rule has a 100-foot buffer zone just like the Reagan rule. Nothing changed there. The only changes in the long run in rulemaking is certainty, and those who like to go to court don't like certainty. That is why I believe we have this improbable defense of anything that Reagan did, because they see that over a period of time there are ways that you can manipulate that to their advantage.

I think the Bush rule--which I said several times and is even acknowledged by the coal mining industry that it is more restrictive but has more certainty in it--is a better model, and it is precisely what this legislation does. It takes us to the 2008 rule.

This amendment takes us back to the 1983 rule, and I don't think that is a proper way to go. I urge rejection of this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Very briefly, and maybe we are caught here in semantics, but the issue--I have said several times and it has been acknowledged that the 2008 rule is more restrictive. My friend on the other side of the aisle and the author of the amendment said, ``Let me be clear, the 2008 rule is not as protective.''

I think when we are talking about protecting the environment, that ``restrictive'' and ``protective'' are probably synonymous in nature. So when we hear statements made by the industry that the 2008 rule is more restrictive, I take them at their word.

But, Mr. Chairman, I have to make this point and this point is very important because we need to have a certainty supply of energy in this country if we are going to have a growing economy. I am in favor of all of the above, and that certainly includes coal. Unless you have certainty in the regulations, you will not have an energy source.

As I have said right from the start--and as a matter of fact, many have acknowledged within the administration that this administration has a war on coal--this provides certainty. It is contrary to where the administration obviously wants to go because it does provide certainty with our energy production. So I would urge rejection of this amendment, which would take us back to a rule that would be more potentially litigious in nature to something that has certainty. With that, I urge rejection of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, before I speak directly as to why we should not adopt this amendment, let me respond to the rhetorical question that my friend from Pennsylvania asked when he said:

How can you say that this administration rule, which hasn't been promulgated yet, will cost jobs?

Well, I would tell the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, that there were leaked documents of the first initial rewrite of the 2008 amendment, leaked documents that said that the contractor that was hired by the administration to rewrite the rule came back with the conclusion that 7,000 jobs would be lost in 22 States. So what was the response of the Obama administration? They fired the contractor; it was the wrong message.

Now they are still in the rulemaking process. But, Mr. Chairman, I have to tell you, I doubt that the philosophy has changed from that very way because they are trying to manipulate which rules to follow to minimize what we found out in the initial go-round.

So let me just talk about this amendment. This amendment is not only unnecessary, it is actually harmful to protecting states' rights. Under SMCRA of 1977, State regulations have to meet or exceed the new regulation issued by the Office of Surface Mining. The gentleman's amendment would eliminate the ability of States to meet these rules by mandating that States can only exceed the OSM rules. This ignores both the history of Federal-State regulations with regard to rulemaking but also the need for flexibility in the States to meet the OSM rules while protecting their own geology, hydrology, and community interests.

Again, States already have the ability to change regulations to meet or exceed Federal rules with regards to all aspects of the regulatory regime under SMCRA.

We should not limit the ability to have flexibility in meeting the new rules. This amendment would mandate that you could only change that by increasing it. I think, Mr. Chairman, that is the wrong way to go. I think the amendment is ill-advised.

I urge rejection of the amendment, and 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 1 p.m. on Tuesday, March 18, 2014.

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. 3189.

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

President Obama has made no secret of the fact that he is willing to act unilaterally to impose new laws and regulations on the American people, declaring that he has ``a pen and a phone.''

Over the last 5 years, there have been numerous examples of what has become an Imperial Presidency. Under the administration, the reach of the Federal Government has extended into nearly every sector of our economy and ensnarled it in new red tape and regulations.

An egregious example of this is the Federal Government's concerted effort to take water away from individuals and businesses. Water is the lifeblood of communities and essential for a strong economy. Cities, ranchers, farmers, businesses, along with the jobs

they support, all depend on a stable supply of water to survive.

For over a century, there have been established laws upholding a State's right to manage its water and its water laws, but now, this administration is threatening to undermine those laws and seeks to take away private property rights--or private water rights governed under State laws.

Madam Chairman, that is why we are here today, to consider H.R. 3189, the Water Rights Protection Act. This bipartisan bill would protect private property rights from Federal overreach that threatens to take water supplies away from water users, such as ski areas, ranchers, cities, towns, and local conservation efforts.

This bill is responding to a very real threat as the Obama administration has sought to extort water from individuals and businesses through the permitting process.

Now, how is this done, Madam Chairman? Federal agencies are threatening to withhold permits needed to operate on Federal lands, unless private water rights are turned over to the Federal Government.

Put more simply, the Federal Government is holding necessary permits hostage unless water rights are relinquished; and they are demanding that water rights be signed over without payment, which of course is a violation of the Constitution's guarantee of just compensation.

Unfortunately, these businesses that are affected need both the permits and the water in order to operate, so what the Federal Government is doing is forcing them into an impossible situation where either choice puts them in danger of losing their livelihood or their businesses.

During today's debate, we will hear specific examples of businesses and families, including ski resorts and ranchers, who have experienced this heavy-handed tactic of the Federal Government's.

It is important to be clear about the risk posed by the Federal Government's action. This is not simply a threat to ski resorts and to ski areas located on Federal land as, I am sure, some will argue on the floor here today. The known problem is much greater. We have heard testimony in our committee to that fact, and the threat is not limited to one part of the country.

If a Federal agency can demand that a ski resort in Vail or that a rancher in Utah has to hand over his water to get a Federal permit, then a Federal agency can certainly do the same thing in other States-- Ohio, Florida, West Virginia. Water may be more plentiful in these regions of the country than in the arid West, but the Federal Government's appetite has no geographical limits when it comes to expanding its regulatory control and its disrespect for private property and the livelihoods of American citizens. This is a threat being felt first by the West, but the risk is real, and it exists for the entire country.

Madam Chairman, regardless of where the Federal Government seeks to take water and from whom it is trying to take it, it is simply wrong, and it must be stopped. That is why H.R. 3189 is necessary, and it is why the bill is endorsed by numerous national and regional groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Ski Areas Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Cattlemen's Association, the Natural Water Resources Association, and others.

Now, in the course of the debate, there will be claims and assertions made today that this bill is overly broad and that it will have a whole range of unintended consequences. Madam Chairman, I certainly don't blame those who support the Federal takings of private water rights from wanting to change the subject, but this bill is very focused. It has only one consequence, and that consequence is absolutely intended. It stops the Federal Government from taking the water of American citizens without paying for it. It does nothing else.

In fact, this bill carefully states that this prohibition will not affect irrigation water contracts, FERC licensing, endangered species recovery, national parks, or any other legal authorities. Important environmental restoration, wildlife protection and conservation work that has been occurring for years in a positive, cooperative manner-- and that is whether it is in Puget Sound, which is in my State, in the Chesapeake Bay, nearby here, or in the Florida Everglades--will all continue, and all are protected. Such efforts will not be changed by this legislation.

Madam Chairman, I want to thank and recognize the sponsor of this legislation, our colleague from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), for all of his hard work in advancing this important, commonsense, bipartisan legislation.

It is time for the legislative branch to exert itself on behalf of the American people and rein in the imperial overreach of the executive branch and this administration. No law gives Federal agencies the authority to take private property rights as the administration is seeking to do. In fact, the Constitution prohibits such takings. It is time to put an end to such tactics, so I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and send a strong signal to this administration--to leave private property rights alone.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the sponsor of this legislation.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.

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

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), a member of the House Natural Resources Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, I have at least four others, besides myself, that want to address this very important issue.

I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith)

another member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner), who I think was a member of the committee but is not anymore.

Madam Chair, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), a former member of the House Natural Resources Committee.

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), a member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Chair, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Madam Chairman, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I will advise my friend from California that I am prepared to close and will reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of the time.

Madam Chairman, let me just comment on a few points here that were made by my friends on the other side of the aisle. There was some concern about the timing of the hearing and the people who were invited.

I just want to make this point: when the hearing was held, we have to have advance notice. We had witnesses coming in from across the country, so we are going to have the hearing on the day we said because of the expense incurred by those private citizens who wanted to come here and testify to help protect private water rights.

The second point is this was a bipartisan bill, as my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Polis) admitted. He was an original cosponsor of the bill. Maybe that was a reason why my friends on the other side of the aisle did not call a witness for or against the original legislation.

I just wanted to make that point. The hearing was scheduled, and it had to go through because of the expense of the private citizens coming in to testify.

I want to make another point, too, that some of my colleagues have made. Several of them have said that this legislation redefines Federal water rights.

Madam Chairman, that is simply not true. If they read the bill, they would see that the definition is for the purpose of this act only, meaning that the definition is only for this act, so that doesn't hold up either.

Just about all of my colleagues on the other side that talked about the Federal lands and so forth--I will acknowledge that this is about Federal activity on Federal lands, but nowhere--nowhere did my colleagues suggest or say that the Federal Government had the water rights.

Why? Because that is states' rights; and as my colleague from Wyoming said: Yes, it is Federal land; but it is State water, and you have to mesh those together.

And finally--I think this is probably more important than anything else, and frankly, a debate like this has been going on for some time.

We agree--we agree, both sides--that ski resorts have been potentially compromised by the threat of the Federal Government saying ``no permit unless you give up water.'' Both sides agree on that. The question is, What is the remedy?

The big difference I think between the two sides is this. Their remedy is, well, the rulemaking isn't over. Let's find out what the rulemaking is, and then we will respond to it. Our side takes a different approach. Our side says wait a minute. We are the House of Representatives. We are part of the Congress. We make the law.

That is what this legislation does. It makes the law saying the Federal Government cannot extort, through the permitting process, State water rights. It is as simple as that. And so if we are going to continue to have the debate in this House on divisions between the two parties and what their philosophy is, frankly, I welcome this, because it appears every time we have a debate similar to this, their side says let the bureaucracy write the laws. We say wait a minute. That is not the way it is supposed to be. We are the Congress. We write the laws. That is what this debate is about here today, and I look forward to the amendment process.

In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It has been characterized as a Western piece of legislation, but as Mr. Woodall says, indeed, it is not. It affects all water rights which are the province of the States.

It is good legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for his work on the underlying bill and his amendment.

I support the amendment.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to commend the gentleman from Oklahoma for his hard work on behalf of Native Americans.

American Indian tribes rely on their water rights to provide critical supplies to their people and to promote and expand their local economies. These rights must be protected from Federal regulations that are designed to take water without paying for that water, and this amendment does just that.

This forward-looking amendment simply allows tribes to have the same protections that are afforded to others in the bill by prohibiting the Federal Government from using routine permits to extort private water rights. It also preserves the water rights guaranteed to tribes by treaty and by Federal reservation. Although this bill already does the latter, we believe it is important to clarify this important protection, so I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment. I commend the gentleman for offering it.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado for recognizing that the Federal Government's taking of water rights and economic collateral of ski areas is wrong. His amendment also acknowledges that Congress must act to provide long-term certainty rather than rely on vague assurances from bureaucrats that are subject to change at any time.

I also appreciate the gentleman's initial support for the bill as introduced. His attention to this matter and willingness to fight for the ski areas in his district is commendable and has certainly been noted by colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

However, the amendment he offers today completely undermines the bill he originally added his name to in support. The bill, as introduced and in its current improved form, protects private property rights for all--Madam Chairman, all--water users across the country, not just ski areas. By limiting the bill's scope to ski area permits by the Forest Service, the Polis amendment transforms the bill so that it favors one special group at the expense of all others. Ski areas under his amendment would be protected, but any other water owner or user anywhere in the country would be subject to Federal extortion. It frees the Federal Government to continue targeting the water rights of family farms and ranches and municipalities.

Madam Chair, it is not just wrong for the Federal Government to take water away from ski areas, it is wrong to do it to anyone. There should be no discrimination in this manner. The Polis amendment would eliminate protections for farms and ranches, our Nation's food suppliers. That is why the American Farm Bureau opposes this amendment and supports the underlying bill. The Farm Bureau's members have already been victimized by this Federal overreach, and this amendment would allow that to continue.

Because the Polis amendment is a complete substitute text for the underlying bill, it would strike out all of the protections currently in the bill. The Polis amendment would even eliminate the protections for the Indian treaty rights and Indian water rights that the House just adopted a moment ago with the Mullin amendment.

It is true that the ski areas have suffered greatly at the hands of this Federal overreach. For this reason, the underlying bill does fully protect ski areas, along with every other water

user. How many times do we have to say that? It protects ski areas and all water users, and that is why, as has been mentioned several times, the National Ski Areas Association wrote in February after the committee markup that it strongly supports the bill.

When it comes to protecting the water and private property of American citizens, the Congress shouldn't be picking winners and losers; and Congress should be making the law for that protection, not the bureaucrats. The legislative branch should act to protect all citizens of the executive branch.

It is for these reasons I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Polis amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the sponsor of the underlying legislation.

Madam Chairman, I am prepared to close. I have the right to close, so I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

I have to say, the debate on the underlying bill in this amendment I find rather interesting--no, maybe bizarre is better than that.

The issue here is whether we should protect the State's responsibility to write water law or allow the Federal Government to extort from private individuals that water. That is what the issue is all about here.

He had bipartisan support when the bill was heard in committee, but then it changed for some reason. Now, we have in front of us the Polis amendment, which would very narrowly put this protection only to ski areas and not to everybody else that has private property rights.

The consequences if this were to become law--which it is not going to, I am convinced, with this amendment--but the effect of this would be this: okay. Ski areas are protected this year. Next year, it will be a rancher that is abused, so we will come back, and we will write a law to protect the rancher.

Next, it will be a water conservation district someplace that will be affected because of the directive, so we will come back and fix that. Then it will be some municipality someplace that will be affected because they don't have water rights because it was extorted by the Federal Government, so we will have a fix for that.

Madam Chairman, there is a better way to do that. Let's just simply respect states' rights to regulate water law and to codify that with this language.

Finally, just let me make this observation. The effect of adopting this, as I mentioned in my opening statement, as it relates to tribal rights, what this amendment really does more than anything else is it puts ski resorts' water rights above tribal rights. That is really what the adoption of this amendment does.

So I would say that the underlying bill is a bill that is the responsibility of us as the legislative branch in this Congress. It deserves our support. This amendment does nothing to advance that at all and should be defeated.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill does one thing and one thing only: it stops the Federal Government from extorting water rights from private citizens and businesses without just compensation. That is what the underlying bill does.

But, Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that there seems to be a common thread here over the last several weeks--maybe even a year--on the differences of governance between the two parties, between this side of the aisle and that side of the aisle.

The reason why this is important as it relates to water law is simply because water law has always been the province of the States. There have been Federal courts that have said that over and over and over. Yet, when we come to the floor here, we hear constantly from the other side that there should be conditions on certain rights. This falls into that category.

The debate we had on the floor earlier was that there is acknowledgment that the Federal Government was taking water rights as a condition for permits. Their answer from that side of the aisle was, well, let's let the process go; our side was, let's respect the law. Big difference.

So now we have this motion to recommit, and if you look at the motion to recommit, it conditions, again, State water law. I think the best way that we should approach these debates is to say that we trust the people and we trust the Federal system, and the Federal system as it relates to water

law is that States' water law is premier. This motion to recommit is another attempt--another attempt--to qualify that, to give the Federal Government more authority.

I urge my colleagues to say ``no'' to the motion to recommit and pass the underlying bill to protect states' rights and water law.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 23) to designate as wilderness certain land and inland water within the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in the State of Michigan, 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.

This bill reflects decades of work, work by local citizens who organized to reject the dictates of the Federal bureaucracy and to protect public access and recreation. At the same time that this bill designates new wilderness, it also provides critical protections for the public's ability to visit and enjoy the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in the State of Michigan. Let me give you a little bit of background.

In 1981, the National Park Service proposed a general management plan for the lakeshore in Michigan. The plan was so restrictive as to be punitive towards recreation, and it sparked a local backlash. After years of collaboration, a new plan was agreed upon that realigned the wilderness boundaries to restore sensible public access.

This legislation would codify these negotiated changes into law and ensure the continued availability of roads for visitors traveling to remote trailheads, to beaches, to backcountry areas, and to historic areas within this geography. The bill also protects motorboater access to the shoreline. It specifically protects private property rights. It preserves hunting and fishing rights, and it does not expand Federal land ownership or add any additional costs to taxpayers.

As I stated, this effort has been going on for several decades. After the House votes today, this bill will go to the President for his signature in order to become law. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the real

credit for this legislation, even though it is a Senate bill, is owed to our colleague from Michigan, Dr. Benishek, for making this happen. He is the lead sponsor of this legislation, or the companion legislation, in the House of Representatives. Dr. Benishek has been a persistent and persuasive advocate for this local proposal.

As the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, which oversees this bill, I can state with certainty that it is because of his, Dr. Benishek's, bipartisan efforts that this bill will pass the House tonight. He has worked closely with both Republicans and Democrats, especially his senior Senator, Senator Levin of Michigan, to make this a reality. Without their personal efforts, today's vote would not happen.

Dr. Benishek certainly deserves recognition for this success, and I congratulate him and the people of Michigan, whom he represents, for this legislation.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek), the author of the House legislation which is the companion to what we are voting on from the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), another cosponsor of this legislation and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2259) to withdraw certain Federal land and interests

in that land from location, entry, and patent under the mining laws and disposition under the mineral and geothermal leasing laws and to preserve existing uses, 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 legislation under consideration.

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

The legislation before the House today enjoys bipartisan and bicameral support in Congress and the strong endorsement of the affected local communities.

Our colleague, Mr. Daines of Montana, is the lead sponsor of this bill, and he has championed its action here in the House. I can assure everyone that it is because of his leadership, his commitment and energy that this legislation will pass the House today. Mr. Daines has put the interests of Montana first and has been willing to work in a bipartisan way, with Republicans and Democrats, to get this bill passed.

Mr. Speaker, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act would codify protections of Federal forest lands in the North Fork watershed from development in accordance with the memorandum of understanding signed in 2010 between the Province of British Columbia and the State of Montana. Very significantly, the bill makes certain in law that existing uses, including public recreation, livestock management, and forest management are protected and not restricted. This bill will ensure that this region stays accessible for most of the traditional activities in this beautiful part of Montana.

Mr. Speaker, in 1988, the Ninth Circuit Court enjoined the Department of the Interior from allowing any activity on issued oil and gas leases in this area. Since then, no oil and gas development has taken place in this area, and several leaseholders have voluntarily relinquished their oil and gas leases within this area. The State of Montana has made clear its desire to partner with British Columbia, as I have mentioned, to protect this watershed. H.R. 2259 would similarly protect the Federal land located within this region.

Again, I would like to recognize the author of this legislation, Mr. Daines, for his hard work and leadership, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Daines), the author of this legislation.

(Mr. DAINES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2197) to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the York River and associated tributaries for study for potential inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

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 legislation under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2197 authorizes the National Park Service to study 11.25 miles of the York River in the State of Maine for possible inclusion into the Wild and Scenic Rivers program.

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

Due to a number of very real concerns that have arisen through prior designations, this bill includes several commonsense provisions aimed at better informing local property owners and communities about the full effects and impacts of a wild and scenic designation.

The National Park Service will be required to consider the effect of designation on commercial and recreational uses, such as hunting and fishing and boating. The study must also look at the impact on construction and maintenance of energy production and transmission.

Furthermore, H.R. 2197 requires the Federal Government to identify all existing authorities that could be utilized to condemn private property. We want property owners to know how much power the government will be given so they can form an educated opinion as to whether they should participate in or support a Wild and Scenic Rivers designation.

Finally, the bill will require the Federal Government to identify those authorities that compel it to become involved in local zoning. While Federal designation of the York River clearly has an appeal to the local advocates supporting this legislation, it is important for the community to be aware that the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires local zoning to conform to the dictates of the Federal act.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I would note that this exact legislation passed the House last Congress, but because the Senate failed to act on it, it is being considered once again in this Congress.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to just point out that I have the privilege of chairing the House Natural Resources Committee, and the nature of that committee is such that we deal with a lot of important pieces of legislation, but pieces of legislation that are kind of parochial in nature with regard to a particular State. We have right now some 50 bills, both Republican and Democrat bills that have passed this House, many of them on suspension, that are still awaiting action in the Senate. In fact, this legislation--similar legislation passed the Congress last time and didn't go anywhere in the other body, and so here we are back one more time. I only mention that because we can't be the only House that passes legislation. It has to be both Houses in order to get something to the President.

I certainly hope that this legislation after two times will finally get through and the study can commence and we can proceed with looking at whether a designation would be in order.

With that in mind, let me talk a bit, because I mentioned this earlier in my remarks. What I am saying here regarding Wild and Scenic is in many ways applicable to wilderness designations. We passed a bill earlier today by voice vote that designated a wilderness area in Michigan. In both of those cases, what is common with both of them is that we have seen since the Wild and Scenic designation law passed and since the wilderness law passed, we see this especially in the Western part of the United States, that when these areas are designated either Wild and Scenic or wilderness, what happens is areas around them become de facto wilderness or de facto Wild and Scenic which many, many times imposes on private property rights.

Now we have experienced that more in the West than what my colleagues have in the East, and my colleague from Maine expressed, rightly so, this has very, very broad support. I am sure it does; they have worked very hard on it. The danger in the future is, if taken to the extreme, you could have, unless we had within the study--you could have some pressures on private property rights. We think that is sufficiently important to put that in the study so that those who will be affected know about it.

I hope the outcome is such that everybody believes, fine, we can work with whatever restrictions come up. That is the precise reason, Mr. Speaker, why when we look, and I say ``we,'' being a Member from the Western part of the United States, when we look at these designations, it becomes pretty darn rigid even when you have acts of natural disaster.

With that in mind, let me tell you about something that happened in my old district prior to redistricting. There is a wilderness area in the northern Cascades. A lot of people visit it; it is a wonderful place. But to access that from the Eastern part of the United States, you have to go up a lake; it's the only way to get there. Then you have to traverse some 10 or 20 miles to the wilderness area, and the only way to get there is by a road. Well, the road--nature washed out that road many times several years ago. It is called the Stehekin Road. The community up there has been trying to rebuild that road.

Now, what does this have to do with wild and scenic and wilderness. Well, I mentioned that sometimes these things become so rigid that you can't affect something that needs to be done. Unfortunately, the road was right on the border of a wilderness area. So naturally, when you are going to rebuild it, you have to go through a wilderness area. ``No, no,'' say all the national groups. Not the local groups, not the people who are affected, but all the national groups. ``No, you can't build this road.'' So we are now in the third Congress. The last two Congresses, we passed bills to address this issue, but we have not been able to succeed because, as I mentioned earlier, we have to go through the Senate.

I only use this as an example of how national groups with a wilderness designation, and it has happened with wild and scenic designations, have unintended consequences on the community.

This legislation says within--within--that study, we need to find out what these potential impacts could be. That is why we put that in this legislation.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her kind words, and I support this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor those whose vision and hard work have made the United States Armed Forces Legacy Site in Tonasket, Washington, a reality. This site is a touching tribute to the legacy of all of America's veterans--past, present, and future.

In 2006, local veterans George Frank, Roger Castelda, and Ted Huber formed the U.S. Armed Forces Legacy Association in this rural community with the commendable mission of providing a place for veterans and members of the U.S. Armed Forces to be honored, offering a service office for veterans and their families, and presenting a military library for the use and enjoyment of all.

Originally designed by local artist Brad Hughes, the United States Armed Forces Legacy Site was completed on May 18, 2013 in conjunction with the city of Tonasket and with the hard work of many in the community. This inspirational site includes a wall for over 1,000 veterans' plaques, five basalt columns to honor each service branch, a library consisting of the history and wars of the Armed Forces, and a touching mural acknowledging America's military history.

I am pleased to see that the U.S. Armed Forces Legacy Association was named Non-profit Association of the year for 2012 by the Tonasket Chamber of Commerce and named as the best park/playground by the Omak Chronicle.

Through the efforts of numerous volunteers and donors, the United States Armed Forces Legacy Site has been a tremendous success and truly honors those who protect and preserve the values that shaped the character of our nation. I applaud all of those who made the site what it is today and look forward to future generations being able to show their respect to our America heroes.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise to support this measure, and particularly the portion that is sponsored by our colleague from Georgia (Mr. Collins) that will ensure transparency of Federal agencies' litigation settlement practices.

In 2011, the Obama administration entered into a mega-settlement, which was a closed-door, sweeping Endangered Species Act settlement with two litigious groups that greatly increased the ESA listings and habitat designations that could impact tens of thousands of acres and thousands of river miles across the country.

These settlements shut out affected States, local governments, private property owners, and other stakeholders who deserve to know that the most current and best scientific data is being used on these decisions.

In my own district, the Fish and Wildlife Service just listed a plant subspecies, despite clear data showing that the plant was not a species likely to go extinct. In other words, settlement deadlines trumped the science.

Let me give a couple of examples. These settlement listings could result in a listing of the Lesser Prairie Chicken that would impact five Western States, and next year the listing of the Greater Sage Grouse could cover an area of 250 million acres in 13 Western States.

Then there is the long-eared bat that could impact 39 Midwestern and Eastern States.

That is not all, Madam Chairman. The settlements also mandate decisions for 374 aquatic species in the Gulf of Mexico.

The point is, important ESA discussions should not be forced by arbitrary court decisions or deadlines, or negotiated behind closed doors by Federal lawyers supposedly on behalf of the public interest.

This legislation aims to help correct this abuse by ensuring affected States and other parties can have a say in settlements before an unelected judge signs them, and it ensures that no settlement moves forward without the public knowing what is in it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2954.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the Public Access and Lands Improvement Act, H.R. 2954, is a bipartisan package of 10 bills to protect and promote public access to lands; to improve opportunities by removing red tape that stands in the way of responsible, local economic development and jobs; and to encourage transparent community center land management.

This small grouping of bills will advance important local projects that will have a direct impact on jobs and on economic growth in communities throughout the country.

The package includes several commonsense land conveyance bills to remove unnecessary bureaucratic strings attached to how land is used and how it is managed. It recognizes that locally elected leaders, not Federal bureaucrats, know how to best manage certain lands.

There are measures to prevent unreasonable Federal regulations or actions from destroying a historic lookout tower in my home State of Washington, blocking unreasonable public recreation access to the Cape Hatteras seashore in North Carolina, and preventing the use of hand- powered boats, such as kayaks, in several national parks in the West.

This bill will help family businesses and ranchers by implementing commonsense reforms to the process of renewing livestock grazing permits. Livestock grazing on Federal lands is an important part of the American ranching tradition. This bill will help our Nation's ranchers operate more efficiently and with greater certainty.

The package, Mr. Chairman, also includes legislation sponsored by the Public Lands Subcommittee chairman, Mr. Bishop of Utah, requiring the BLM to establish an Internet database for all BLM lands that are available for sale to the public.

In the year 2014, if I may be parochial, when a Seahawks fan can purchase a championship hat on the Internet just moments after the Superbowl ends, the Federal Government can certainly get its act together and post its lands that are available for sale online.

This bill will expedite the planning and implementation of emergency salvage timber sales for Federal lands in California that were ravaged by the Rim Fire last summer. Without prompt emergency action, the impacts of this devastating wildfire could become even worse. Fire- damaged trees invite disease. They invite insect infestations. They increase the risk of future wildfires, and they are a threat to visitor safety. Emergency salvage and forest restoration efforts should not be delayed due to bureaucratic hurdles and lawsuits.

Finally, the bill provides for transparency and accountability in how Federal funds are spent in protecting the Chesapeake Bay.

This small package of bills is reasonable, responsible, and it reflects the will of local communities and their elected leaders. It deserves support, I believe, from my Democrat and Republican colleagues.

Before concluding my remarks on this piece of legislation and listening to the statement of the gentleman from Arizona, I would like to briefly address the legislative work of this committee as a whole. The committee, of course, I speak of is the Natural Resources Committee.

Just this week, the House will have considered three measures from the House Natural Resources Committee.

Two of these packages were individual bills, which means a total of 18 different bills from this committee will have effectively been considered and debated and voted upon by the House this week.

Prior to this week, over the first 13 months of this Congress, the Natural Resources Committee has advanced nearly 60 individual bills through the House. Nearly 50 of those bills have passed on a broad bipartisan basis under the expedited suspension process. Ten bills under the jurisdiction of the committee, both Republican and Democrat, have been signed by the President, which represents a noticeable percentage of the public laws that have been enacted by this Congress. These totals do not include individual bills included in other measures, such as bills that were included in the Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. Chairman, this statement is not made as a pat on the back, but to make clear that the intent of this committee is to dutifully work and act on priorities for our Nation. They may be narrow bills to resolve a parochial problem or broad measures affecting the country as a whole. Of course, the nature of our committee is to deal with, in many cases, bills that deal on very parochial issues. That is one of the reasons why there are so many bills that come out of our committee.

In matters of broad policy, some are of great urgency, such as the importance of restoring responsible, active forest management to both support economically struggling rural communities and to improve the health of Federal forests. We passed that bill earlier this year. Just yesterday, the House moved swiftly to provide a solution to the devastating drought in California.

We have also acted on multiple bipartisan measures to streamline red tape and boost America's ability to safely harness our vast energy resources to create jobs--because we know that energy jobs are good- paying jobs--to lower prices, and to strengthen our national security by reducing dependence on foreign energy from hostile nations.

On each of these measures, it is time for the Senate to act and to pass their own proposals so that we can then work to reach an agreement. Obviously, there will be differences between both Houses, but they need to pass their legislation so we can work on the differences so that these measures can become law. We have differences, but we have a responsibility to represent those we are elected to serve and put forward real solutions for the challenges facing the American people.

There are dozens of bills solving local problems, implementing locally supported solutions, and establishing protections for historic and special places that can be acted on by both the House and the Senate. I believe that this is possible on matters under the jurisdiction of the Natural Resources Committee, that we can find common ground with the Senate. Why do I say that? Because we have successfully done so repeatedly over this last year. That is why there are a noticeable number of public laws from our committees that have been acted on by the House and have gone to the President.

But, as always, this will require a willingness to recognize and respect differences in philosophy and procedure in both the House and in the Senate. It must be a two-way street where each Chamber acts on the other's priorities, but, again, has successfully been done in the past, and I know it can be done in the future. The Republican majority in the House has demonstrated our willingness to do so while maintaining our fundamental views on Federal land management, the importance of multiple use of public lands, and the ability of local communities to make better decisions for themselves than Federal bureaucracies.

So as we conclude this week's full slate of action on House Natural Resources Committee bills, I pledge to continue working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of the Capitol to make progress in the days, weeks, and months ahead.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), who is the author of one of the titles of the bill.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Labrador), who is an author of one of the titles of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), an author of one of the titles of the bill.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), subcommittee chairman and also an author of one of the titles of the bill.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, could I inquire how much time is on both sides?

Mr. Chairman, I will advise my friend that, at this point, I have no more requests for time, and I am prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close.

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

Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased when I heard my good friend from Arizona congratulate the work of the committee until I heard his explanation of what the committee did, and then I had to have a bit of a caution there.

I just want to point out that when the gentleman complains about the ratio of majority and minority, we are following precisely the same example when roles were reversed. In other words, when the Democrats were in the majority, when we were in the minority, we had the same ratio. So we are following that pretty much to the same, and that has been the tradition in this House for a long period of time.

The difference, however, I would say, Mr. Chairman, is that the committee has been much more productive when we have been in control, meaning that there has been more legislation moving that the Democrats would like.

I want to make this point also. There are Democrat and Republican suspension bills that are both sitting in the Senate that haven't been acted on, and I think that the Senate needs to act on those pieces of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, this is an important piece of legislation. All of these titles have passed out of the committee and were amalgamated here, but they had all been acted on. They all had input in subcommittee in some way or the other within the committee.

So I wanted to make that point. This is not legislation that was pulled out of the air. It was legislation that was deliberated upon within the committee.

I also want to mention, even though the Statement of Administration Policy was negative in some parts of the bill, there is no veto threat by the administration on this piece of legislation. They expressed concerns, as is understandable, on certain parts of it. I understand that, but there is no veto threat at all whatsoever in what the administration has said.

Finally, let me make this observation, and we hear this over and over and over, especially as it relates to the NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act.

Now, I am going to acknowledge that NEPA certainly has its place within our statutes and how we conduct policy, particularly on public land, but here is where we part company, Mr. Chairman.

We part company because my friends on the other side of the aisle always advocate that, even before Congress acts, NEPA should be the judge of whatever that action is.

Now, I have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, I think that is contrary to what our role is here. Congress created NEPA, meaning that Congress is the one who decides what the law of the land is. Within these bills, we are deciding what the law of the land is, and NEPA should not get in front of our actions.

To hear my friends on the other side of the aisle argue, they are saying over and over and over again that NEPA should be between Congress acting on a law.

Wait a minute. We are putting regulations before Congress should be doing their constitutional duty and enacting statutes?

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman; I part company with that philosophy, yet that is exactly what we hear over and over and over from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

We are the ones that are given authority by the Constitution to make statutes. We believe that that should be the law, and then regulations follow, not the other way around. But that is what we hear over and over and over again.

So, Mr. Chairman, this is a good piece of legislation. As I mentioned, it addresses areas that are certain parochial and certain parts of the country, as my colleague from Utah said, all the way from Florida to Alaska.

I think it is responsible legislation, and I think it deserves our support.

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

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

I support this amendment. I think the brief part of this debate here points out the importance of having flexibility on the local level rather than having a one-size-fits-all; because there are conditions that can come up in grazing in various States, and those managers need that flexibility, which is, I think, a common thread that we talk about all the time when we talk about Federal land management. So I think this amendment adds very much to the Labrador title of the bill, and I intend to support it.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I think that the gentleman's amendment to this piece of legislation is an important policy step. In fact, I think in many cases a ``loser pay'' ought to apply to a much larger area.

I know that the gentleman's amendment only deals with grazing, but he cited an example in Wyoming where it cost somebody $125,000, and with the volatility of the market, that is a big expense on individuals. I think this will help curb that in the future.

So I congratulate the gentleman for his amendment, and I intend to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I just want to say that I think this amendment adds to what he is attempting to do because the issue of salvage and the timeliness of that is something that is lost on a lot of people. So I congratulate the gentleman for not only the title in the bill but for the amendment. I intend to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation on the point of order and rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes I have to wonder when I hear these motions to recommit what exactly my friends on the other side of the aisle are thinking. The first part of this motion to recommit talks about payment in lieu of taxes, or PILT. Those of us in the western part of the United States especially understand that.

Mr. Speaker, last week, we funded PILT in the farm bill. Where was everybody? I voted for it. Where was everybody? That was funded.

The second point, PILT is permanently authorized--permanently authorized. All we have to do now is to get the appropriators to fund it, and they will go through the deliberations. There is no reason for this motion to recommit, as it relates to PILT.

Also, with regards to fighting fires, if I remember correctly, last year, we passed the healthy forests bill, but a majority of the people on the other side of the aisle voted ``no.'' Now we come down here with crocodile tears, saying we have to pass funding to fight forest fires. If they had voted for healthy forests in the first place, they would have solved the problem.

This MTR is not worthy of passage. Vote ``no'' on the MTR and ``yes'' on final passage.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of H.R. 2954, the Clerk may make technical and conforming changes, and that the amendment to page 17, line 17 refer to the first usage of ``decision'' on that line.

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

Mr. Speaker, I probably said this before, but I will say it again:

Here we go again.

The underlying bill before us is a bipartisan bill, with bipartisan sponsors from the Sportsmen's Caucus, to allow access to our public lands for people to enjoy hunting and fishing. That is what the underlying bill is.

Furthermore, during the debate on the bill and its amendments yesterday, we adopted some three or four Democrat amendments because they added to the bill. This is a bipartisan bill.

So what happens in a motion to recommit? Here we go again.

The essence of this motion to recommit would be to broadly expand the powers of the Environmental Protection Agency.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the MTR and ``yes'' on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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