Floor Statements

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. 3964.

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

Mr. Chairman, the House today is considering H.R. 3964, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery Act.

Like California, my central Washington district is heavily dependent on irrigated water to support our local economic and agriculture industry. I understand the importance of having a stable, reliable water supply, and I also understand the economic devastation that is caused when the water supply is shut off, particularly when the shutoff is avoidable.

California is facing an emergency situation. For years, San Joaquin Valley farmers have been fighting against Federal regulations and environmental lawsuits that have diverted water supplies in order to help a 3-inch fish. In 2009, there was a deliberate diversion of over 300 billion--that is ``billion,'' Mr. Chairman--gallons of water away from farmers. As a result, thousands of farmworkers lost their jobs, unemployment in some areas reached 40 percent, and thousands of acres of fertile farmland simply dried up.

As chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, I have traveled to Fresno, California, and seen the effects of natural and manmade drought firsthand. We have held multiple hearings and heard the pleas of communities that simply want the water turned back on and their livelihood restored.

We have seen farmers, Mr. Chairman, who normally help feed the Nation being sent to wait in line at food banks and, in some cases, being served carrots that are normally grown in this area that are from China.

That is why, last Congress, the House of Representatives passed bipartisan legislation to restore the flow of water to avoid future droughts. In fact, the Senate did not take up a single water bill in this last Congress, even after we had passed our legislation.

So, once again, we are back here on the floor of the House with legislation to help California communities once again facing water shutoffs. But now, Mr. Chairman, the situation is much more dire.

The lack of rainfall has exacerbated the manmade drought, and last month, the California Governor declared a state of emergency. A manmade drought coupled with a natural drought equals disaster and requires immediate action. Of course, these conditions could have been partially avoided if only the Senate had acted on the House-passed legislation last year.

This comprehensive solution before us today, almost identical to what the House passed the last Congress, would restore some water deliveries that will be cut off due to Federal regulations and environmental lawsuits, ensure a reliable water source for people and fish, secure water rights, and save taxpayer money by ending unnecessary and dubious government projects.

Mr. Chairman, I want to stress that this crisis does not just impact California, but it has rippling effects across the entire Nation. California's San Joaquin Valley is the salad bowl for the world and provides a significant share of the fruits and vegetables for our country.

Food grows where water flows. When there is no water, our food supply suffers, resulting in higher food prices across the country and increased reliance on foreign food sources.

This bill is a chance to right the regulatory wrongs of the past, to end future manmade droughts, and to protect the jobs and economic livelihoods of farm families and their workers.

The people of the San Joaquin Valley cannot wait any longer, Mr. Chairman, for Congress to act. As the title of this bill suggests, it is truly an emergency for many, and time is running out. I sincerely hope that, unlike the last Congress, our Senate colleagues will take up this bill or propose a meaningful alternative to it, then we can come together and figure out where we disagree and then agree on a final package. These communities facing massive unemployment deserve nothing less.

This bill is supported, Mr. Chairman, by the entire Republican California delegation, and I commend my colleagues from California for their hard work in getting this bill to the floor today. So I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao), the author of this legislation, whose district has been heavily impacted by this manmade drought.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), a member of the committee who has worked very hard on this legislation in the last Congress and in this Congress.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), the author of the legislation that passed this House in a bipartisan way last time, which this bill emulates.

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

This debate, Mr. Chairman, is very interesting. And what we are presenting here today and what is being presented by my California colleagues is, from their point of view, a solution to a problem caused by a drought and caused by regulatory action in the State of California.

I have heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle stand up-- virtually everybody has said this. I know my colleague, Mr. Garamendi, said something that I will allude to in a moment. Mr. Costa said something about that. The ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee said something about what I am going to say, and, I dare say, the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Napolitano) said the same thing.

The thread of what they all said is that there are solutions, and we need to work together. We need to find these solutions, to which our side says fine, this is our solution. We recognize you may not like it. We recognize that. But we also have one other point that we need to recognize, and that is the genius of our Founding Fathers. They created two branches of the legislative branch, the Congress: the House, in which we have the privilege of serving, and the Senate.

I made the observation in my opening statement that the Senate has not acted on any water bill laws at all. Well, finally somebody in this area is catching that message, because the Fresno Bee in California, which is right in the epicenter, if you will, of the San Joaquin Valley, editorialized last week that Senator Feinstein must step up and lead on the drought. What that means, of course, is step up and write a piece of legislation. I have heard my colleagues say we are working on a piece of legislation, maybe by next week.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make this point. This is very specific. Introducing a piece of legislation is not legislating. Legislating is when you pass a piece of legislation out of your respective House, and I think that is what the Fresno Bee is saying right here when they tell Senator Feinstein and others that they need to step up on this and pass some legislation.

Listen, I am sure that legislation will be different than this. We have heard from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. That is fine. I can take it, and, I dare say, my California colleagues can take it, too, and then we can work out the difference. But we don't know what your position is.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good piece of legislation. The last Congress acted on it, and it should act on it again.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to remarks that the previous speaker from California made about the potential danger in this bill as they relate to water rights in other States.

What the gentleman was alluding to is absolutely incorrect because the language in this bill is very specific; it is very specific as it relates to California.

We went through this process in the last Congress when we went through hearings because other States--my State included--was very, very concerned that whatever preemption had to do with water here would affect other States. Last year in this bill, the language is very, very specific: it does not apply to other States; it is California-centric only.

So I want to make that point, Mr. Chairman.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, if I could inquire of my friend if she has any more speakers; and, if not, if she is prepared to close, her side is prepared to close, I am prepared to close.

In that case, I reserve the balance of my time so you can close, and we will have one final speaker.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority whip.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member stated, this amendment states that the California Governor's declared drought emergency is considered a request to the Federal Government to declare a fisheries disaster. Under longstanding law, the Governor can make such a request by sending a letter to the Commerce Secretary.

The amendment does not change underlying law that requires the Commerce Secretary to determine whether a fisheries disaster declaration is merited. This amendment simply serves as a request, but the Commerce Secretary still has discretion to make a decision on this request. As such, we do not have any objections to the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

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

Mr. Speaker, for any of you that were listening to the debate as we debated the amendment in the general debate on this, it is very, very evident that this bill is focused only on California--only on California. And the reason I make that point, because part of the reason that California is in this situation is because of Federal law and Federal regulations.

Now, one of the ironies here, there is a lot of ironies when you look at these motions to recommit, but my good friend, the sponsor of the motion to recommit, I believe, was in office, or overseeing, at some time when these water projects were passed for California. And here is the interesting point, because he makes the very, what is a valid point, one worries about preempting State law. But the Central Valley Project in California preempted California law when it was passed. Nobody heard anything about that then. The San Joaquin River project preempted State law.

I just want to make this point. No other State is affected. This is a California-centric piece of legislation.

I will not yield to the gentleman. He didn't give me that courtesy earlier. I am not going to give him that courtesy.

Finally, this is the final point that I want to make, and this is important. This is important.

We heard the solution to the California water problems is embodied in this bill. It is similar to a bill that we passed last year--with bipartisan support, I might add. We heard, today, my friends on the other side debate over and over, there are solutions. There are solutions to this, there are solutions to that. You know something? Nobody offered a solution. Furthermore, the other body in our legislative process has yet to offer a solution.

Now, I can understand people not liking this solution. I understand that. But somebody has to give us something to negotiate with. That is what the issue is all about.

We think this is right. We will find out if it is right if the House votes to pass this, and then we will go to the next process. But, for goodness sakes, give California a chance to get a solution.

This MTR does nothing to advance that. Vote ``no'' on the MTR and vote for the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3590.

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

Mr. Chairman, the Sportsmen's Heritage And Recreational Enhancement Act, H.R. 3590, is a package of eight bills that protect the right of American sportsmen to fish and hunt from arbitrary and unjustified bureaucratic restrictions and limitations. It will remove government roadblocks to those activities on certain public lands and guard against new regulations that threaten hunting and fishing.

Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan bill. It is cosponsored by the Republican and Democrat chairs of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, Mr. Latta of Ohio and Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, and the caucus vice chairs, Mr. Wittman of Virginia and Mr. Walz of Minnesota. In addition, Mr. Benishek of Michigan, Mr. Hunter of California, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Young of Alaska all deserve credit for leadership on these important issues.

This legislation ensures that Americans' ability to fish and hunt will not be arbitrarily limited by the whim of Federal bureaucrats.

Title I of this bill directly responds to bureaucratic threats posed by the EPA. In 1976, Congress barred the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, from regulating firearms and ammunition. However, this has not stopped attempts to circumvent the law by claiming that, while EPA may not be able to regulate ammunition, it can regulate components of ammunition and fishing tackle. This would be a massive power grab by the EPA despite a clear lack of legal authority.

Banning lead bullets and tackle would increase costs for hunters, sports shooters, and fishermen, and cause economic harm to outdoor sportsmen and the recreation industry. This legislation ensures that the EPA does not--does not, Mr. Chairman--have the authority to regulate ammunition and fishing tackle.

Title II of this bill makes more funding available to States for a longer period of time to create and maintain shooting ranges, which preserves American tradition.

Title III would direct the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to allow, with a permit, commercial filming on Federal lands for crews of five or fewer. This permit would ensure a fair return to the taxpayer in exchange for use of their lands.

Title IV of this bill would allow for the importation of legally taken polar bear hunting trophies from Canada that, through no fault of the sportsmen, have become trapped in a bureaucratic limbo. This is focused squarely on resolving existing permits snarled in red tape and does not open the door to any future imports.

The next two titles of the bill would allow sportsmen across the country to more easily obtain a Federal duck stamp by making them available for purchase online and would protect law-abiding individuals' constitutional right to bear arms on lands owned by the Army Corps of Engineers.

Title VII establishes a Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council Advisory Committee in order to protect the rights of sportsmen while finding a balance with commonsense conservation.

The last title of the bill requires Federal land managers to support and facilitate use and access for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting on Forest Service and BLM land. It protects sportsmen from arbitrary efforts by the Federal Government to block public lands from hunting and fishing activities by implementing an ``open until closed'' management policy. However, it does not prioritize hunting and fishing over other multiple uses of public lands.

Hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting are longstanding American traditions that deserve our protection. This important legislation is not a solution in search of a problem. Regrettably, bureaucratic threats to hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting are very real. That is why this bill has

broad bipartisan support and the endorsement of over 36 sportsmen's organizations. So I again commend the bipartisan sponsors of this package of bills, and I encourage my colleagues to support the legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me just make a couple of points. I want to make a very, very broad point on what the intent of this legislation is, because it is aimed at uses of public lands.

Now, I have always been of the mind that public lands, particularly Federal lands, unless Congress designates otherwise, then the uses of those lands should be for multiple purposes. Now, obviously recreation, i.e., hunting and fishing, would be part of that.

So what this bill seeks to do, then, is to provide certainty into Federal laws that, indeed, multiple uses--in this case, hunting and fishing and recreational use--will be on public lands. There is nothing really more complicated than that.

What has caused this legislation to be brought forward is because of actions of certain bureaucracies within certain parts of the Federal Government that have a different decision, if you will, or a different idea of that, and they slow down this recreational activity. So this seeks to put certainty in that.

Lastly, let me just respond to the arguments that we heard about the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Mr. Chairman, that is a program. There are people that think it is a very, very good program. There are those, including me, that feel that sometimes it is not as good as it is simply because you acquire private land for the Federal Government. We can't maintain what we have. That should be a reason for, I guess, pause anyway.

But the reason I think that the Rules Committee did not make that particular amendment in order is for a very, very good reason. We talk about regular order around here. The Land and Water Conservation Fund statute does not expire until 2015. So I know, as chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, that the subcommittee in charge of that particular legislation is going to have hearings and we are going to go through the legislative process in order to reauthorize that.

So to rail against the idea that that amendment was not made in order somehow continues to break the program is simply not the case. The program is in place until it expires in 2015, and I have no doubt that our committee will come up with legislation to do the proper reauthorization.

So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I think it is a very, very good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes several technical and clarifying changes to the bill, and conforms the bill text to that which was favorably reported from the Committee on Natural Resources.

Let me cite just some of the small changes in the amendment:

It includes a savings position regarding the effect of the act on Indian tribes' treaty or other recognized rights. It clarifies that.

It also provides clearer language that the provision of opportunities to hunt, fish, and shoot on certain Federal lands ``shall not authorize or facilitate commodity development, use other extraction, motorized vehicle access, road construction or maintenance or use not otherwise allowed under the Wilderness Act.'' That clarifies that.

It also incorporates an amendment filed by our colleague, the sponsor of the legislation, Mr. Latta, to title VII of the bill to correct a sunset date for the existing advisory council.

So as I understand, the manager's amendment is something that has been vetted, and I urge its adoption.

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

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to congratulate the gentleman on offering this amendment. I think putting this aspect into this bill will help quantify how important hunting and fishing is if you put an economic component to it. So I congratulate the gentleman.

I plan to support the amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. I think that his amendment, since the idea of the whole underlying legislation is to expand as much as we can to those that want to enjoy that, I think his amendment adds to the legislation, and I am prepared to support it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I want to say that this amendment, I believe, also will add to the underlying legislation, which, of course, would expand the experience of hunting and fishing. So the remarks I made to his colleague from Texas I think are applicable also to this.

So I endorse this amendment and would tell my friend from Oregon, the ranking member, that is two for two now.

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

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I guess all good things come to an end because I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I oppose this amendment because it undermines what I consider to be a fundamental purpose of the law. The fundamental purpose that we are here for today is to protect our hunting and fishing traditions on Federal lands. We are making a clear statement that hunting and fishing are an important use of our multiple-use Federal lands.

This bill establishes a clear policy that Federal lands should be open for hunting and fishing unless specifically closed by a transparent and open Federal process. Let me repeat that, Mr. Chairman, that Federal lands should be open for hunting and fishing unless specifically closed by a transparent and open Federal process.

NEPA requires preparation of an environmental impact statement when a Federal agency proposes to take major Federal action. When H.R. 3590 is enacted in law, there will be no need for a costly and bureaucratic process currently necessary to make lands available for hunting and fishing. That process won't be necessary because it will be the law. Congress has spoken as to what the law is.

Again, this bill is designed to set out an open--unless specifically closed--process on BLM and Forest Service lands. As a result, no major Federal action would be needed or would take place to keep these lands open to these traditional important uses of our shared Federal lands.

If there is no administrative action, there is no need for an EIS or NEPA review. However, H.R. 3590 confirms an established understanding of the law that, should an agency move to close Federal lands, the agency should then undertake an open and public process before having the lands closed to our traditional uses.

Now, we know that these provisions are important because they fix a court-created problem regarding the implementation of the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. We have seen the clear track record that antihunter groups will use to tie up hunting and fishing access to Federal lands with endless lawsuits. This bill reverses this trend and makes our lands open for hunting and fishing. Again, Mr. Chairman, we are making the policy statement that this will be what the law of the land is.

H.R. 3590 directs that our conservation dollars be spent on conservation activities in the field rather than on redundant paperwork and, of course, endless lawsuits. That is the goal of the bill that this amendment would undercut and which would undercut our goal of promoting hunting and fishing.

I urge the defeat of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is in the spirit of the underlying legislation, which is to make sure that there is access for hunting and fishing. And here we have, as I said in my opening statement, the potential of bureaucratic malaise, I guess, slowing down access to this particular area that the gentleman from Missouri recommends. I think his amendment adds a great deal to this legislation, and I intend to support it.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I just want to clarify something, Mr. Chairman, that has been said here by my friend, the ranking member, that the administration has issued a veto threat. They have not issued a veto threat. They have said, and I will just read the last line of their Statement of Administration Policy. It says:

The administration looks forward to working with Congress

to enact sportsmen and recreation legislation that addresses

the concerns raised with certain provisions of H.R. 3590.

Now, in the letter they do say they have problems with four of the eight titles. But to simply suggest that the administration has issued a veto threat on this is simply not correct. And I ask--well, I will let it go.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I plan to support his amendment.

This is something that it seems like we wrestle with all the time here on the Federal level. There is uniqueness when you are on the ground, but yet we write rules and regulations on the one size fits all. This is clearly a unique situation, and I think the gentleman's amendment clarifies that very well.

I support the amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think this is a good amendment, and I support the amendment. The primary purpose of this legislation is to limit unjustified Federal bureaucratic limitations on hunting and fishing.

I also want to make a point here that it is important to recognize that the authority of States to regulate hunting and fishing should be paramount over the Federal Government. Individual Federal agencies should not preempt State laws, and it sounds to me like that is what the gentleman is talking about in his case.

I think the amendment is a good amendment, and I support it.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the primary purpose of this underlying legislation is the premise that Federal lands should be open for hunting and fishing recreation rather than being closed. I believe this should be the policy of all of our multiple use Federal lands. The default option should be open regardless of whether your interests are mountain biking, rock climbing, hunting, fishing, logging, building a solar energy facility, mining, wind power, or developing oil and gas. Our Nation's multiple use lands were designed to be used for the benefit of the Nation. This open-before-closed concept is the foundation of what we are trying to do through this legislation.

We are trying to raise the bar of bureaucracy that the bureaucracy has placed between hunters and the outdoors.

Reckless disregard of our Nation's hunting and fishing traditions means too often our Federal lands are closed off arbitrarily, and not just without public input, but against public sentiment.

Now the gentleman is proposing that we give the Secretary another new tool to close lands, without scientific decisionmaking, without accounting for their actions. The gentleman proposes that we simply grant the Secretary the sole authority to dictate that we close off any and all of our Nation's lands from hunting and fishing based simply on the Secretary's mere opinion that hunting and fishing are a threat to our Nation's land because of climate change.

Hunting and fishing are traditions and foundations that this Nation was built upon. They are not burdens to our national lands. They are one of the many purposes of our national lands.

Just yesterday, Mr. Chairman, before the Rules Committee, one of my Democrat colleagues was commenting that he had a BB gun at age 7 and a .22 rifle at age 12. He talked about how, as a young man, he learned to respect guns and traditions. Yet that same Member is concerned about what children are learning today--the lack of respect for guns and the traditions of the outdoors.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that this is one of the many benefits and reasons that we are here today, to help restore the opportunity for hunting and fishing traditions to take root on our Federal lands, to remind our Federal land managers that the exercise of these traditions are not a burden on our lands but one of the foundations of our lands.

Finally, let me say this. Regardless of one's views on our climate, this amendment is not about climate change. It is about granting the Secretary a blank check to ban hunting and fishing. Nothing in the bill changes the Secretary's ability to manage our lands to ensure responsible management. The bill does require lands to be opened, however, before closed; but when closing lands, the Secretary must act in a measured fashion to ensure that our hunting and fishing traditions are protected and valued.

I urge my colleagues to reject what I consider to be an antihunting and -fishing amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time and advise my friend I have no requests for time. I am prepared to yield back if the gentleman is prepared to yield back.

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

I just want to point out that the gentleman wanted to clarify by saying this doesn't give authority, but the Secretary should consider. What if the Secretary considers under current law and then decides to take action?

That is the point of the argument that I made, and that is that that action, then, on climate change could cause limited or no access to our public lands. That is why I said this amendment is kind of cloaked in different clothing, because it does not speak to climate change; in fact, it speaks to the potential closing of our public lands.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I say on a personal note, I was looking for you on the floor at the end of last week. I was prepared to take Seattle and offer you 34 points. I think you probably would have taken that bet.

I just want to make this point. If the gentleman will say that the results on the gridiron in New Jersey last Sunday, if the gentleman will say that the better team won--and you don't have to make any other adjectives--but if the gentleman will say that, I will be more than happy to accept this amendment.

Well, I knew that the gentleman would find something to say.

I just want to say, dealing with the amendment, I think this amendment, again, in the spirit of adding more activity on Federal lands, I think this adds to it. I am prepared to support the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank Chairman Frank D. Lucas of the Committee on Agriculture for his assistance in scheduling H.R. 2166 for consideration by the House of Representatives on Monday, January 27, 2014. I submit an exchange of letters between the Committees regarding this bill.

The continued cooperation shown by Chairman Lucas and his able staff on national forest issues is much appreciated, and I look forward to continuing to work with the Chairman for the remainder of the Congress.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, DC, September 10, 2013.

Hon. Doc Hastings,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Longworth HOB,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Hastings: Thank you for the opportunity to

review the relevant provisions of the text of H.R. 2166, the

Good Samaritan Search and Recovery Act of 2013. As you are

aware, the bill was primarily referred to the Committee on

Natural Resources, while the Agriculture Committee received

an additional referral.

I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this

legislation before the House in an expeditious manner and,

accordingly, I agree to discharge H.R. 2166 from further

consideration by the Committee on Agriculture. I do so with

the understanding that by discharging the bill, the Committee

on Agriculture does not waive any future jurisdictional claim

on this or similar matters. Further, the Committee on

Agriculture reserves

the right to seek the appointment of conferees, if it should

become necessary.

I ask that you insert a copy of our exchange of letters

into the Congressional Record during consideration of this

measure on the House floor.

Thank you for your courtesy in this matter and I look

forward to continued cooperation between our respective

committees.

Sincerely,

Frank D. Lucas,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Natural Resources ordered S. 230 favorably reported on December 4, 2013, without amendment. However, when the bill was passed by a vote of 387-7 by the House on January 13, 2014, the Committee had not filed its bill report.

For this reason, I wanted to take this opportunity to briefly elaborate on the substance of the legislation. S. 230 authorizes the Peace Corps Commemorative Foundation to establish a commemorative work on federal land in the District of Columbia and its environs. The project must be planned and constructed with non-federal funds and executed consistently with the Commemorative Works Act (CWA). Accordingly, the work is not eligible for placement in the Reserve as defined by the CWA. This legislation would not have been approved by the Committee on Natural Resources without this clear inclusion of language affirming the moratorium on new memorials within the Reserve.

That being said, I am pleased that the House has enacted yet another bi-partisan bill from the Committee on Natural Resources and I look forward to future successes.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1513) to revise the boundaries of the Gettysburg National Military Park to include the Gettysburg Train Station and certain land along Plum Run in Cumberland Township, to limit the means by which property within such revised boundaries may be acquired, 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.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1513, sponsored by our colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), would revise the boundaries of the Gettysburg National Military Park. The park will now include the site known as the Gettysburg Train Station, the historic depot where President Abraham Lincoln arrived and departed via train in 1863 to deliver the Gettysburg Address.

Currently, the depot is owned by the Borough of Gettysburg, but will be donated to the National Park Service. However, the depot will continue to be operated by local or nonprofit organizations.

In addition, H.R. 1513 includes within the park a 45-acre parcel that has already been donated to the Park Service.

Finally, I would like to thank again our colleague, Mr. Perry, for including important property-rights protections in his bill that allow the Park Service to acquire property by donation only and requires that owners be provided written consent prior to property being included into the park boundary.

With that, I support the bill and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), the sponsor of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 230) to authorize the Peace Corps Commemorative Foundation to establish a commemorative work in the District of Columbia and its environs, 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, S. 230 will authorize the Peace Corps Commemorative Foundation to establish a commemorative work on Federal land in the District of Columbia to recognize the foundation of the Peace Corps and the ideals upon which it was founded. The project must be planned and constructed with non-Federal funds and executed consistent with the Commemorative Works Act, which includes the moratorium for projects on the National Mall reserve.

With that, I urge adoption of the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), a former Peace Corps member.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say, which was repeated by, I think, every Member that spoke on this piece of legislation, that this legislation will require no Federal funds. And when you think about that, from the volunteer standpoint of those that went overseas and did what they did in their missions, I think that this is fitting that we should establish something from the private sector that commemorates what they have done on behalf of our government.

So I think this is a good piece of legislation. I urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, 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. 841) to amend the Grand Ronde Reservation Act to make technical corrections, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 841 clarifies the administrative process for the Grand Ronde Tribe in Oregon to apply for new trust lands as long as the lands are within the tribe's original 1857 reservation.

The bill also deems property placed in trust for the tribe after 1988 to be part of the tribe's reservation and adjusts the tribe's Reservation Act to reflect several previous trust land acquisitions.

Mr. Speaker, in 1954, Congress terminated the Grand Ronde Tribe and its 60,000-acre western Oregon reservation. While Congress restored the tribe in 1983, the process of rebuilding the land base for it has been done in a somewhat piecemeal fashion, beginning in 1988.

H.R. 841 resolves a problem the Grand Ronde Tribe has experienced when it applies to the Department of the Interior for trust lands within its former reservation area. Applications for such land are considered under a set of ``off-reservation'' rules that are quite cumbersome.

The bill requires the Department to treat land acquisition applications under less cumbersome ``on-reservation'' rules. It does not, however, reestablish the original 1857 reservation.

The bill was reported favorably out of the Natural Resources Committee and has bipartisan support from the entire Oregon congressional delegation.

I also want to point out that the suspension text contains an amendment to the reported bill. The new language prohibits the Grand Ronde Tribe from gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act on all lands it acquires through the Department's ``on-reservation'' process unless the lands are within a 2-mile radius of its existing rural casino.

Within the 2-mile radius, existing restrictions under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act remain in effect.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, first, when we talk about taxes on energy, what we are talking about is raising taxes on the American people and the goods that they would buy because the cost of energy would rise because of that. That is the first point to the gentlewoman's argument. This motion to recommit is nothing more than raising taxes on energy in this country.

Second point: I find it absolutely ironic that here we are with another, I would say, political amendment supposedly dealing with our Native American friends. In all the time that my friends on the other side of the aisle were in charge, they never brought up anything in energy policy that would secure the rights in Indian Country for them to take advantage of their own lands. We have a title in this bill. Title

V allows American Indians to develop their lands as they see fit with American energy.

This motion to recommit is wrong. Vote ``no.'' Vote for the underlying bill.

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. 2728.

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

Mr. Chairman, the Obama administration is once again attempting to block new energy production, keeping energy prices high and hurting middle class families. The Department of the Interior is proposing new regulations on the practice of hydraulic fracturing on Federal and tribal lands. These regulations, once implemented next year, will in all likelihood add new layers of red tape and lower energy production even further on Federal land.

For over 2 years, the Natural Resources Committee has conducted extensive oversight of the Obama administration's proposed regulations. We have held multiple hearings across the country and have heard from energy experts, tribal leaders, and State officials who have all had the same message: these are bad regulations that potentially destroy jobs and stifle American energy production.

According to one study, these new Federal regulations would cost nearly $350 million annually. As a consequence, the 1.7 million jobs that are currently supported by shale oil and natural gas production--a number, I might add, Mr. Chairman, that is expected to increase to 2.5 million by 2015--these jobs would be put in jeopardy. Even worse, these proposed regulations duplicate efforts already being carried out by States across the country.

Hydraulic fracturing has been safely and effectively regulated by States for decades. So the Obama administration's proposed regulations are unnecessary, they are redundant, and they simply waste precious time and money duplicating what is already being done successfully.

That is why two of our colleagues from Texas, Mr. Flores and Mr. Cuellar, introduced the bipartisan H.R. 2728, the Protecting States' Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act, before us today. This bill prohibits the Interior Department from enforcing duplicative hydraulic fracturing regulations in any State that already has regulations or will adopt regulations in the future and recognizes

States' authority to regulate this type of activity.

The bill acknowledges that States are doing a good job and an effective job regulating this activity. And ironically, Mr. Chairman, officials from the Obama administration, itself, have admitted that there has not been one known case of groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing. The reason I mention this, Mr. Chairman, is because groundwater contamination is the argument most frequently used against this process.

The bill also recognizes that States are able to carefully craft regulations to meet the unique geological and hydrologic needs of their States. A one-size-fits-all regulatory structure, like this administration is trying to impose, will not work and is certainly not the answer.

I want to be very clear: this bill does not prevent the Federal Government from implementing baseline standards in States where none exist. This bill simply prevents the Federal Government from wasting time, money, and resources by imposing duplicative red tape on a process that is widely regarded as being properly regulated by the States.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores), the author of this legislation, who is a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to ask the distinguished ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee if he could tell me who did that study.

I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for him to tell me who did that study.

I thank the gentleman for responding.

At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), chairman of the subcommittee that dealt with this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores), the sponsor of the legislation.

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), a former member of the Natural Resources Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), a State that is booming because of this activity.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds as I see he is on a roll.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold), another member from an energy-producing State.

Mr. Chairman, let me inquire of my friend from New Jersey if he is prepared to close. We had some further requests for time, but I don't see them, and sometimes they don't get their time when they don't come down here.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time the gentleman from New Jersey has left if he is going to yield back.

I would advise the gentleman to reserve his time because one of our speakers came, which we didn't think was going to happen. So I would advise the gentleman to reserve his time so that he has time to respond.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the distinguished majority leader, who is from a State that would like to do more offshore even though we are talking about onshore.

This is Groundhog Day, Mr. Chairman. I would say to my friend, now I have no more speakers whom I can foresee at all, so I am prepared to close if the gentleman doesn't repeat his last statement.

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

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

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

The underlying bill, as has been mentioned several times, is about American jobs and American energy security.

Just last week, the International Energy Agency released its World Energy Outlook. In that report, they predicted that the U.S. would surpass Saudi Arabia and become the top oil producer in the world in only 2 more years. Now, this is great news for our economy, it is great news for American workers, it is great news for potential energy prices, and, Mr. Chairman, it is great news for our national security.

This recent boom in energy production would not be possible without the new technological advances of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Let me give you an example. In

the year 2000, shale gas, which is the prime area that you go after with hydraulic fracturing, provided just 1 percent of our Nation's natural gas supplies. Today, it is 25 percent. That number will only continue to grow.

While the White House is quick to take credit for this uptick in energy production, the truth is this increase is happening in spite of this administration's policies and not because of them. Because what has been well documented, all of the increase in energy production is happening on State and private lands, not on Federal lands. Currently, 93 percent of shale oil wells are located on private and State lands and only 7 percent on Federal lands. That simply means that there is a great potential on Federal lands that are currently being ignored because of the regulatory hoops.

I suggest that if the Department of the Interior goes through with their regulations on fracking that would be duplicative of those States, it would only keep that 7 percent where it is rather than increasing. It seems to me, from a standpoint of policy for our country, it is best to be as energy secure as we can possibly be because that means that we are secure from a national security standpoint.

Finally, and certainly not least, that means that American jobs, good-paying American jobs, are creating the energy for the American consumer. That is what this bill is all about.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the legislation before the House today is designed to eliminate duplicative regulations and allow for increased energy production. That is the intent of the legislation. Yet here we are with an amendment that creates a loophole in the bill to allow the government to impose back-door regulations to restrict and block American energy production, which, of course, we know would result in lost job opportunities.

H.R. 2728 aims to give the States primacy in regulating hydraulic fracturing operations within their borders. I want to mention that again. This bill aims to give the States primacy in regulating hydraulic fracturing within their borders. So if a State regulatory body wants to implement emissions regulations, which this amendment addresses, in conjunction with their other rules and regulations, they are free to implement their own regulations beyond what is already required. Nothing in this bill prevents any State from putting emissions at the end of the regulations in place.

Further, the Secretary has the authority to manage methane emissions for production on Federal lands and, working collaboratively, we have seen significant reductions in the last 2 years because of that effort. However, attempting to cloak these regulations as fracturing regulations through a loophole that will cost American jobs and inhibit energy production in my mind is simply not the way to go.

So this amendment aims to impose controversial and political regulations into a bill that is simply about American energy production, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

Let me make just one other point. I will probably repeat this again. There is nothing in this bill that prevents a State from regulating emissions within their State, which, of course, would take effect and what the gentleman is trying to do.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

My good friend, the author of this amendment, opened his second remarks by saying, This legislation makes it impossible to regulate-- fill in the blanks. No, Mr. Chairman, that is not the case.

This bill says that primacy of regulation of hydraulic fracturing, which has been going on for some 60 years, if a State has it in place, that State's laws shall be the ones that we should follow. Those States that don't have it, then, of course, this legislation would allow the Department of the Interior's regulations to be there until they changed their regulations.

I want to make a point. This amendment is about the emissions from the process of hydraulic fracturing. Nothing in this bill, as I said before, prevents a State from doing what they can do. After all, keep in mind, Mr. Chairman, those States that have hydraulic fracturing rules maybe in all likelihood have some regulations dealing with the emissions that come from that. Nothing in this bill prevents that from happening.

What the amendment does do, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, is a back-door way to regulate hydraulic fracturing when, as I said just a moment ago, it has been done successfully for over 60 years in the States.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman's amendment goes right to the heart of what those who are opposed to this process are concerned with by disclosing the chemicals which is embodied in this amendment. This amendment does exactly what seems to be the opposition on the other side. I think it is a good amendment, and we are prepared to accept it.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I think this amendment will probably no doubt prove what we have been saying, that producing American energy will produce American jobs.

I think the gentleman's amendment adds to this legislation, and I am willing to accept that.

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

I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Chairman, a similar amendment like this has been offered multiple times in our committee markups and they have always failed on a bipartisan vote, and similar amendments like this have also failed on the floor. This is nothing more than an effort to make production on Federal lands more challenging and less valuable.

The vast majority of the natural gas that is produced in the United States stays in North America, but that that is exported, 98 percent goes to Canada and Mexico. We ought to keep those customers.

Additionally, since 2009, the U.S. has been the largest producer of natural gas in the world, which, I guess, goes to my friend from Oregon's argument. But energy is going to be globally decided in the marketplace. Many companies operating in United States are international companies with businesses all over the world. Undercutting the basic premise of the free market and restricting the use of the resource always has real economic consequences in the future.

Now, there is one other point about this amendment, too. The amendment makes it unclear what is considered natural gas. The question arises, are products derived from natural gas also only to be sold in the United States because they are made from natural gas? It is unclear the way the amendment is drafted. But if that were to be the case, Mr. Chairman, there would be vast spin-off industries that would be affected, namely, the plastic industries.

So I tend to be one that believes that the American consumer, in fact, consumers everywhere, are benefited if we have free trade in the world. That should apply to everything, including a big resource that we are becoming a leader in, and this amendment, I think, is contrary to that approach.

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

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

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

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

I would just simply say and correct my good friend from Oregon, I did not say that because natural gas would enter the international market it would become less available. I simply said that it would become part of the global market.

I dare say that, when oil was discovered in Titusville, Pennsylvania, nobody thought that that oil would become part of the world market, but it has. But unfortunately, because we in the United States have not utilized our resources like we should with crude oil and not competed as we should with past decisions, there was a cartel that was formed internationally called OPEC. They control the oil market.

The best way to beat cartels is to outsupply them. If we are going to be a leader in natural gas in the world, we ought to take advantage of that and lead when we can, but recognize that a free market gives the best services to people and recipients of that, not only in the United States, but in the world.

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

I thank the gentlelady for her amendment and for yielding to me for the purpose of entering into a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask my friend from Texas, the text of the gentlelady's amendment requires the Secretary of the Interior to conduct an annual review of all State hydraulic fracturing activity. My concern is that this provision appears to be very broad.

I would be delighted to work with the gentlelady, as this bill works its way through the legislative process, to consider some additional conditions to ensure that the broad review is targeted at those areas subject to the jurisdiction of the committee and results in a report to Congress that is meaningful and productive.

To that end, would the gentlelady be willing to work with me to clarify that her amendment is intended to apply to State permitting of hydraulic fracturing on Federal lands?

With the clarification that the gentlelady will work with me, that this is subject to Federal lands, with the clarification that the review and report required of the Secretary should be limited to State permitting of hydraulic fracturing on Federal lands, I am willing to accept the gentlelady's amendment. I thank her for her work on that.

I yield back to the gentlelady.

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. 1965.

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

Madam Chair, with millions of Americans still looking for work, growing debts and deficits, and energy prices that are still far too high, the United States needs to implement an all-of-the-above energy plan to responsibly harness our Nation's energy resources on our Federal lands.

New energy production is one of the best ways to grow the economy and create new jobs to put people back to work. One needs to look no further for proof than to States like North Dakota that have flourishing economies and some of the lowest unemployment rates in the country, all due to energy production. Because of this energy boom, the U.S. is now projected to be the world leader in oil production by 2015, surpassing Saudi Arabia.

The catch is that this increased oil production is happening on private and State lands--which is good--places that aren't as restricted by onerous Federal regulations and policies. Federal lands are being left behind.

However, this lack of production on Federal lands is not for a lack of resources. We have tremendous potential for new onshore oil and natural gas production on Federal lands, but the Obama administration is actively and purposely keeping these resources off limits. Leasing and permitting delays, regulatory hurdles, and ever-changing rules are a few of the reasons energy production on Federal lands is in decline.

President Obama has had the four lowest years of Federal acres leased for energy production going back to 1988. Under his administration, the average time to get a drilling permit approved on Federal land is 307 days. By contrast, it takes an average of only 10 days in North Dakota to get a permit; and another example, in Colorado it only takes 27 days.

It is no wonder that State lands are flourishing while Federal lands are experiencing a decrease in energy production. That is unacceptable, and this bill today offers real solutions to unlock the shackles that have been placed on our Federal lands.

H.R. 1965, the Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security Act, is a package of bills that will help us expand oil, natural gas, and renewable energy production on public lands. It will streamline government red tape, break down bureaucratic hurdles, and put in place a clear plan for developing our own energy resources. Even more importantly, this bill will spur job creation and help grow and strengthen our economy.

Madam Chair, I want to take a moment to specifically highlight the importance of the third title in this bill, the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska Access Act. The NPR-A was specifically designated in 1923 as a petroleum reserve. Let me repeat that: NPR-A was specifically designated in 1923--that is 90 years ago--as a petroleum reserve. Its express purpose was to supply our country with American energy. That was the foresight of Congress 90 years ago. That is why it is completely unacceptable that the Obama administration this year finalized a plan to close half of NPR-A to energy production. Let me repeat: we set aside NPR-A 90 years ago for energy production, and this administration unilaterally shut off half of it. So this bill would nullify that plan and require the Interior Department to produce a new plan for responsibly developing these resources.

This bill would require annual lease sales in the NPR-A and ensure that necessary roads, bridges, and pipelines needed to support energy resources out of the NPR-A can be approved and completed in a timely, efficient manner. Now, Madam Chairman, this is crucial to the Trans- Alaskan Pipeline System, TAPS. It is crucial because that pipeline needs to remain fully operational.

Much focus has been given to the Keystone XL pipeline, and properly so; but we cannot forget that TAPS is one of the most important pieces of energy infrastructure in our Nation. Reduced production in Alaska has left TAPS at less than half of its capacity, threatening a shutdown that would cost jobs

and significantly weaken our energy security. We cannot allow that to happen, and developing our resources in the NPR-A is vital to ensuring that it doesn't.

I urge my colleagues to support this job-creating legislation and allow our Federal lands to be part of our Nation's energy equation.

We have seen the jobs that can be created through energy production. We have seen how it can grow local communities and create thriving economies. We have seen how lower energy prices are vital to putting more money in the pockets of American families. We know what is possible. It is just a matter of realizing that potential by allowing new energy production to occur on our Federal lands.

The majority of the provisions in this bill passed the House last Congress with bipartisan support. It is time for this Congress to once again move forward with this commonsense, job-creating energy plan.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), a former chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the sponsor of this legislation,

Madam Chairwoman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), a member of the committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, before I yield to my colleague from Ohio, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to my good friend, the minority leader. He characterized these bills as being not pressing.

Mr. Chairman, I would point out that probably the biggest issue facing America that we have heard from our constituents probably on both sides of the aisle is the need to have a growing economy and jobs. American energy--we have a chance to capture American energy and jobs with this legislation. So while it is not pressing, as the gentleman says, it is certainly very, very important.

Now, I would also point out the gentleman, the minority leader, was talking about several issues that are important. I would just suggest that probably number one on Americans' minds right now actually started on October 1, when the signup for the health care plan passed. Now, if there is something that is absolutely pressing that needs to pass this Congress before the end of the year, it is to rectify how people can keep the health care policies that they wanted.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis), another member of the Natural Resources Committee.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Wyoming.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), the gentleman from the State that certainly knows what oil production is about.

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

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, just let me talk about what this bill is about. This bill is about attempting to open Federal lands to energy production.

All the talk has been on oil and gas. That is very important. But this is also for renewable by doing what? By saying that in the process of using Federal lands for energy production, those lands that have the potential for the most production should be the first leased. What a remarkable idea: go where the potential energy is. And that is what this bill does.

But let me respond to my good friend from New Jersey who talked about how much we are producing in this country and so forth. I would suggest that he left out a few important points.

First of all, it takes some length of time in order to get an active lease into production, and the gentleman didn't talk about that. Why? Because it generally takes 4 to 6 years. And sometimes it is 8 to 10 years.

But in the last administration--the Bush II administration--they were very active in letting leases. And as a result of that, at the time that this administration took over, there were a number of active leases that were ready to produce. That is why the production was high in the early part of this administration.

And just put it this way: again, we are talking about Federal lands that are being leased for production. When the President took office, roughly 1.9 million acres were leased for energy production. That was in 2009. In 2012, that figure dropped to 1.75 million acres that were open for production. That is, obviously, a reduction.

But another way to look at it is the application permits to drill, which is really where I guess it meets the road, so to speak. In 2001, there were a little over 2,000 permits that were issued; and in 2012, there were a little over 1,700 permits issued. That is a 15 percent drop. If you drop the permits, you are obviously going to have less production.

So I think that needed to be pointed out to kind of set the record straight.

As to my good friend, Mr. Dingell, who is not on the floor now, I want to talk about the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska one more time.

Ninety years ago, that was set aside as a reserve. In all the years that Democrats controlled Congress, from the mid-fifties all the way to the nineties, nothing was ever done to change that policy until this administration decided, without any direction from Congress, to set aside one-half of that.

Why is that important?

I mentioned in my opening remarks that the Trans-Alaska Pipeline is a very important part of our pipeline system. There is no question that there is a movement in this country to try to dry up that pipeline by slow-walking oil exploration in Alaska, whether they are talking about offshore or onshore.

The NPR was designed to be a petroleum reserve. Why should we not build an infrastructure to utilize that?

It has been said, well, there's not that much oil there. Well, that will come out when leases are offered. Those that want to take advantage of this and think there is some production there will make the leases. The market will dictate that. But to unilaterally close it off doesn't make any sense. This bill corrects that. It makes NPR what it was supposed to be historically since 1923.

So those are just a couple of issues, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to touch on.

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

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes adjustments in the bill to the amount of funds authorized to be made available to BLM field offices for energy permitting. This change is made to ensure the bill meets its goal of reducing the deficit, not increasing spending.

According to information from the Congressional Budget Office, after adoption of this amendment the underlying bill would reduce the deficit by $26 million, while generating more American energy and new jobs for American workers.

This amendment sets the funding directed to wind and solar energy permitting in local BLM field offices at $5 million each fiscal year. Currently, under existing law, no funds get sent to those doing the work to permit these renewable projects. After the amendment, the amount to help foster renewable energy on Federal lands is less than currently in the bill, but is far more than the zero dollars allocated today.

A vote for this amendment is a vote for an all-of-the-above approach to American energy. It is a vote for more American-made energy, and it is a vote to support renewable energy that uses its own funds and not taxpayers' subsidies; and, Mr. Chairman, it is a vote to reduce the deficit.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

To be clear, nothing in this act prohibits individuals from asserting their rights to petition the government. In fact, it would be ridiculous for us to try to write a statute that would negate the First Amendment, so nothing in this bill does that at all. Let me talk about the process here.

The BLM undertakes multiple layers of rulemaking and environmental review when going through its Federal actions. Nearly every layer of this process allows for the opportunity for public comments, involvement, and questions regarding BLM's actions. Nothing, Mr. Chairman, in this legislation impacts an individual's right to comment, petition, and object to the actions of BLM under this bill. Nothing, by the way, in this legislation stops individuals from filing lawsuits. That is important in this debate on this amendment.

H.R. 1965 simply implements a cost recovery fee for the formal process of filing protests of oil and gas leasing. These formal protests require a direct BLM response, using staff time, energy, and resources to address what is, simply, often a delaying tactic. This paperwork recovery fee will ensure that BLM has the resources necessary to address the protests but that it has the necessary resources to carry out the functions of the Bureau of Land Management, which is for multipurpose use in this country.

So it is for these reasons, Mr. Chairman, that I oppose this amendment, because it does not add anything to what people already have a constitutional right to do.

I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time is remaining, Mr. Chairman?

I yield myself the balance of my time.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, this bill has nothing to do with high- rises, so we should set that apart, and I know the gentlelady was using that as an example.

I have to say this in a larger sense, which is that, in the time that I have had the privilege to chair this committee, we have seen over and over and over what I would call ``frivolous action'' by people with lawsuits who are trying to slow down the process. The gentlelady used her example of high-rises in Houston. I will use another example that, I think, this House needs to address, and that is the issue of the Endangered Species Act and how it affects development in other parts of the country.

In setting that aside for now, this bill simply says that, in going through the process, there should be something up front if you are serious about your issue. It is nothing more than that. This is a modest way to say, if people are serious about the actions that they are trying to take, then there ought to be nothing more than some skin in the game. That is what this bill does. This amendment would take that out. That is why I oppose the amendment and why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

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.

This amendment would increase regulatory red tape and opportunities for frivolous lawsuits to stop what we are trying to do here--American energy production and job creation. It would achieve the exact opposite of what our Nation needs and what the bill provides.

H.R. 1965 seeks to streamline and expedite the onshore oil and gas and renewable permitting process, and it does so in a safe and responsible way. This amendment would simply reinject the same uncertainty and bureaucracy into the permitting process that this legislation seeks to do away with.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005, Mr. Chairman, established in a broad, bipartisan fashion the use of categorical exclusions for energy projects in specific and limited circumstances. This provision was intended to expedite the permit approvals of certain energy projects on disturbed land, on operations with a small footprint, or in areas that were previously approved in recent years. Again, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was a bipartisan attempt, and this provision which I just described was part of the 2005 Act.

These pro-energy reforms are designed to allow minor actions that do not significantly affect the environment to move forward without the burdensome and lengthy full costly environmental review.

To the point the gentleman is making and what the gentleman's amendment addresses, this legislation clarifies the Department's ability to use the categorical exclusion tool to quickly permit energy projects. This amendment, unfortunately, would require the Department of the Interior to unreasonably review what we call ``extraordinary circumstances'' which require additional NEPA reviews, thereby essentially negating any value from expediting a project and inserting more certainty into an already uncertain energy permitting process.

The intent of this legislation is to streamline and simplify projects that are held up, often for years, in bureaucratic red tape and regulatory uncertainty. This amendment backtracks

from the goal by injecting more bureaucracy and regulatory hurdles into the process.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think this amendment adds anything to what we are trying to accomplish. In fact, I think it goes the other way. It goes the other way in such a way that negates what the Energy Act of 2005 in a bipartisan manner said.

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

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

Notwithstanding what my good friend from California said, I just want to make this point, which ironically was not brought out at all in the gentleman's argument. That is the issue of categorical exclusion.

That has been in place on energy projects now for 8 years. If there is something wrong with that or there is an example of where it has been abused, then maybe the gentleman has a case, but the gentleman didn't speak at all--not at all--to the point that that provision in the 2005 Energy Act has been abused. That alone should be enough to reject this amendment.

In any case, I do not believe that his amendment adds to what we are trying to do to streamline the process of energy creation and creating American energy jobs.

I urge rejection of this 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, as I say, I rise to oppose this amendment.

The Equal Access to Justice Act, or the EAJA, was created, rightfully so, to level the playing field between citizens seeking to do the right thing and a well-funded Federal Government. Unfortunately, wealthy activist groups have been able to distort the intended purpose of the EAJA by exploiting the program as a cash register to file thousands of lawsuits, many based on frivolous technicalities.

Further, Federal payments to lawyers fighting lawsuits come out of each agency's budgets, which, of course, hinders the agency's ability to do their job and forces tighter budgets on the agencies working on behalf of Americans.

Every year, numerous energy projects are held up by burdensome legal challenges by activist groups whose aim is to hold up or simply stop energy production in this country.

Under the guise of ``responsible development,'' these groups file lawsuit after lawsuit that force the government to use Federal resources and millions of dollars in taxpayer funds to litigate these lengthy and burdensome lawsuits. These well-funded activist groups have the resources to hire, in some cases, multiple lawyers to sue the Federal Government.

These unnecessary delays in energy projects result in a domino effect of delays in economic development, of delays, obviously, in job creation, of delays in income generation for local, State, and, indeed, the Federal Government, and delays in making the United States becoming energy independent.

Further, many small communities depend on a robust energy sector to provide jobs for its residents and generate income for their local schools and for their communities. These well-funded activist organizations should not be rewarded, Mr. Chairman, with taxpayer dollars for delaying American job creation and the generation of funds for our local communities.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I would just simply say that what this bill and the bill tomorrow, for that matter--this bill is designed to create an atmosphere for more American energy production, which I think is badly needed in our economy, because we know that a growing economy by any measure has to have a predictable energy source. That has been lacking on our Federal lands. That is what the underlying bill does.

What we have seen, and what we have observed in our committee, is the fact that the courtroom is used to slow down so many projects on Federal land. This provision in the current bill simply, I think, clarifies and rectifies that we can have some certainty in the law. That, I think, is the important part of creating American energy. I don't think that this amendment adds anything to that.

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

Will the gentlelady yield?

I have no problem with your amendment. As you rightfully said, in the last Congress this was accepted by a voice vote. I think it adds more lands for energy production; and as the gentlelady knows, we are in favor of that. So we accept the gentlelady's amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment to the floor. I think it adds a great deal to what we are trying to do with energy development in this country, and I am prepared to accept the amendment. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, in light of the recent flooding in the gentleman's home State of Colorado, I can appreciate his concern about this issue. However, this amendment contains no restrictions on the scope and breadth of this study, and it seems to be endless. In fact, the study is not focused on the tragic flooding in Colorado, and it is so expansive it can include all flooding anywhere, and the term ``oil and gas'' facilities is undefined. That is what the amendment says.

``Oil and gas'' facilities could be interpreted to mean many things, much of which is outside of the jurisdiction of this committee. This could include corner gasoline stations or private gas meters. And ``leaking and spills from tanks, wells, and pipelines'' does not have to be associated with natural gas. It can be anything, such as a septic or water or sewer tanks and pipelines.

Further, this amendment does not specify that the study be conducted in conjunction with production on Federal land, which of course is what this legislation specifically deals with. The result is a nationwide study that can touch a variety of sources, right down to private homes, the results of which will have nothing to do with the energy production process that this legislation seeks to streamline.

This study, undoubtedly at the expense of taxpayer dollars, will have no impact on energy production; and, frankly, it has no clear goal.

Finally, the proper place to examine the effects of flooding in Colorado is in Colorado. In testing done by the Colorado State Department of Public Health and the Environment, they found pollutants from oil and gas in the aftermath of the spills at 29 specific sites, but no pollutants in Colorado's waterways. However, the incidence of E. coli and raw sewage was measurable and did have an impact on public health, which is not limited to one industry and is not even covered by this study.

Mr. Chairman, for a variety of reasons, and I think I have tried to touch on the major ones that I just enunciated, I urge rejection of this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the author of this legislation.

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

As I mentioned in my initial remarks, this amendment really is very broadly written. And when we had other amendments talking about potential lawsuits, boy, adopting this amendment here would really be a litigant's dream if it were to be part of the legislation.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, let me be very clear that I do oppose this amendment.

This amendment is costly and wasteful. The amendment would redirect $10 billion away from Federal permitting streamlining, which we know would help lower costs and produce more energy, and instead funnel the money to another fruitless study of the unfounded position of somehow market speculation is impacting energy prices.

Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, researchers Christopher Knittel and Robert S. Pindyck from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sloan School of Management, MIT, found that speculation wasn't driving up energy prices. I will quote them, Mr. Chairman.

Back to those pesky speculators for a moment: surely, their

bets on oil have had at least some effect on prices?

According to our latest research, the answer is: not

really. In our recent paper, we explore the link between

speculation and inventory changes. We calculate a series of

speculation-free prices by creating a stable inventory of

oil, providing us with a picture of what the market might

look like in the absence of speculation. We focus on

inventory for a simple reason: if oil prices are changing

because of speculators, then there would have to be

commensurate changes to inventories--a buildup when prices

are increasing and a drawdown when prices are falling.

But when the economy was strong and oil prices were

increasing, we didn't see large increases in inventories. In

fact, they fell somewhat. This means that peak prices would

have actually been higher if you take away any effects of

speculation.

And let me repeat that final part:

But when the economy was strong and oil prices were

increasing, we didn't see large increases in inventories. In

fact, they fell somewhat. This means that peak prices would

have actually been higher if you take away any effects of

speculation.

Time and time again, we have heard from those opposed to oil and gas drilling that it is the shady Wall Street speculator, the man behind the curtain who is driving up energy prices. The truth is that the best way to fight speculators, or foreign cartels, is simply to outproduce them, and that should be our solution here today.

We should be working to figure out how to use more than just 2 percent of our Federal lands for energy development. We should find a way to have Federal lands keep pace with private lands in the revolution of energy production as currently taking place in the United States. Yet the Congressional Research Service tells us:

All of the increase from fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year

2012 took place on non-Federal lands, and the Federal share

of total U.S. crude oil production fell by about 7 percentage

points.

Yet, instead of reversing this trend, streamlining permitting, the author of this amendment wants to siphon off money for studies.

The legislation before us today is designed to streamline and produce more onshore energy production. This will create jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign imports. It demands an all-of-the-above energy agenda, and I would like to think that the folks on the other side could at least embrace that part of it.

I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and support the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I know there is no truism specifically in economic theory, but one thing we do know about crude oil is that it is subject to international pricing.

We do know that a big part of the international pricing and production is conducted by a cartel, namely, OPEC. The last figure I saw was about 45 percent of the international market. Well, when you have 45 percent controlled by one entity, you are going to have some price pressures that are coming. Indeed, you probably have some speculation.

Mr. Chairman, this is the important part of what this underlying bill and the bill that we will have on the floor tomorrow does.

The only way that you are going to beat cartels is to outproduce them. I don't care if you are talking about crude oils or if you are talking about apples or you are talking about potatoes or you are talking about timber. The whole idea, if you have somebody that controls a big part of the marketplace, the way you beat them is to outproduce them.

This bill allows America to outproduce our foreign competitors. This amendment adds nothing to that. I urge rejection of the amendment.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we all heard President Obama say, If you like your health care plan, you can keep, period.

A constituent of mine from Yakima, Gary Bailey, writes:

My wife and I are self-employed. Our provider just sent us

a letter telling us that, due to the Affordable Care Act, our

policy will no longer be available and we will have to choose

a new policy.

He went on to say:

The least expensive policy is double the cost of my

original policy, and the deductible went up to $10,000.

Mr. Speaker, Gary is not alone. Millions of hardworking Americans have lost the insurance they like and can afford. The Keep Your Health Plan Act that we will vote on tomorrow fulfills President Obama's promise, even if he won't.

Yakima, Washington.

Representative Hastings, I have to write to tell you what

has just happened to me regarding my health insurance with

Regence Blue Shield. My wife and I are self-employed and do

not get insurance from our employer. We cannot afford a

luxury policy in fact our policy was major catastrophic with

a $3500 deductible. Our provider just sent us a letter

telling us that, due to the ``Affordable Care Act,'' our

policy will no longer be available and that we will have to

choose a new policy.

The least expensive policy is double the cost of my

original policy and the deductible went up to $10,000.

President Obama said that our health care would go down

$2,500. Our cost for one of us went up $1,632. I am sorry

Congressman Hastings, but the President and all the democrat

party has not been truthful and you need to

defund Obamacare. Most of America doesn't want it and I can't

afford it!

Please listen to your constituents! Thank you for your

time.

Gary Bailey.

Mr. Chair, I support this bill and urge my colleagues to support my amendment to retain Congress's traditional role in authorizing project purposes at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dams and reservoirs.

Corps dams and reservoirs throughout the Nation provide multiple benefits. Water supplies, hydropower, recreation and flood control are just some of the benefits that were approved by Congress and paid for by beneficiaries such as ratepayers. Some Corps dams also provide year- round cold-water flows for fisheries as part of their operations. In the Pacific Northwest, multi-purpose dams provide the economic backbone for our region. They power communities, small businesses and residential homes and provide water necessary for irrigation, recreation and navigation. These duties have been approved by Congress in some fashion after careful deliberation over the costs, needs and justification for these uses.

I'm proud to have worked with the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and the American Public Power Association, which collectively represent almost 90 million electric ratepayers in 49 states, on this amendment. These ratepayers receive emissions-free and renewable hydropower from federal reservoirs throughout our country. These organizations, whose ratepayers pay--with interest--for hydropower and other functions at the Corps of Engineers dams--have been concerned with proposals that would give undue discretion to the agency to change the projects without ratepayer or Congressional oversight and authorization.

I will quote an October 8, 2013 letter from the organizations to illustrate their predicament:

``The ability to change project operations at Corps projects that provide hydropower presents a risk that hydropower generation from these projects could be diminished at the agency's discretion. For many members of NRECA and APPA who rely on the power generated at Corps projects to keep electric rates as low as possible, the loss of hydropower generated at these projects would require our members to seek more expensive replacement power.''

Policies and authorizations that govern the uses of Corps facilities, as authorized by Congress, should not be re-written by un-elected bureaucrats. There are some proposals to allow the Corps to administratively change project purposes and manuals that govern the Corps dams and reservoirs that could undermine congressional intent, erode government accountability, limit public input and create a litigious atmosphere. And, any such changes would have a cascading effect on dams owned by the Bureau of Reclamation and non-federal entities like public utility districts.

Instead of giving courts and bureaucrats more power, Congress needs to reinforce the congressionally-authorized policies that govern these projects. And, if changes need to be made at these facilities, they should be made by Congress in the open, not by the un-elected.

This amendment simply continues our historical role in determining how multiple-use Corps projects are operated. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of this resolution to fund the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

While House Republicans continue to offer solutions to end this government shutdown, we will continue also to take steps to provide funding for important areas of our government.

This measure fulfills the Congress' unique responsibility to fund programs vital to Indian tribes and Alaska Natives. There are 56 million acres of Indian trust lands in the United States. Unlike other privately owned lands, in most cases, Indian trust lands may not be leased for development purposes without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. These lands are critical for Indian tribes to create jobs and to generate revenue for their reservation economies.

For example, in my central Washington district, two tribes are major producers of timber that employ hundreds of people and produce income for tribal governments and thousands of individual members. In other parts of the country, tribes utilize their trust lands for oil, natural gas, coal development, and for a variety of business leasing and housing. It is critical to ensure continued funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs to perform functions necessary for tribes and individual landowners to lease and develop their lands.

The joint resolution additionally provides funding for the Indian Health Service programs. While direct care for acute and chronic health conditions is being provided as an essential government service to Native Americans during this shutdown, other services, such as preventative care, have been scaled back. It is critical that these be restored to normal operations.

The President repeatedly stresses the importance of the United States' unique relationship with Indian tribes. He now has an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to match his rhetoric with action by supporting the passage of this resolution and signing it into law.