Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House passed and sent to the Senate a bipartisan bill to keep our national parks open. Twenty-three Democrats joined the House Republicans to end the closure of these national treasures. They joined us to unlock the gates and to open the doors of these treasures, from Acadia to Zion. They joined with us to tear down the barriers that were erected to block access to our open D.C. memorials that my colleague from South Carolina just alluded to a moment ago. These memorials are open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. So the Senate should act today to pass this bill and to send it to the President for his signature.

But it is disappointing to see statements from Senate Democrat leaders dismissing and even ridiculing these commonsense steps as ``piecemeal.'' It is even more disappointing that the President has threatened a veto of this bill to keep the parks open.

Mr. Speaker, let's not forget that one week ago today the Senate Democrats, led by Harry Reid, and the entire Senate, unanimously approved a bill to keep the Federal Helium Reserve open and operating, and last night the President finally signed this bill to prevent a helium shutdown into law. Now, make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Senate unanimously passed it, and I am glad the President signed the law. It is important for our economy.

But the reason I bring this up is that the helium program is part of the Department of the Interior, the Department of the Interior that is responsible for our national parks. So one has to ask, why will the Senate pass and the President sign into law a bill to specifically prevent the closure of our Federal

helium program, but then refuse to act on a bill that would end the closure of over 400 national parks that are visited by millions of Americans every year? The contradictions in their words and actions are glaring. Such political posturing is not only illogical and hypocritical, but the result of that posturing punishes the American people.

Mr. Speaker, this does not need to happen, and it should not happen. So I urge the Senate Democrats and the President to stop going out of their way to make the government shutdown as painful as possible, and I urge the Senate Democrats and the President to come to the table and negotiate an end to this shutdown and to act today to take the reasonable and responsible step of passing a bill to open our parks and memorials to America's veterans, families, and all U.S. citizens.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise, again today in support of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, while it's understandable that, during this shutdown, some services would be limited in some parks and visitor centers, I believe this administration is going out of its way to take unreasonable and unnecessary steps to block public access to parks and monuments.

There is absolutely no reason why open-air parks and monuments here in Washington, D.C., should be barricaded off. These are places without doors, gates or fences where people are allowed 24/7, 365-day access to these memorials. Why are they closed now?

Furthermore, memorials that weren't closed during the last government shutdown in 1996 have been barricaded today. This administration is choosing to do this. It wants the effect of this government shutdown to be as painful as possible.

And the worst example of this is how the Obama administration erected steel barricades to keep our World War II veterans out of the memorial. These men are national heroes who flew here from across the country. The Park Service knew that they were coming. The veterans didn't deserve to be greeted by armed National Park Police at the entrance.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't cost the Federal Government a single penny to let these veterans walk around this outdoor, open-air structure. But ironically, the Federal Government is spending money to proactively keep them out. It may very well be costing more money to keep these visitors out than it would to simply let them in.

To add further insult to injury, the Obama administration isn't even applying this policy consistently. While highly visible monuments are barricaded off, others remain open. The Obama administration is selectively choosing which memorials to keep open and which to close, further proof, in my mind, that they're just playing politics.

So this bill today would end these type of political games.

I want to say that, as chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee that has jurisdiction on our national parks, we have started investigations into why this administration did these precise actions.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this legislation to fund our national parks. Nobody here wanted our government to shut down, but one of the consequences is that millions of Americans have been literally barricaded from entering our parks, memorials, and monuments. While it's understandable that some services would be limited in some parks, it's unfortunate that this administration has taken the unnecessary steps of closing off additional monuments in public places.

Mr. Speaker, it appears to me the Obama administration is choosing to make this shutdown as painful as possible by unnecessarily preventing public access to open-air spaces and monuments. These are spaces that are normally open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, all year long. These are places without doors or without gates. Yet the Obama administration is going out of their way to erect barricades and have people manning them in order to keep people out of these monuments. Mr. Speaker, that's flat-out wrong, and it is terribly wasteful.

Just today, World War II veterans, who bravely fought to defend and protect our country, encountered armed National Park Police and metal barricades when they tried to visit their memorial, the World War II memorial. Yet these veterans were undeterred. The shortsighted decisions by the Interior Department officials couldn't stop them from completing a visit to their memorial. I congratulate them for going in, as a matter of fact.

This targeted bill before us today would allow our national parks and landmarks to reopen to the public, welcoming back tourists and families to these public lands that are critically important to so many local economies.

Mr. Speaker, the House has acted multiple times, as has been said, to fund the government, but now it is time for the Senate to act. I support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill H.R. 687.

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

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 687, the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act. As our Nation continues to suffer from high unemployment, a rising national debt, and annual deficits, Congress's top priority should be advancing solutions that put Americans back to work and help to strengthen and grow the economy. The bill before us does just that.

Mr. Chairman, the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act, sponsored by our colleague and Natural Resources Committee member, Mr. Gosar from Arizona, is a bipartisan measure that will create thousands of new American jobs and boost our economy through increased U.S. mineral production.

The bill authorizes an equal-value land exchange between Resolution Copper and the Federal Government that will open up the third largest undeveloped copper resource in the world. The bill requires that the cost of the land exchange be fully paid for by the mine developer-- Copper Resolution, in this case--ensuring that there will be fair treatment for taxpayers.

This project will provide substantial benefits to the United States and the State of Arizona in the form of job creation, economic growth, and for increased national security for the United States. The mining project is estimated to support 3,700 new jobs. These are good-paying, family-wage American jobs that will equate to more than $220 million in annual wages.

At a time when our economy continues to struggle, this mining project will provide a much-needed boost through private investment. This mining activity will have over a $60 billion economic impact and will generate an estimated $20 billion in total Federal, State, county, and local tax revenue through the life of the project. This bill is a perfect example of how safely and responsibly harnessing our resources will generate revenue and get our economy back on track.

The importance of increased U.S. copper production cannot be overstated. Our Nation has become increasingly reliant on foreign countries for our mineral resources--placing our economic competitiveness and national security at risk. The U.S. currently imports 30 percent of the copper we need, and we will continue to be dependent on foreign countries if we fail to develop our own resources here at home.

The copper produced from this single project is estimated to meet 25 percent of the United States' entire copper demand. This copper could be used for a variety of items, ranging from medical devices, plumbing, computers, and even, Mr. Chairman, hybrid cars. It's also essential for our national defense equipment and technology, including satellites, space and aviation, and weapons guidance and communications systems.

The benefits and reasons to pass this bill are plentiful. However, we are likely to hear several inaccurate claims from those who are opposed to mining in the United States. I would like to take a moment to set the record straight right from the beginning.

First, this bill follows the standard Federal land appraisal process procedures issued by the Department of Justice, which has been in use for decades. The appraisal requires full market value to be paid for both the land and the minerals located within the land. If, by chance, there is copper production beyond the appraised value, the mine developer will be required to pay the United States the difference. This, Mr. Chairman, would be assessed annually. This is an added guarantee to ensure that taxpayers get a fair return for these copper resources.

Second, as I mentioned earlier, this bill is about creating nearly 3,700 American jobs. It's not about helping foreign mining interests at home, as some have charged. Opposing this mine and not producing copper in the U.S. is what truly benefits foreign nations, by sending American jobs overseas and making us increasingly reliant on foreign sources of critical minerals.

Finally, the bill requires full compliance with environmental laws and tribal consultation prior to constructing the mine. This bill provides more conservation and protection of culturally sensitive, riparian, and critical habitat than otherwise would occur. This bill does not, Mr. Chairman, waive any existing laws or protections for sacred sites under Federal law. It upholds the Native American Graves Preservation and Repatriation Act, or NAGPRA, and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. It will not allow the desecration of any sacred area. It does, Mr. Chairman, specifically and permanently protect a site called Apache Leap that is well known and special to Arizonans and the area tribes.

H.R. 687 is about creating new American jobs, strengthening our economy, and decreasing our dependence on foreign minerals. The bill has broad support from over 50 local and national organizations and government entities, including Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturing, and the National Mining Association.

Furthermore, the Arizona Republic Editorial Board has endorsed this bill. They highlighted the bipartisan support from the Arizona congressional delegation and noted that ``it has the potential to be an economic bonanza for our State and a national security boon to our country.''

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill to put Americans back to work and end our dependency on foreign minerals.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I yield the gentleman from Arizona an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to another gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time on general debate and would ask my friend from Arizona if he is prepared to yield back his time on general debate, as I am prepared to close?

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a few comments here in response to what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been saying regarding this legislation. Certainly, there is a great deal of hyperbole going on that, I think, simply doesn't meet the ``straight face'' test in many respects.

First of all, it has been implied--and maybe said specifically--by one of my colleagues that this legislation waives environmental laws. Mr. Chairman, I want to say very specifically that this does not waive any environmental laws. Let me walk back to how this works, because my friends on the other side of the aisle are talking about the NEPA review. NEPA is a pretty important environmental law--I certainly understand that--but let's put this in context.

This legislation is a land exchange legislation--you exchange this piece of land for this piece of land. Now, that is a policy decision that we are debating and making here on the floor of the House. We are making a policy decision on exchanging this piece of land for another piece of land. If that exchange is done and if this becomes law, then, yes, there will be a copper mine on that land that's exchanged--we acknowledge that--but my friends on the other side of the aisle suggest that we should have a NEPA review before we make a law.

How absurd is that? Are we going to have a NEPA review on every law? Mr. Chairman, don't we make the policy here in this country? Their criticism is that we are not allowing a NEPA review before we make a law. I did not know that the NEPA policy said that, before there is a land exchange or before Congress passes a statute, you have to have a NEPA review. Yet, that's what their argument is in this case. After the land exchange, the process starts of developing a mine, and then you go through all of those environmental hoops that you normally go through in this sort of activity.

So I just wanted to clarify that. I hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle aren't suggesting by their argument of a NEPA review that we should have a NEPA review on Congress' action. A NEPA review on a statute? That doesn't make sense.

Mr. Chairman, this is a good piece of legislation. It has been worked on very hard, on a bipartisan basis, by Mr. Gosar and others from the Arizona delegation. Obviously, Arizonans broadly support this, at least by the evidence that we see in the media and so forth. I think it's a good bill. We have several amendments. We will debate those, and we will address those issues during that debate; but I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.

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.

The fundamental purpose of H.R. 687 is to facilitate a land exchange; then after that land exchange was done, there would be a production and mining of copper, which of course would create thousands of American jobs.

Mr. Chairman, I have to say that the way this amendment is written, it would make it impossible by creating mandates that just simply couldn't be achieved.

I have to give my friend from Arizona credit. He has made no bones about the fact that he does not like this bill. He said that very well. I don't agree with him, but he has said it very well.

Generally, when you offer an amendment to a bill, however, you offer an amendment to improve the bill. Believe me, Mr. Chairman, this will not improve the bill. In all likelihood, if adopted, it would probably kill the bill because it dictates a precise town where the mine operations should be.

I suspect that the company will have some offices in those areas. That stands to reason if you're going to invest some money. But the Federal Government should not be dictating specifically what town somebody should set up an enterprise.

Mr. Chairman, if you want to go to the absurd, if the idea is to help a distressed area by dictating where you should locate some facility or manufacturing or some company, one could say, Gee, whiz, what city in the United States is really hurting? The first city that comes to mind, of course, is Detroit, Michigan. Are we going to suggest, for example, that the Federal Government dictate that Apple from Cupertino, California, should be relocated to Detroit? Of course that's absurd. Yet, when you start this precedent here that is suggested in this amendment, one could lead to that conclusion in the future.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), the sponsor of this legislation.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), the sponsor of the bill.

I inform my friend from New Mexico that I am prepared to close on this amendment if the gentleman is prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

It is critical that the Congress listen to and show respect to Indian tribes and their elected leaders. And, Mr. Chairman, it's for that reason that when I had the privilege of becoming chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, a new Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs was established. That hadn't been the case prior to my assuming the chairmanship of that committee. And the purpose was to ensure a special forum for issues and concerns important to Indian tribes and to native people.

It's important that Indian tribes have a role and are consulted on decisions that affect their land and their reservation lands.

But I just want to make a couple of points: this bill does not waive any existing laws dealing with Native Americans, none whatsoever.

If I have time, I will be more than happy to yield.

But probably more specific on this, this area that we're talking about in Arizona known as the Copper Triangle has been mined for--well, a long time. And this particular land exchange is right kind of in the middle of this Copper Triangle. And the closest Indian reservation is some 20 miles away.

Now I understand that, as in my area in central Washington, I know that Native Americans moved around, and that's certainly the case in Arizona. I understand that. But the effect of this amendment, the effect of this amendment would undermine our responsibility in Congress by giving total authority, total authority to the Secretary of the Interior to make determinations on whether sacred sites or other things important to Native Americans are violated. I think that's contrary to what our role is here.

And again, this law does not waive any--any--existing laws. None at all. In fact, we specifically, notwithstanding the fact that the nearest reservation is 20 miles away, we specifically say there should be consultation before this project goes forward. So I think this amendment is unnecessary.

I would be happy to yield to my friend from New Mexico.

Reclaiming my time, just to make the point that the gentleman's amendment, the intent is to address Native American issues. That's what we should be debating.

And I am just simply saying, if you affect Native American issues by implication, you would be waiving them. We are not waiving anything. We are respecting the laws that are in place right now.

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

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment because this amendment in no way risks water supply or safety. In fact, it upholds existing laws that protect water quality and availability. And probably the best way to illustrate that is to simply look at the support for this bill, especially from those that reside in the State of Arizona and represent people in the State of Arizona.

We all know that Arizona is a very diverse State. I have a very diverse State in Washington. And certainly California is diverse geographically. But there are certain areas in that State that are very dry. Water is very, very important.

Now, I daresay that no Member from Arizona would support a bill that would jeopardize water in Arizona. Yet we have heard on the floor here the bipartisan support of those from Arizona, representing Arizonans that support this bill. So I think that that issue, frankly, is simply not valid at all.

This amendment may sound like it's well intended. But what it really will do, there would be red tape involved with this because of the vagueness of the language in this amendment. And I think really what this amendment is, in deference to my good friend from California, it's an open invitation. In fact, Mr. Chairman, you might call it an ambulance siren for lawyers to start filing lawsuits in this issue. One more area. Goodness knows, there are going to be lawsuits anyway. This would be one more, in my view, if this amendment is passed.

And finally, I would just say this: 100 percent of the water needs of this mine will be secured before production commences.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), the sponsor of this legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 354) providing for the concurrence by the House in the Senate amendment to H.R. 527, with an amendment.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan legislation being considered by the House this evening, H.R. 527, the Helium Stewardship Act, is a commonsense action plan to protect our economy from the impending helium shortage and to inject free market principles into our Federal helium program.

The House must take action today on this legislation before time runs out. Under current law, the Reserve must cease operations on October 1--that's only 6 days from now, Mr. Speaker. The Federal Helium Reserve supplies one-third of the world's helium, and a disruption would cause real harm to our Nation's economy.

Helium is essential to our 21st century economy. Without it, we wouldn't have lifesaving MRI machines, we wouldn't have computer chips, we wouldn't have fiber optic cables or other devices used for our defense needs. Unless Congress takes immediate action, tens of thousands of American jobs and critical technologies would be put at risk.

The bill before us today is truly a bipartisan, bicameral plan that I'm pleased to have worked on with both my Senate and House colleagues.

This bill would implement a new operating system for the Federal Helium Reserve on October 1 that would include semiannual auctions. This will ensure that we prevent a crippling helium shortage and that the reserve stays open until 2021, when then nearly all of the helium supply is sold. That will give us enough time for the market to supplant this helium that will go away. Mr. Speaker, it also ensures that this program, Federal program, is ended.

A little history: on April 26, the House passed H.R. 527, the Helium Stewardship Act, by a vote of 394-1. Last week, the Senate passed H.R. 527 with an amendment by a vote of 97-2.

This final text of House Resolution 354 makes several necessary, minimal adjustments to the Senate-passed version of H.R. 527 to ensure it abides by budget rules and laws so that it does not increase deficit spending.

Prompt action of this final text will maintain a flow of helium for the reserve after October 1 and prevent economic disruptions to American jobs manufacturing critical technology and medical devices.

Mr. Speaker, nearly 100 groups representing the end users of refined helium--and these groups are high-tech manufacturers of semiconductors, aerospace technologies, medical devices, chemicals, fiber optics, and science research--all have called for passage of this legislation.

We have an opportunity today to preserve our economy, bring real reforms to a Federal program, get a better return for the taxpayer, and in the end truly shut down an outdated Federal program. These are all wins that we should pass this bill and celebrate these successes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), who has been actively involved in this legislation since actually the issue came before us a little over a year ago.

I am prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, virtually all of my colleagues have expressed gratitude for this bipartisan-bicameral effort, and I want to add my words to that also.

I particularly want to thank two members of the House Natural Resources staff--Tim Charters and Amanda Tharpe--because they worked diligently on this, especially this last week in getting the final language together.

It's not often that you get to thank one person who now has served in both bodies, but former Ranking Member Ed Markey was a cosponsor originally of H.R. 527. Senator Markey has now been a big advocate over in the Senate, and I want to thank him and his staff.

I particularly want to thank again Senator Wyden and Senator Murkowski and their staffs because we recognized earlier on that this had to be done before a date certain.

Obviously, as we've said many times on this floor, there are differences between the two bodies in how they approach different issues--and that was certainly true with this one--but we knew we had to get this done, so we have a piece now that, I think, both sides and both Houses can agree on.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to wonder sometimes about the seriousness of these motions to recommit that come from the other side, but I especially have to do so today.

Earlier today, we passed a continuing resolution that provides over $600 million for firefighters in order to fund all of these firefighting actions we have had this year, and the author of the MTR voted against the motion to recommit. There is nothing serious here. This motion to recommit offers absolutely no solution.

Here are the facts:

The fact is that just last year--and we haven't gotten the figures for this year--over 9 million acres of national forestland burned. Can you imagine the carbon imprint of that, by the way?

Secondly, we only harvested, or managed, 200,000 acres nationwide. That means that 44 times more national forestlands burned than were properly managed. This bill addresses that by properly managing our forests. The result will get us back to where we used to be when we used to spend $1 on forest management and get $2 back in return because we managed our forests. Now it's reversed. For every $2 we spend today, we get $1 back. That doesn't make any sense at all.

There have been no solutions out there, and this is not a solution either. The solution is the underlying bill. I urge a ``no'' vote on the MTR and a ``yes'' vote on 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 the bill, H.R. 1526.

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

Over the last few months, deadly wildfires, especially in California, Arizona, and Colorado, and wildfires in

other western States, have highlighted the growing problem with our current Federal forest management plans.

Like all public lands, our national forests should, unless otherwise designated, be open for multiple use, for everything from recreation to job-creating economic activities; but instead, Federal regulations and lawsuits have effectively shut down our national forests. Timber harvests have dropped by 80 percent over the last 30 years in our national forests.

While the Forest Service once received $2 for every $1 spent, it now spends $2 for every $1 it produces. Our Federal forests are being badly managed, and there have been devastating consequences to that management.

First, rural communities are struggling to survive and no longer have stable funding to pay for vital services. The Federal Government made a promise over a century ago to actively manage our forests for the benefit of rural schools and communities. Under a Federal law passed in 1908, the U.S. Forest Service has historically shared 25 percent of all timber revenues with rural counties containing national forestland. Since the Federal Government doesn't pay local taxes, those counties depended on this revenue to help fund essential needs like schools and local infrastructure.

But as timber sales declined, Mr. Chairman, so did the revenue to those counties. Counties struggled to find the resources needed to keep teachers in the classroom and police on the streets. Congress provided a short-term solution in 2000 by passing the Secure Rural Schools Act, which continued to provide funding as timber sales declined. SRS was created to provide ``transition payments'' over a 6-year period while these counties diversified their economies. But the fact is, Mr. Chairman, their economies are built on natural resources--in this case, timber.

With a national debt measuring in the trillions of dollars, it is becoming increasingly difficult to finance this program that costs several hundred million dollars annually, especially when it fails to address the fundamental problem of declining forest management. A new approach is needed now.

The Federal Government's lack of forest management has cost tens of thousands of American jobs. These forests are the backbone of these communities' economy. From the logging to the mill work to the truck drivers, our forests put thousands of people to work. I should say had put thousands of people to work.

Additionally, as I have mentioned, the lack of active forest management has caused a significant degradation of forest health and made them increasingly susceptible to bug infestations and catastrophic wildfires.

Mr. Chairman, this is an interesting statistic. Last year--just last year--9.3 million acres of national forests burned in wildfires. By comparison, only 200,000 acres were harvested by the U.S. Forest Service. That means that 44 times more acres burned compared to those acres that were responsibly harvested. We cannot continue to sit idly by while wildfires rage, homes are destroyed, and lives are lost.

H.R. 1526, the Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act, is a long-term solution to put Americans back to work to restore our forest health and help prevent catastrophic wildfires by renewing our Federal Government's commitment to actively manage our national forests.

The bill requires responsible timber production on at least half of our Federal Forest Service's commercial timberlands. These lands, by the way, Mr. Chairman, were specifically identified by the Forest Service for timber harvest.

By helping to restore active forest management, this bill is estimated to create over 200,000 direct jobs and would provide nearly $400 million in savings over 10 years.

As required by law in 1908, H.R. 1526 would again share 25 percent of the revenue from the timber sales with the counties containing this national forestland.

The bill will also allow us a short-term extension of the Secure Rural School payments to provide funding to counties as the Forest Service transitions back into active management.

H.R. 1526 would also help prevent deadly and catastrophic wildfires by focusing on hazardous fuels reduction and empowering States to take a more active role in reducing those wildlife risks.

Finally, this bill recognizes that States and counties are often better at managing forestlands than the Federal Government. States have shown that they are able to produce more revenue from timberlands than the Federal Government.

Let me give you an example in my home State of Washington. Washington State is able to harvest seven times more timber and generate 200 times more revenue on one-fourth of the land compared to what the Forest Service has. They do that by better management.

This bill would allow counties to actively manage portions of national forestland through the creation of Community Forest Demonstration Areas.

H.R. 1526 has broad support. Over 140 local and national organizations, including 68 counties in 17 different States, have endorsed this vital, commonsense legislation to restore active forest management that will protect American jobs and livelihoods. These communities, their families, and their businesses deserve better than the status quo and the current failure of our forest management plans today.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), who, as noted, has worked with his two colleagues from Oregon on the uniqueness of the Oregon forests.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

More than the gentleman, apparently. I do have several speakers remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), another member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), another member of the Natural Resources Committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Labrador), another member of the Natural Resources Committee

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

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

How much time do I have, Mr. Chairman?

I yield myself the balance of my time.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Lucas of the Agriculture Committee for his cooperation in expediting this bill to the floor. We have immortalized our agreement in an exchange of letters.

And I want to thank the ranking member because I think in his closing remarks, he made exactly the right statement, and that is that we in the House will have our position. The Senate is obligated to do the same, and it may be entirely different, and that's fine. But we work out the differences. And I also want to thank the ranking member and his two colleagues from Oregon because I understand the uniqueness of what they are looking for and, frankly, their approach to their unique--this was very similar to what I and others were thinking should be applied elsewhere. So that's what is embodied in this bill.

But I want to just make one point here because sometimes we lose sight of this fact. What is multiple use in timber, when we talk about timber? Multiple use means, from a commercial standpoint, of thinning and harvesting the timber. Where we get caught up in the differences, we look at timber entirely different from any other crop.

I represent a very diversified agricultural area in central Washington, and the crops are on a yearly basis. It's as diverse as apples to wheat. But when farmers plant these crops, then they use various chemicals at various times of year in order to manage whatever may happen so that they can harvest a good crop at the end of the year.

Well, timber is exactly the same, except depending on the type of timber, the harvest period is from 30 to 40 years. But if you have a problem with pine beetles, as we've had throughout the West, and this is a crop in a multiple-use area, you ought to manage that. You manage that by using the chemicals that are available.

So the only difference when we talk about managing timber from a 1- year management of yearly crops is the time span. But it should be managed in a responsible way in that regard, and that's what we provide for in this bill, to set targets and properly manage.

So I think this is a good bill. I certainly hope that my colleagues will support this when we have the vote tomorrow so that we can continue the process of negotiating with the Senate when they, hopefully, pass a bill.

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

Board of County Commissioner,

Washington County Oregon,

Hillsboro, OR.

Senator Ron Wyden,

Senator Jeff Merkley,

U.S. Senate.

Congressman Peter DeFazio,

Congressman Earl Blumenauer,

Congressman Greg Walden,

Congressman Kurt Schrader,

Congresswoman Suzanne Bonamici,

House of Representatives.

Dear Oregon Congressional Delegation: As Chair of

Washington County Board of County Commissioners I am writing

to offer my support for H.R. 1526. This legislation provides

a real solution to timber dependent counties in Oregon that

have suffered from a history of lost opportunities.

H.R. 1526 creates an important template for restoring a

promise made over a century ago to actively manage federal

forests. I believe had federal agencies actively managed

public lands over the last twenty years we would not be

seeing the loss of resources and lives from a horrible summer

of wildfires throughout the western U.S.

Washington County has been fortunate to see economic growth

throughout the recession. That growth however, did not occur

by luck, but was instead the result of decisions made by

local governments, communities and business over the last

fifty years. My colleagues in more rural Oregon counties

don't have the same ability to make decisions because of the

federal government dominance in landownership. H.R. 1526

provides an important role for local decision making.

It is important to maintain a proper balance of resource

protection so water quality, critical habitat, and

recreational opportunities are addressed in a future forest

plan. I believe H.R. 1526 creates a pathway to achieve this

balance.

H.R 1526 provides a common sense approach for returning to

sustainable forest management where the planned harvest is

stable, resources are protected and communities start the

rebuilding process. For long term social and financial health

of rural communities it is important to re-establish a

healthy forest products industry and create a healthy forest

environment.

Sincerely,

Andy Duyck,

Chair,

Washington County Board of Commissioners.

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to tell the gentleman I think this amendment adds a great deal to this legislation, and I will support your amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. I think it adds a lot to it because, as we transition to targets in the future, I think something like this would be very beneficial. And so I congratulate the gentleman and I support his amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment.

Last year, in my home State of Washington, over 300,000 acres burned. And yet the Forest Service has yet to service anything. And I dare say now that whatever value there is to that salvage timber, it probably has gone away.

I think this amendment addresses that issue very, very well, and I support the gentleman's amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for offering this amendment. I think his amendment takes care of a unique problem, although it may be applicable in other parts. But I think the gentleman has the right approach, and I support his amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment.

If I were to categorize this amendment, it would just simply prohibit the Forest Service from removing or eliminating roads without public involvement.

In my district, in the Naches Ranger District, there was a case where they were in fact using other funds that were used to maintain roads, and they were using them to close roads, but all the time there was no public involvement. I think your amendment addresses that issue, and I support the gentleman's amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment.

The issue of salvage is a very important part of proper management in forests, and I think your amendment adds to that.

I support your amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 761.

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

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 761, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act.

Not a day goes by when Americans don't use a product that is made from critical minerals. In fact, life as we know it in the 21st century would not be possible without these minerals. There would be no computers, no Blackberrys or iPhones. There would be no MRI, CAT scan, or X-ray machines. There would be no wind turbines or solar panels. Mr. Chairman, the list is exhaustive of these things that depend on critical minerals that make modern life possible.

Rare-earth elements, a special subset of strategic and critical minerals, are core components of these products in the 21st century. Yet despite the tremendous need for rare-earth elements, the United States has allowed itself to become almost entirely dependent on China and other foreign nations for these resources.

America has a plentiful supply of rare-earth elements, but roadblocks to the development of these crucial materials have resulted in China producing 97 percent of the world's supply. Our current policies are handing China a monopoly on these elements, creating a dependence that has serious implications on American jobs, on our economy, and on our national security.

Burdensome red tape, duplicative reviews, frivolous lawsuits, and onerous regulations can hold up new mining projects here in the U.S. for more than 10 years. These unnecessary delays cost American jobs as we become more and more dependent on foreign countries for these raw ingredients. The lack of America-produced strategic and critical produced minerals are prime examples of how America has regulated itself into a 100 percent dependence on at least 19 unique minerals. It has also earned the United States the unfortunate distinction of being ranked dead last when it comes to permitting mining projects. In 2012, the U.S. was ranked last, along with Papua New Guinea, out of 25 major mining countries on the pace of permitting. Mr. Chairman, I can't speak for Papua New Guinea, but the reason the U.S. Government is so slow to issue new mining permits is very simple: government bureaucracy.

H.R. 761, introduced by our colleague from Nevada, Mr. Amodei, will help us to end the foreign dependence by streamlining government red tape that blocks America's strategic and critical mineral production. Instead of waiting for over a decade for mining permits to be approved, this bill sets a goal of total review process for permitting at 30 months.

Now this isn't a hard deadline, Mr. Chairman. It can be extended. But it is a goal to push the bureaucrats into action on these important infrastructure projects. It shouldn't take a decade to get a project built for minerals that we need in our everyday life and for our national security.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, above all, this is a jobs bill. The positive economic impact of this bill will extend beyond just the mining industry. For every metal mining job created, an estimated 2.3 additional jobs are generated. And for every nonmetal mining job created, another 1.6 jobs are created.

This legislation gives the opportunity for American manufacturers, small businesses, technology companies, and construction firms to use American resources to help make the products that are essential to our everyday lives.

As China continues to tighten global supplies of rare-earth elements, we should respond with an American mineral mining renaissance that will bring mining and manufacturing jobs back to America. The National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act is important to our jobs and to our economy. We must act now to cut the government red tape that is stopping American mineral production and furthering our dependence on foreign minerals.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), a new member of the Natural Resources Committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would ask my friend from New Jersey if he has any further speakers. I'm prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close.

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

Mr. Chairman, before I make my closing remarks, I want to thank Chairman Goodlatte of the Judiciary Committee for his cooperation in helping schedule this bill for consideration. We have an exchange of letters to that effect.

Mr. Chairman, much has been debated here on the floor about what is strategic and what is not strategic. Let me posit a suggestion here on the fact that there are two ways that you could define this. You could define it by making a definition so narrow that in effect the legislation picks winners and losers. Or you could write statutory law that says that certain conditions that require certain elements will be the driver of what is strategic. That means the marketplace is the one, then, that decides what is strategic. I think that's a much better approach because when I talk about this, I recall hearing that in the late 1890s the U.S. Patent Office issued a statement--and I could be off a little bit--saying that we ought to close down the U.S. Patent Office because everything that has been invented, has been invented. This is in the 1890s. This is before we were flying airplanes. This is before the car became commercially available. This means all the minerals that go into those things weren't even thought of at the time.

So what we do then in this bill is just very straightforward. We say that the strategic minerals will meet these criteria. By the way, you can find this on page 5, section 3, ``Definitions'':

(A) For national defense and national security.

That is so self-evident, it hardly needs to be debated.

Second:

For the Nation's energy infrastructure, including

pipelines, refining.

That's from an energy standpoint. That certainly should not be debated because we have to have a good energy source if we're going to have a growing economy.

And:

(C) To support domestic manufacturing.

Of course, that includes agriculture and housing. In other words, to support our economy. Doesn't that make good sense to have a source of strategic minerals for that?

Finally:

(D) for the Nation's economic security and balance of

trade.

That makes eminently good sense because we are seriously out of balance

now with China, as has been brought up.

So this approach is more of a long-term solution because I dare say that 25 years from now there will be a mineral that somebody will find that will be used for new technology. But if we have defined it so narrowly that we don't know what that technology is, we have in fact been picking winners and losers. That's the wrong approach. The right approach is what's embodied in this bill to say that these conditions will be the ones that will define strategic minerals.

Finally, let me close on this: everybody likes to make fun of sand and gravel as being strategic. I guarantee you that after the earthquakes in northern and southern California, when the freeways collapsed, I can tell you very, very strategically that cement and sand and gravel fit that category.

So under the conditions, I think this fits what we are attempting to do in the long term.

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

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, June 28, 2013.

Hon. Doc Hastings,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Longworth House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Hastings, I am writing with respect to H.R.

761, the ``National Strategic and Critical Minerals

Production Act of 2013,'' which the Committee on Natural

Resources reported favorably. As a result of your having

consulted with us on provisions in H.R. 761 that fall within

the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, I

agree to discharge our Committee from further consideration

of this bill so that it may proceed expeditiously to the

House floor for consideration.

The Judiciary Committee takes this action with our mutual

understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 761 at

this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over subject

matter contained in this or similar legislation, and that our

Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as the

bill or similar legislation moves forward so that we may

address any remaining issues in our jurisdiction. Our

Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an

appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate

conference involving this or similar legislation, and asks

that you support any such request.

I would appreciate a response to this letter confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 761, and would ask

that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be

included in the Congressional Record during Floor

consideration of H.R. 761.

Sincerely,

Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment really picks up on what my arguments were at the end of the general debate because the effect of this amendment would be to pick winners and losers by narrowly defining a use. And as I stated in my closing remarks, we have four categories that I think are very broad and change over a period of time.

So what this amendment does is try to restrict what may be decided as a critical mineral. Of course, that will change over time. If this amendment is adopted--and I, obviously, urge rejection of this amendment--but if it were to be adopted, I can make a prediction that I know would come back, and that is we'll be back here in the future saying there's another set of critical minerals that we need to define. And we keep doing that over and over and over. Isn't it much better to define the categories and then apply those minerals to those categories? Because they will change.

I find it kind of interesting, too, Mr. Chairman, because I closed my general debate remarks by talking about sand and gravel. My good friend from southern California, I guess, alluded to the fact that sand and gravel don't fit into that category. I'm not going to ask him to answer me, but I'll just ask the question rhetorically, I wonder if he felt that way after the earthquake collapsed freeways in southern California. Would he have liked to wait maybe 4 years for the permitting process to get sand and gravel in order to build those freeways that are so important to southern California?

I asked that question rhetorically, of course, Mr. Chairman.

But I just want to say that this amendment would do exactly opposite of what the intent of this bill is about, and that is that it picks winners and losers. I urge its rejection, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close.

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

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I think the gentleman from New Jersey did say this picks winners and losers--at least he didn't deny it--and then he tried to turn it around and say that we pick winners and losers. I will acknowledge that from this standpoint:

the winners will be those States that have huge, huge swaths of Federal land. The winners will be the communities in those States that have large swaths of Federal land that want to create jobs, because jobs are created because of the natural resources in those States. So from that sense, yes, we are picking winners and losers, and, frankly, I am proud of that.

But I have to say this, Mr. Chairman. In listening to my friend's argument on this, keep in mind what this bill does. This bill tries to provide certainty for those that would want to get into the mining business by saying that you have to have a decision made in 30 months. Now, the decision doesn't have to be affirmative, but there has to be a decision.

What this gentleman is saying, what the effect of this amendment is, as I hear his argument, is there is one more layer we have to go through before it is strategic, and that's the Secretary of the Interior. Does that not suggest that that might be a political problem, then, rather than a problem based on what is needed? No. The four broad categories is a much, much better way to do it.

I think the gentleman's amendment is misplaced. I urge its rejection, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Clearly, with the last amendment and this amendment, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are really disturbed about what strategic is. I guess I can understand that. I obviously disagree with that.

This is very similar to the last amendment, except it specifically gives the Secretary of the Interior that power to decide what is critical or not.

Now, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I don't think from a policy standpoint we should give that much power to anybody to say what is critical and not as far as minerals concerned that support our economy. Let me just give you a case in point of how we run into problems with this.

Less than 10 years ago, people were concerned about platinum group metals used in computers and electronics and the pending shortfall of copper. So because we hadn't defined these broad categories--see, if we had this bill in place 10 years ago, this category would have taken care of itself because the market would have suggested we need new minerals in order to support a certain sector of the economy. But no, when you pick winners and losers, then you have to go through the whole process and the hand-wringing and the high prices and all of those things that slow down the economy.

So, once again, in deference to my good friend that offered this amendment, in a bill that is trying to add certainty to the regulatory process, this adds another layer of uncertainty by giving it to the Secretary of the Interior. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I don't think that is good policy.

This goes along again with the last amendment. By voice vote, that was rejected. This should be rejected in a like manner. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I would be more than happy to tell you. And I made this. If you look on page five, under Definitions: Strategic and Critical Minerals. The term ``strategic and critical minerals'' means minerals that are necessary--and there's four categories--for national defense and national security requirements. I can't predict in 25 years which mineral will support our weapons, for example, but that is a category in which that would be a critical mineral.

B, for the Nation's energy infrastructure, including pipelines, refining capacity, electrical power generation and transmission, and renewable energy production. Now, I have no idea what, in the future, critical minerals we will need to support those activities, but I know before wind and solar took hold, nobody was worrying about those minerals. But this category, if you had it by category, you would not have to go through the hand-wringing to find out where that source is.

C, to support domestic manufacturing, agriculture, housing, telecommunications, health care, and transportation infrastructure.

Will the gentleman yield?

Well, just let me finish then because there's only one more, and I do want to say that.

For the Nation's economic security and balance of trade. So once that category is defined and somebody wants to refine some element--I don't know, pick a name; there are all these new names; I can't pronounce them anyway--and they find out that there's a new industry that wants a certain element, if an entrepreneur wants to mine for that, they make the permit and it's decided by the Federal agency. Very simple. And if it fits this category, he gets the permit. That's the beauty of it.

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

I just want to say that we have somewhat exhausted this; but the difference between this gentleman's amendment and the broad categories I say is that he--he--or I should say the Secretary of the Interior-- picks that. The Secretary picks it.

Under the underlying bill, yes, the Secretary picks it; but if it meets these broad categories, then, of course, he has to pick that mineral. That makes perfectly good sense because it responds to the marketplace.

Mr. Chairman, I urge rejection of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 130) to require the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain Federal land to the Powell Recreation District in the State of Wyoming.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, S. 130 directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the Powell Recreation District approximately 322 acres of land located in Park County, Wyoming.

The Powell Recreation District will continue to use the land for a public recreational shooting complex, as it has since 1980.

The bill will have no cost to the taxpayer since the Powell Recreation District is required to pay for any administrative costs associated with the conveyance.

This is a noncontroversial bill, Mr. Speaker, and I urge its adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 157) to provide for certain improvements to the Denali National Park and Preserve in the State of Alaska, and for other purposes.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, S. 157 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to issue permits for a natural gas pipeline and a microhydroelectric project within the boundary of Denali National Park in Alaska.

Additionally, S. 157 authorizes a land exchange between Denali National Park and Doyon Tourism, Inc., to facilitate the water project and renames a nearby ranger station in honor of Walter Harper. One hundred years ago, Harper became the first man to reach the summit of Mt. McKinley.

Congressman Don Young, our colleague from Alaska, has sponsored a companion measure to this bill in the House, but to allow this bill to become public law more quickly, I urge adoption of this Senate bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 304) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the State of Mississippi 2 parcels of surplus land within the boundary of the Natchez Trace Parkway, 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 insert extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, S. 304 directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey 67 acres of Natchez, Mississippi, to the State of Mississippi and to adjust the boundary of the Natchez Trace Parkway.

This property was originally donated to the National Park Service by the State to construct the parkway, but was ultimately unneeded. Rather than lease the property back to Mississippi, this would transfer the title back to the original owner.

This is a commonsense measure, and I urge its adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I urge adoption and 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 (S. 256) to amend Public Law 93-435 with respect to the Northern Mariana Islands, providing parity with Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, S. 256 would amend the 1974 law to convey certain submerged lands in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Under this bill, the territory would have the administrative authority over lands covered by tidal waters out to 3 nautical miles, giving it parity with the other United States territories of Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. Comparable control of the seabed has been also granted to coastal States under the Submerged Lands Act. On May 15, the House passed similar legislation by a voice vote.

S. 256 also contains an amendment to delay in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands an annual minimum wage increase of 50 cents. Under the new formula in this bill, a 50-cent minimum wage bump would still occur in 2014, with annual increases starting in 2016, until the Federal minimum wage is reached. The territory has asked for a deferral on this because its economy cannot currently sustain the minimum wage increases that are current law at this time.

I want to thank Chairman Kline of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and his able staff for their assistance in scheduling this bill for consideration today as the minimum wage matter is under that committee's jurisdiction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Harper).

Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend from the Northern Marianas that I have no more requests for time, and I am prepared to yield back if the gentleman is prepared to yield back.

I thank the gentleman for his compliment, and I urge adoption of the bill.

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 (S. 459) to modify the boundary of the Minuteman Missile National Historic Site in the State of South Dakota, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative

days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, S. 459 would authorize an agency-to-agency conveyance of Federal lands to allow for the expansion of the Minuteman Missile National Historic Site in South Dakota.

The U.S. Air Force administered over 1,000 Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missiles in silos throughout the Central States. These sites played a critical national security role until they were deactivated following the end of the Cold War.

The Minuteman Missile National Historic Site was established by Congress in 1999 to recognize the importance of the Minuteman ICBM program. S. 459 would convey just under 30 acres of the Buffalo Gap National Grassland to allow for the establishment of a visitor facility, administrative site, and a parking lot. This is good legislation, Mr. Speaker, and I urge its adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I, too, have no more speakers, and so I urge its adoption.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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