Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as we come back after our August district work period, there have been several major events that have happened and generally do happen in late summer in the western part of the United States. Those events generally revolve around forest fires.

I'm joined on the floor tonight by a number of my colleagues from the western part of the United States in whose districts we've experienced some of these forest fires. But the reason we wanted to have this time, Mr. Speaker, is because this issue about forest management that I'm going to get into and my colleagues will be getting into has been building up for some time.

I have the privilege to chair the House Natural Resources Committee. We have broad jurisdiction over all Federal lands, and that certainly includes our forested lands. And what I have observed in the time that I've had the privilege to be in this body is that our national forests are being badly mismanaged, particularly on Federal lands. They're being badly mismanaged generally because of events and regulations coming from the Federal Government. We'll talk about that a bit tonight. But there is a solution to what we will be discussing tonight for the problems we've had in the western part of the United States with these forest fires--and that's the Healthy Forest Act that we'll have on the floor, hopefully, later on this month.

As the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, I have always felt

that all Federal lands, unless otherwise designated, should be for multiple purposes. That includes recreation, that includes commercial activity, and that includes whatever activity would be allowed unless Congress otherwise designates. And those designations could be national parks, they could be wilderness areas, they could be national monuments. But unless Congress otherwise designates, these areas should be for multiple purposes. In many respects, that goes to the crux of the problem that we'll be talking about tonight: the high incidence of forest fires on our Federal lands.

What we propose in the Healthy Forest Act that I hope will be on the floor here later this month and has passed out of committee by a voice vote is that on Federal lands where there is multiple purpose, there should be target dates for harvesting timber. If one looks at timber like any other commercial crop, the only difference is timber harvests happen in a longer period of time--generally, 30 to 40 years. But you should still manage that crop. That means thinning and doing all the things you do with any other commercial crop. This hasn't been done. As a result, this has led to these catastrophic forest fires that we've had.

I know there will be a chart on the floor later on that shows when you reduce harvests, the incidence of wildfires goes up dramatically. But it's gotten to the point where it's getting into the taxpayers' pocket. It's getting into the taxpayers' pocket because when we were properly managing land some 30 years or more ago, for every dollar that the Federal Government spent on managing our forest lands, $2 would come back in return, generally from the revenue that was realized because of harvesting. But now, Mr. Speaker, that ratio is exactly reversed. For every $2 spend, we only get $1 back.

As a result, it is getting into the pocket of the taxpayer when we're running these trillion-dollar deficits. Where we could have a positive cash flow, we don't have a positive cash flow.

So the response to that is to set target dates in various forests for how much timber should be harvested. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is not just on the Federal level where there would be a benefit. There is a benefit also to local communities within various counties that are heavily timbered on Federal forest lands.

Back some 100 years ago, when we were looking at using these forests as national assets, there was a promise by the Federal Government to give local counties 25 percent of the revenue that they got for timber. This was their source of income, and it worked well for some 80 years. But because of the regulations that I mentioned in my brief opening remarks, and particularly in the Northwest, and particularly in Washington, Oregon, and in northern California, because of the Endangered Species Act--and specifically within the Endangered Species Act, the spotted owl--timber harvests have dropped off dramatically. That means these counties have lost their revenue. In fact, in Washington, Oregon, and California, in the last 20 years, timber harvest has fallen by 90 percent on Federal lands; and so, as a result, those counties that relied on the revenue from forest activity simply don't have any other means of income.

Unfortunately, that's one of those issues that needs to be addressed. We do address that in the Healthy Forests Act by allowing counties to manage these Federal forests and get a return as they did--it started some 100 years ago--of 25 percent of the harvest.

So these are issues that we will be discussing tonight, some in more detail, how they affect individual districts. And we hope to have this bill on the floor, as I mentioned, later on this month. It did pass out of committee, by the way, on a voice vote. I think that is significant. I think more and more people are understanding the need to properly manage our forests.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize first a gentleman whose district was heavily impacted. We all heard about the forest fires surrounding Yosemite National Park. So, Mr. Speaker, I want to yield back my time but recognize the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H. Res. 319. It was put on that resolution inadvertently.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 697) to provide for the conveyance of certain Federal land in Clark County, Nevada, for the environmental remediation and reclamation of the Three Kids Mine Project Site, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 697, the Three Kids Mine Remediation and Reclamation Act, was introduced by our colleague from Nevada (Mr. Heck) on Valentine's Day and was marked up on June 12 of this year.

The Three Kids Mine is located in Clark County, Nevada, adjacent to the city of Henderson. The mine was operated from 1916 to 1961. The United States, through the Defense Plant Corporation, owned 446 acres of the Three Kids Mine Project from 1942 to 1955. The mine site was used to produce federally owned manganese ore for national defense purposes and was leased by the U.S. until 2003 to stockpile manganese nodules.

The Three Kids Mine Project area is approximately 1,262 acres and includes 948 acres of Federal lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Reclamation, and 314 acres of private lands where the mill site and processing plant are located.

The site is contaminated with arsenic, lead, and other heavy metals and petroleum hydrocarbons. Cost estimates for cleanup and reclamation of the site range from $300 million to $1.2 billion.

The city of Henderson, the Henderson Redevelopment Agency, the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection, Lakemoor Development, and the Bureau of Land Management have negotiated a plan to clean up and redevelop the Three Kids Mine Project site that includes the purchase of 948 acres of Federal land. The purchase price would be adjusted to reflect the actual cleanup cost of the Federal and non-Federal lands where the Federal Government has environmental liability resulting from the mill, from the processing facilities, and the storage of Federal- owned manganese nodules.

All in all, Mr. Speaker, this is a win-win for everyone involved. The environmental problems are addressed, the abandoned mine site is reclaimed, and the land redeveloped for beneficial use--all at no cost to the American taxpayer.

If successful, this could provide a framework for other abandoned mine sites that are near or adjacent to small towns and larger urban areas.

So I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which passed by voice vote in the last Congress, and I would hope it would do so again in this Congress.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the author of this legislation, who introduced it in the last Congress and in this Congress, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck).

I would ask my friend from California, I have no more requests for time and I'm prepared to yield back if the gentleman is prepared to yield back.

I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, as was mentioned, this is a win-win proposition--at no cost to the taxpayer--cleaning up this mine, and I urge its support. It passed, again, by voice vote in the last Congress, and I hope it does so again in this Congress.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1411) to include the Point Arena-Stornetta Public Lands in the California Coastal National Monument as a part of the National Landscape Conservation System, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

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

H.R. 1411 would add 1,255 acres of the Point Arena-Stornetta Public Lands to the California Coastal National Monument, which was created by Presidential Proclamation 7264 in January of 2000.

The Stornetta family, the namesake of this area being annexed into the monument, grazes cattle in this area, so it is imperative that grazing continues and is compatible with the long-term protection and management of the monument. Public land grazers in Arizona, Montana, and Utah have already been targeted by a few antigrazing zealots who want to litigate to extinction the legitimate and long-standing practice of grazing in national monuments.

During committee consideration of H.R. 1411, an amendment was adopted to ensure that traditional economic activities and uses, such as grazing, will be allowed to continue once the Point Arena-Stornetta Public Lands are added to the California Coastal National Monument. It also limited future land acquisitions to only those done by donations or exchange, thereby preventing any unnecessary taxpayer expense. Private property rights were also protected by ensuring motorized vehicle access to any non-Federal lands within the monument and requiring written consent from the landowners before their property can be included in the monument.

The bill includes provisions preventing restrictions on military or commercial low-level overflights and training activities, and also on Department of Homeland Security law enforcement activities, other routine provisions protecting activities outside of the designation, and prohibiting the creation of buffer zones.

I think these conditions are the right conditions when you take land for other uses, and I support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no more requests for time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a good piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to adopt it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, nuclear weapons production played a pivotal role in our Nation's defense for decades, helping to end the Second World War and to end the Cold War. Implementing these programs resulted in a large volume of radioactive waste that the Federal Government has a legal responsibility to clean up.

Today, there are indications that nuclear waste is leaking out of the underground tanks at Hanford in my congressional district, with higher levels of contamination now being detected in the surrounding soil.

The amendment that I offer, Mr. Chairman, would restore a portion of the reduction for the Environmental Management program that would so greatly impact the Richland Operations Office and help enable the cleanup to move forward safely, efficiently, and in a timely manner.

I would be happy to yield to the subcommittee chairman.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your support for this amendment and for your position on Yucca Mountain in the underlying bill, which is the ultimate solution for Hanford's high-level tank waste.

I would like to remind the chairman, I am meeting with Secretary Moniz later this week, and I will reiterate the need for this information that you have just outlined for WTP.

I also recognize the discrepancy in allocations between the House and Senate bills.

I want to ask the gentleman: How do you anticipate that these differences will be resolved, particularly as they pertain to EM, in the event of a continuing resolution?

I yield to the chairman.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I hope we don't get to a CR, but thank you very much for that information.

At this time, I would like to yield to my colleague from southwest Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler), the gentlelady from the Appropriations Committee.

I thank the gentlelady for her remarks.

Again, I urge adoption of this amendment because this is a legal obligation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I, too, rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

I do appreciate the gentlelady's concerns, particularly about science funding. However, Mr. Chairman, increasing funding for optional programs, as valuable as they may be, cannot come at the expense of the Federal Government's meeting its existing legal obligations to clean up the waste created by our Nation's nuclear defense programs. I might add, Mr. Chairman, that these were programs that won World War II and that largely won the Cold War.

At Hanford, in my district, the Federal Government has 56 million gallons of radioactive nuclear waste stored in 177 underground tanks. Today, it appears likely that some of these tanks are leaking, and higher levels of contamination have now been detected in the areas surrounding one of the most recent leakers. In addition, there is also a large quantity of radioactive waste at Hanford that was never put into tanks. That, too, must be dealt with as well as the nuclear waste at other sites across the country, like at the Savannah River, Oak Ridge, and Idaho.

Again, it is nuclear waste that was created by programs of the Federal Government for defense purposes. Cutting $1.7 billion from the EM program would essentially halt most nuclear waste cleanup work, and it would put the safety of our cleanup sites at risk and end any chance of the Federal Government's meeting its existing legal cleanup commitments to the States.

Mr. Chairman, let me be more specific about Hanford. I mentioned 56 million gallons of nuclear hazardous waste stored in 177 underground tanks. Those tanks range in size from a half a million gallons to a million gallons. Now, when you go out to the site, of course you can't see the tanks because they're underground. All you see are gauges on top that monitor what activity is going on in those tanks. If you want to quantify how much 56 million gallons is, picture this: if one were to put 56 million gallons here, it would take over 21 House Chambers to fill 56 million gallons of waste. That's how much radioactive waste is at Hanford, which needs to be cleaned up. It's the result of the defense weapons program.

Now, the distinguished subcommittee chairman and I and others have mentioned the legal obligation. In Washington State, that legal obligation is called a tri-party agreement. It has set deadlines for cleaning up Hanford, including the waste that I just mentioned. It's a legal agreement between the Federal EPA, between the Federal Department of Energy, and between the State Department of Ecology. It's a legal agreement with time lines, and if you don't meet the agreements, of course you're going to be sued. Every time there has been a threat to be sued or there has been a disagreement on the time lines, the State has always won.

So why would we want to defund this program and put all of that at risk, which, of course, would cost a whole lot more money in the future?

While I recognize the gentlelady and her passion for science funding--and I, too, understand that as I have a national lab in my district, for example--56 million gallons, or over 21 House Chambers, of nuclear hazardous waste

needs to be cleaned up, and it's the responsibility of the Federal Government. So I oppose the gentlelady's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, 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. 2231.

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

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

My good friend from Oregon talked about Groundhog Day as to the nature of this bill. I can say, ``Well, here we go again.''

Instead of debating ways to create jobs, to enhance revenues, and to secure our Nation from a national security standpoint, we are back to debating a moratorium on offshore drilling that will lock away America's energy resources. Specifically, this amendment would close a wide area of Federal waters from drilling off the State of Alaska. But this amendment doesn't just lock away America's resources, it also eliminates State revenue-sharing provisions in the bill.

President Obama has already closed the North Aleutian Basin through Presidential moratorium, closing off jobs and economic diversity to the people of Alaska through 2017. The underlying legislation does not in any way modify this unscientific Presidential closure or modify the existing Presidential authority. It does, however--and this is important, Mr. Chairman--provide that if this region contains some of our Nation's greatest potential for energy, that we should open that area for the future. I know that logic is sometimes lost in this town, but in all honesty, Mr. Chairman, we should be drilling offshore in those areas where we know the most resources are located or potentially located.

The Natural Resources Committee has heard testimony time and time again about young people leaving Alaska to chase jobs elsewhere. We have also heard from the Aleutians, such as the Aleutians East Borough mayor Stanley Mack, who spoke of how the opportunity for drilling in the southern portion of the North Aleutian Basin could be a real economic benefit for their communities.

This economic diversification is even more important when you consider the petitions of extreme environmental groups proposing massive fishery closures across Bristol Bay and the region, or the potential for the declaration of a no-fishing national monument in those areas, or the grave threat posed to fishing in Alaska in the north Pacific by President Obama's executive order on ocean zoning, where bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., will decide what happens and what doesn't happen in ocean areas off Alaska and other States.

Finally, this amendment also eliminates revenue sharing for all coastal States, preventing Alaska, Virginia, South Carolina, California, and others from receiving a share of any energy development off their shores.

This important provision is about bringing fairness to the Outer Continental Shelf revenue sharing instead of limiting it to only four States. Right now, only the Gulf States have that privilege.

When gas prices climbed to $4 a gallon in 2008, the American people strongly supported lifting the Nation's offshore drilling bans, and that support ran across the political spectrum, from Independents, to Republicans, to Democrats. And that broad support for expanding offshore drilling, frankly, continues to this day in this country.

This amendment would start us down the road of imposing new moratoriums on America's offshore, which is the opposite of what Americans want. And let me make this point, Mr. Chairman, and I said this several times in the committee. If there is a poster child of a State that was promised something when they got statehood and the reverse is being done, it's got to be Alaska.

I know there's controversy surrounding the potential in the Bristol Bay, but it's not unanimous on either side. But those in Alaska certainly should be the ones that are integrally involved in that decisionmaking process. But, no, here we have today an amendment from a Member of Congress, who has every right to do it, but from the Lower 48, dictating what's going to go on in Alaska. Again, that to me solidifies the poster child of a State really not getting what it should be getting from its resources after statehood.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to defeat this amendment. And as I understand the gentleman from Oregon has yielded back his time, I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I just simply want to say that I think the amendment adds to this legislation, and I support the legislation.

I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, here we go again with unnecessary amendments designed to delay the work of Congress in enacting important legislation that would expand U.S. offshore energy production in order to create, once again, millions of new American jobs, to lower energy prices, to grow our economy, and strengthen our national security.

H.R. 2231 is similar to legislation passed last Congress and fully upholds existing states' rights within their boundaries and offshore areas. Nothing

in this bill changes the fundamental 60-year-old relationship between States and the Federal Government enshrined in the Submerged Lands Act or the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.

This bill is focused on activity in Federal waters and respects States' abilities to control and govern their waters. States' authority is in no way limited or affected by this bill. Existing Federal law protects states' rights over their waters, and boundaries are not changed or amended in this bill. I've now repeated that three times.

The gentleman's amendment is asserted as a simple restatement of these states' rights, though its sponsor admits the principle is not a restatement of existing law, but of the principle--big difference in that, Mr. Chairman, which is where the amendment then raises several serious questions that leads me to oppose its adoption in the form that it is written.

As drafted, the amendment purportedly reflects current law with regards to management of natural resources, but it could effectively usurp the individual private property rights of individuals in favor of State control.

The amendment reads that it is the right and power of each State to prohibit management, leasing, developing the natural resources within such lands within its boundaries.

States have the right to regulate natural resources, but not outright prohibit development of private property. That's the point here, Mr. Chairman.

In the United States, unlike much of the remainder of the world, natural resources are owned both by the government and private individuals. The right to private property is one of the foundations of our Constitution. Natural resources property rights include the right to own minerals, timber rights, water rights, and those are just a few examples.

Congress should not be endorsing a policy that gives the States sole power to prohibit the development of these rights, and that's what this amendment could do. Such an action, like that embodied in this amendment, could be construed as a massive taking, in violation of the Constitution.

The government can't take property without compensation. The courts have held, including this week, in the gentleman's State of Florida, a Florida case at the Supreme Court that the State taking property or impinging on its fair use requires fair compensation.

Even if a State may not be inclined to fully exercise such authority granted by this amendment, should it become law, simple passage could open the door to lawsuits challenging private property rights. It's for these reasons that I urge a ``no'' vote on the Grayson amendment.

And Mr. Chairman, at a time when our Nation's economy continues to struggle, we should avoid erecting new barriers to economic activity and private freedoms.

Again, this amendment is unnecessary, as H.R. 2231 fully upholds and it does not change or diminish or impinge existing states' rights.

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

I'd like to yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

I just want to make this point in the 15 seconds I have left.

The gentleman from Florida referenced 1334(a)2(f). That is not amended or referenced in this bill. So the gentleman's argument that that could somehow play a part in that is simply not true because it's not referenced; it is not amended.

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

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

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make this point. The fundamental reason for H.R. 2231 is to expand energy production in American waters. This amendment would put another moratorium; it goes the opposite direction. Furthermore, this amendment would eliminate revenue sharing, which has worked so well in the gulf coast.

But here's the point I want to make specifically about California that was not made by my two colleagues on the other side of the aisle from California. This legislation directs that any offshore drilling should come from existing rigs onshore. That is possible to do, Mr. Chairman, because of the new technologies--horizontal drilling--that the oil industry has done for several years. It works. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, the Governor of the State of California, Jerry Brown, has proposed precisely that for State waters.

Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle from California didn't mention that--I don't know why they didn't mention it, because their Governor is in favor of that process. What this bill does is simply mirror that by saying we'll do that in Federal waters.

I think my colleague from California (Mr. McClintock) put it in a very good way: California, like the United States, needs a jump-start in the economy. The best way to do that is through energy production, providing a certainty of energy for a growing economy in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 2231, the clerk is authorized to make technical corrections and conforming changes to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 274, I call up the bill (H.R. 1613) to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to provide for the proper Federal management and oversight of transboundary hydrocarbon reservoirs, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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. 1613.

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

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1613, the Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act.

This bill was introduced by my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), a member of the Natural Resources Committee, and will provide the certainty needed to move forward with offshore energy development in certain areas of the Gulf of Mexico along our Nation's maritime boundary with Mexico.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Mexican Foreign Secretary Espinosa signed this long-awaited agreement February 2012. Since that time, the House Committee on Natural Resources has repeatedly requested draft-implementing legislation from the Obama administration. But it was not until March 19, 2013, when the committee finally received just that--several short sentences to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to promote development of energy resources that lie along the boundary with Mexico.

Despite the Obama administration sitting on this agreement for over a year, that should not in any way downplay the importance of getting this agreement approved. This agreement is good for our economy, and it's good for our American workers.

Opening new acreage for energy exploration and development creates jobs, it creates more American-made energy, and it helps reduce our dependence on foreign countries for our energy needs.

According to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the State Department, this agreement would open up nearly 1.5 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico. These areas are estimated to contain as much as 172 million barrels of oil and 304 billion cubic feet of natural gas.

These areas are ready to be explored and developed, and this bill will give the U.S. job creators the certainty they need to move forward. Activity can begin once this agreement is enacted.

This bill executes the implementation of the U.S.-Mexico agreement, but it also looks to the future--providing a clear and transparent path for how future administrations should go about submitting future agreements with other countries with which we share international boundaries. Given the fact that this implementing legislation was bogged down within several agencies for over a year, I believe that Mr. Duncan's solution is a necessary step to ensure a smoother and more expedient process in the future.

H.R. 1613 also includes language to protect American workers by removing uncertainty surrounding the application of Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act disclosure requirements.

The agreement signed by the Obama administration and Mexico specifically provides what royalty payments Mexico would receive from energy developers. However, under current U.S. law, companies that commercially develop oil, natural gas, or minerals are required to disclose payments made to a foreign government. This could create a potential conflict because Mexico has yet to decide how they will collect royalties and could potentially set regulatory measures that prohibit disclosure of payments.

This would then block American workers from being able to develop these resources.

Waiving the Dodd-Frank requirement is necessary in order to help protect American jobs and American-made energy in this instance. Without it, foreign-controlled energy companies could develop this American energy resource. The royalty payments to Mexico would still be undisclosed and kept private, but the net result would be that Americans would lose out on this energy potential.

The Natural Resources Committee and Mr. Duncan have worked hard to advance this bill and get it signed into law. It's important to American energy, to American jobs, to American energy security, and it is important in order to support a positive relationship with our neighbor to the south, Mexico. So I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the author of this legislation, a member of the Natural Resources Committee and of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon), who worked very hard on this agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Radel).

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I yield myself the balance of the time.

Let me clarify just a few major points here. First of all, the President did not say he would veto it. He said he had a concern. I accept that. But the President did not say he would veto this legislation. After all, it was his Secretary of State that negotiated the agreement. Why would he veto an agreement negotiated by his Secretary of State?

Secondly, if this could pass so easily out of the Senate, as my friend from Oregon asserts, why hasn't the Senate passed it?

We always ask that question over here. In fact, sometimes we get ourselves in a gridlock because we're so, maybe, frightened of what the Senate may or may not do.

Listen, if the Senate wants to pass this agreement without this provision, do it. Nobody is preventing them from doing it. Nobody.

Now, let me make another observation here that I think is probably more important in this debate than anything else that has been said, and that is, as was pointed out several times--I mentioned it in my opening remarks; Mr. Duncan mentioned it; Mr. Salmon mentioned it--in 2012, this agreement was signed. None of the information was given to us because we had to implement it. Now, I wonder why. Could it possibly be that the mindset of this administration, which, by the way, has consistently been nonresponsive to more exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf offshore--if I may, Mr. Speaker, go back just a bit.

When this administration took office, there was no moratoria on the Pacific or Atlantic coasts. One of the first actions of this President was to lock up 85 percent of those potential resources. So maybe they do have a bit of a bias against offshore drilling.

So here's an amendment, here's an agreement that was signed over a year

ago. It took over a year for it to come here. Because of no action on their part, it was going nowhere legislatively until Mr. Duncan said, Listen, this is something we ought to do.

So perhaps, Mr. Speaker, perhaps, is the reason why they're taking this one element--and I'll talk about that in a moment--as a reason to oppose this legislation really because they're trying to cover up the fact they don't like any offshore drilling?

I'll let somebody draw whatever conclusions they want. I simply ask the rhetorical question.

I will be more than happy to yield to my friend on that point. I assume he wants to talk about that, and I'm more than happy to engage in that debate.

Reclaiming my time, I think if you go back and look at the bills that have come in front of this body before in the last Congress--in fact, later on today--you will find that the overwhelming opposition to that legislation, if it's going to mirror what happened in the last Congress, was to oppose offshore development. So I'll just make that observation. Others can draw the conclusion.

But here is something that is very curious about this debate on why we should defeat this legislation because of this provision dealing in disclosure.

Anybody could have offered an amendment to take that provision out of the bill. It would have been perfectly in order. There's no parliamentary problem with striking from a bill. And there was an amendment, by the way, that was offered by a Member from the other body but was withdrawn. Both of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that are arguing against this because of this provision, they could have offered the amendment. It would have been made in order, and we could have debated it. But the amendment wasn't offered. I don't know why.

I will be more than happy to yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I simply said that there is a pattern in this administration and with my friends on the other side that they oppose that. I'll let others draw that conclusion.

I will be glad to yield to the gentlelady.

Reclaiming my time, we believe that this provision in Dodd-Frank is contrary to the agreement because the only moneys--and I'll get to this point. I was going to get to it later, but I'll get to it right now. The only moneys that go to Mexico are what the Obama administration agreed to for these royalties or leases. That is the only money that goes to Mexico. So we believe that there's no reason to have this particular requirement in the bill, and that's why we did it.

Now you can disagree with that, of course. You have every right to do it. But if you really believe that this bill should be defeated because of that provision, why didn't you offer an amendment? Wait, there was an amendment that was offered and then withdrawn. Curious? I don't know what their reasons are.

So all I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that this is a good piece of legislation. It deserves bipartisan support. And if the Senate, to conclude, has a different view, let them pass their different view and we'll work it out. Isn't that the reason our Founding Fathers had two bodies? So we can work out the differences?

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

House of Representatives,

Committee on Financial Services,

Washington, DC, June 5, 2013.

Hon. Doc Hastings,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Longworth House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Hastings: On May 15, 2013, the Committee on

Natural Resources ordered H.R. 1613, the Outer Continental

Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act,

as amended, to be reported favorably to the House. As a

result of your having consulted with the Committee on

Financial Services concerning provisions of the bill that

fall within our Rule X jurisdiction, I agree to discharge our

committee from further consideration of the bill so that it

may proceed expeditiously to the House Floor.

The Committee on Financial Services takes this action with

our mutual understanding that, by foregoing consideration of

H.R. 1613, as amended, at this time, we do not waive any

jurisdiction over the 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 that fall within our Rule X 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

requests your support for any such request.

Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter

confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 1613, as

amended, and would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters

on this matter be included in your committee's report to

accompany the legislation and/or in the Congressional Record

during floor consideration thereof.

Sincerely,

Jeb Hensarling,

Chairman.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find this amendment offered on this bill to be rather strange because the amendment usurps itself as an effort to protect states' rights. Well, the underlying bill is about an international agreement between the United States and Mexico, and that boundary is about 200 miles from the nearest shoreline. There is no jurisdiction of any State that goes that far out, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico. So I can assure the gentleman that there is nothing in this bill that would change any existing laws as it relates to states' rights and their waters.

But this amendment isn't necessary. It's simply restating the status quo. The sponsor of the amendment and all those concerned with upholding states' rights can be assured that the existing rights of the individual 50 States are fully respected and in no way undermined by this bill, as I just mentioned. However, adopting this amendment could impact international relations with foreign states. And the reason why is because in foreign law, as I understand it, the term ``state'' means foreign government. There's no explanation in the amendment about states, so that raises a concern.

So by adopting this amendment, you could potentially destroy the agreement that we have in place. And what will that do? Well, it would delay American energy production, and it would delay the creation of American jobs.

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

I yield 1 minute to the sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, just simply to close, I yield myself the balance of my time.

This amendment is really unnecessary, and I think that chart points that out. You're talking hundreds of miles offshore, and yet the amendment asserts itself to protect states' rights. I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I cannot connect the dots on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 2231.

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

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2231, the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act.

Unlike the President's plan that we heard from this week, which is to impose new energy taxes and Federal red tape that will increase energy prices and cost American jobs, this Republican plan will expand access to our own U.S. energy resources in order to lower energy prices and increase American jobs.

Gas prices have nearly doubled since President Obama took office. The national average today remains above $3.50 per gallon compared to the $1.89 it was when he took office. We shouldn't have to accept potentially $4-a-gallon gas prices, especially when we have the resources right here at home. Higher gas prices mean we are making tough budget choices. For small businesses, it may mean the difference between hiring more workers or having to let some go. For families, it may be the difference between replacing the worn-out household appliance or making due with makeshift repairs. This is why access to affordable energy is so vital.

For decades, most of our Nation's offshore areas were under a moratorium, preventing any offshore development. All of that, Mr. Chairman, changed in the summer of 2008 when outrageously high gas prices made our Nation's energy struggles a regular topic of conversation around the dinner table for American families. Later that year, Congress and then-President Bush lifted those moratoria with the hopes of fostering an era of increased energy production.

President Obama then came into office with a tremendous opportunity. For the first time in more than a generation, he had the ability to open new offshore areas to oil and natural gas production. Sadly, instead, he went out of his way to shut down this opportunity by putting forth a new 5-year offshore leasing plan that locks up 85 percent of our offshore areas. The plan includes no new drilling, which results in no new American jobs. In fact, it includes the lowest number of lease sales ever offered in an offshore lease plan. Mr. Chairman, that's the worst record since President Jimmy Carter's.

We must do better. That's why we are here today to consider the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act. This legislation puts us back on the right path: one that will open new areas to drilling, one that will create 1.2 million American jobs, one that will lower energy prices, and one that will generate $1.5 billion in new revenue to the Federal Government. But it's not only energy jobs that will be created; it's associated industries like manufacturing, boating, transportation, and service industries like hotels and restaurants. They, too, will also benefit.

This legislation requires the administration to implement a new 5- year leasing plan that includes areas with the most oil and natural gas, such as the mid-Atlantic and Alaska and off southern California. It's not a ``drill everywhere'' plan but, rather, a ``drill smart'' plan that focuses on those areas where the greatest potential lies. It would also require specific lease sales to be held off the coasts of South Carolina and Virginia, the latter of which was originally scheduled to take place in 2011 but was cancelled by the Obama administration. There is bipartisan support in favor of the Virginia lease sale, but, again, this administration canceled it and punted any future sales until after 2017.

The bill also establishes a fair and equitable revenue sharing program with all coastal States that have drilling off their coasts, much like what the Gulf States currently enjoy. Revenue sharing will create new incentives for opening offshore areas to drilling. Again, more American energy production equates to more jobs and a stronger economy.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, the bill includes reforms to further enhance the accountability, efficiency, safety, and ethical standards of offshore energy operations. These reforms will allow for the robust production of our Nation's offshore energy resources while ensuring that all activity is conducted with proper oversight.

Offshore energy production has steadily declined under this administration, and, frankly, Mr. Chairman, it's time to reverse that trend. H.R. 2231 will remove government barriers that are currently blocking access to our American energy resources. It will safely and responsibly unlock our energy and allow us to create over a million new American jobs. I urge my colleagues to support the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee dealing with this legislation, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, before I yield to my colleague from Virginia, I'd just point out that the CBO estimates that there will be revenue coming into the Federal Government of approximately $1.5 billion.

At this time I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).

Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), a leader in the House here on energy development.

Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the distinguished majority leader.

If the gentleman is prepared to close, I am prepared to close.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this has been a very interesting debate and I think it's a good debate, because what's at stake here in the long-run, not only for today but maybe potentially for generations ahead, is the potential energy independence for our country. And I think that's a worthy thing to have a debate about on the floor of the House.

Let me address a few of the issues that were brought up by my friend on the other side of the aisle, and let me focus first on leases.

The argument on the other side leaves one to believe that leases are just given out to anybody that wants them and then they just sit on them. Nothing could be further from the truth. A lease is given out on a potential area where there may be oil or natural gas. Those leases cost money and have certain conditions of a time in which whoever buys the lease has to develop that lease, and that can range anywhere from 5 to 10 years, depending on the depth of the water.

So the fact of the matter is these lease sales cost whoever purchases the lease. Now if it costs, where does the money go? It comes to the Federal Government. This is a source of income for the Federal Government just on the lease sales.

Now, why would any business want to spend money and not try to get a return on it? Many times, these leases then are reverted back to the Federal Government. In fact, the average, depending where you are and the depth, can be as high as 20 percent. It can be as low as 10 percent. On average, it's around 15 percent. So these lease blocks come back to the Federal Government. And guess what. They can be relet again. In fact, in some cases, over 40 percent are relet. What does that mean? That means the Federal Government gets another chance--and still without any energy production, I might add--just on the lease sales.

And then you have a truism, I suppose, and maybe not what is understood by a lot of people, but I've heard this over and over, that when you have a lease, you really don't know if there's oil there until you go through all the technology to find it. But the ultimate last step is to drill. And if you're lucky, then you'll get something that you can develop; but if not, all of that money is spent and you get no return back.

This is a fact from the standpoint of how leases work. Nobody is going to sit on leases unless they felt that there is a potential there. If not, the terms of the lease sale means it goes back to the Federal Government, and that is something that I think we need to probably understand more than we do now.

And then there's the issue of cartels. I think that was mentioned. I think history shows that whenever there is a cartel, I don't care what the commodity is, the very best way to beat the cartel is to outsupply the cartel. And that's precisely what this bill is about, and it's precisely because of the new technology that has been developed by the oil and gas industry to drill smart, which is what this bill does.

The potential resources offshore in this country are huge, enough so, that some people say we could be the premier supplier of crude in the next 20 years--and that includes comparing ourselves to the Middle East.

Now, it has also been stated that since this administration took office, oil and gas production is up. That's true, it is up; but it's not up on Federal lands. And this is precisely what this bill addresses, oil and gas leasing on Federal lands.

Most of that is on private lands and most of it, frankly, is in North Dakota and in west Texas. But if you look at what the results are of this administration as it relates to what their jurisdiction is--which of course is Federal lands and offshore--the Congressional Research Service, a part of Congress, has noted that the recent increase in U.S. oil and natural gas can be attributed to State and private lands, and not Federal. Now, that's what the CRS said, but I can go a step further.

There is a Federal agency within the Department of Energy, the Energy Information Agency. Now, this is an agency within the Obama administration, I might add, Mr. Chairman. They say that total Federal offshore production dropped 8 percent last year and natural gas dropped 19 percent last year. This is on Federal offshore. But it goes even further.

Since the President took office in 2009, Federal offshore production is down 12 percent and natural gas production is down 40 percent. Now, Mr.

Chairman, I'm going to repeat, this is information that comes from the Department of Energy, the Energy Information Agency. That is an agency within the Obama administration. So while we have increased oil and gas production in this country, it is, in fact, in spite of this administration, not because of.

The reason why this legislation is so important--again, it's not done for a day; it's done for future generations--it is in our best interests. A growing economy needs a certainty of energy. This bill provides a certainty of energy because we are drilling on Federal offshore areas.

And it has a national security aspect to it all, Mr. Chairman. You know, every day we hear news about the Middle East and the volatility in the Middle East, and yet we talk--OPEC is principally positioned in the Middle East, not wholly, but principally in the Middle East. Is it not in our best interest, therefore, when we know we have these resources, to utilize them from a national security standpoint?

Finally, of course, it's been said over and over--and it's so true-- energy jobs are good jobs; they're good-paying jobs. Why don't we want to make sure that we can create more American jobs with American energy for national security purposes? Mr. Chairman, that's precisely what this legislation does, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I think the gentleman's amendment adds to this legislation, and we support his amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to respond to my good friend from Oregon's statistics.

What I said is that the production is down from when the President took office. And that, of course, is true. The gentleman makes the argument that there was more production initially in the Obama administration than the Bush administration. I never argued with that. But there's a reason for it. There were more lease sales during the Bush administration, and it takes a while to get these leases producing. They started producing at the first part of the Obama administration; and since then, they have gone down because of the actions of this administration.

So my statistics are correct, and I guess his statistics are correct; but it's not the whole story. The whole story is it takes a lot of time in order to bring a lease sale into production, and that's what the gentleman overlooked.

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

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

I generally do not rise to vote or argue against a Hastings amendment, but in this case I feel I have to. It is the nature of who the author of the amendment is, perhaps, and I think the gentleman understands.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment prioritizes bureaucracy over responsibly increasing energy production. The amendment, as the gentleman noted, would strike a section of the bill, but that bill, that section, requires an Environmental Impact Statement to be conducted prior to any leasing in any lease sale areas.

The gentleman takes issue in the manner in which the Environmental Impact Statement is required to be conducted. However, what he fails to mention is that the administration is required to do yet another environmental review prior to each lease sale and additional reviews on each lease block as part of the leasing process. Then each expiration plan has additional environmental work.

In effect, all of the areas in the underlying bill will be studied and then restudied for the effect that any activity will have on the environment.

Not only that, Mr. Chairman, but all of these lease sales will be subject to the many different laws that still impact the offshore leasing process, such as the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Fishing Enhancement Act, just to name a few.

The truth of the matter is that this bill doesn't harm the environment; it goes the extra mile in requiring a multi-sale EIS on all of the lease areas, while still ensuring that leasing does occur because of the certainty in the process.

Support for offshore energy does not mean that you cannot respect a wide range of different environmental needs based upon a lease area.

We want to drill safely and responsibly. I think that is embodied in the underlying bill. For that reason, I urge rejection of the Hastings amendment, the Hastings of Florida amendment.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this is an interesting debate just simply on this amendment because I would point out to my colleagues that there has been a lot of reference on the floor today about the Senate's doing something or not doing something. I would just remind my colleagues that their Senators, both of whom are Democrats, support drilling off the Virginia coast. I've found out, too, that their candidate for Governor has switched his position now and that he, too, supports drilling off the coast of Virginia. So I can say here today, I think very honestly, that there is bipartisan support for drilling off the coast of Virginia.

Finally, I want to address the point that my good friend from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) made about no safety. I will just refer him to title IV in this legislation. If his concern is on not having safety and updating rules because of oil spills, then he should support this legislation, because title IV does that through the reorganization process.

So, Mr. Chairman, it hurts me to say vote ``no'' on a Hastings amendment, but I will in this case for the arguments that I made a moment ago. We simply don't need it because of all of the environmental reviews you have to go through on lease sales.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I think the gentleman's amendment adds a great deal to this legislation, and I support your amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding as I want to make this point.

Existing law already exists as it relates to sanctions with the countries we're talking about, but I think it is very important, since we're talking about a national commodity, that we reemphasize--and that's really what the gentleman's amendment does, it reemphasizes what is already on the books. I think that needs to be done, especially right now with the volatility that we see in the Middle East.

So I think the gentleman's amendment, as I stated, makes a great deal of sense. I support it, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue.

The gentleman knows that I have the same concerns he has on this executive order, and I think his amendment adds a great deal to this bill, and I support his amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want to tell the gentleman that I support his amendment. I think it adds a great deal to this legislation, and I commend him for it.

Will the gentleman from Louisiana yield to me for 15 seconds?

I just want to point out, the gentleman, my good friend from California, is talking about revenue loss.

I just want to make this point: the CBO says this legislation will create $1.5 billion to the Federal Government.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I think his amendment again adds a great deal to this legislation. I support the amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I think the gentleman's amendment makes a great deal of sense. We've had discussions in our committee on the accuracy of the data.

The point is that this legislation says that one ought to drill where the resources are. And the gentleman's amendment, I think, goes a long way in that direction. I commend him for that and support it.

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

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding time, and I rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying legislation covered by the rule.

Mr. Speaker, in our country today, millions of Americans continue to search for work, the national average price of gasoline is $3.50, and rising costs of everything from electricity to food to health care makes it tough for families and small businesses to make ends meet. But instead of providing relief for struggling Americans, President Obama yesterday announced a plan that will inflict further pain and cause further damage to our struggling economy.

The President's latest attempt to unilaterally impose a national energy tax will cost American jobs and will increase energy prices. Now, in stark

contrast to that, Mr. Speaker, Republicans are advancing solutions to expand access to affordable energy in order to create jobs and to lower energy costs. The bills the House is considering this week are necessary because of the Obama administration's persistent and destructive attacks on American energy production. The President's latest efforts to impose new energy taxes and government red tape follow 4.5 years of erecting American energy roadblocks.

H.R. 2231, the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act, will unlock our offshore energy resources that are being held captive by this administration. The differences are clear between the President's current no-new- drilling-and-no-new-jobs plan and the Republican pro-energy, pro-jobs offshore drilling plan. The President's 5-year current offshore leasing plan keeps 85 percent of offshore areas under lock and key--Mr. Speaker, keeps 85 percent under lock and key--effectively reinstating the moratoria that were lifted right before he took office.

The Republican drill-smart plan would open new areas containing the most oil and natural gas resources, allowing for new energy production in parts of the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts. The President's plan refuses even to let Virginia develop its offshore resources until after 2017 and cancels a lease sale that would have allowed them to go offshore 2 years ago.

The Republican plan supports the bipartisan wishes of the Virginia Governor, the congressional delegation, and the public by requiring an offshore lease sale to be held.

The President's plan suppresses American job creation and economic growth. Our plan, Mr. Speaker, in contrast, would create 1.2 million jobs long term and would generate $1.5 billion in new revenue. This Republican approach is exactly what our country and our economy needs right now.

We can do better than what the President outlined yesterday that stifles American energy production and raises energy costs.

I urge adoption of the rule and the underlying legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As you know, the central Washington growers whom I represent provide a variety of top-quality produce to people across the country and around the world, including the majority of apples, pears, and cherries grown in the United States. There is no question that both consumers and growers want to ensure that we have the safest food supply in the world. However, Mr. Chairman, I have serious concerns with the one- size-fits-all regulations that the Food and Drug Administration has proposed to govern the way that all fruits and vegetables are grown and harvested.

I think that we can all agree that lettuce and apples are grown in completely different ways. For one thing, lettuce is grown in the ground and apples in the trees. That's obvious. It only makes sense that these products should be evaluated based on how susceptible they may be to food safety risks and subjected to regulations that would reflect both the risk level and the way they are grown.

I am concerned that the current regulations, which subject all growers of fresh produce to the same requirements and restrictions, are nearly impossible to meet for tree fruit growers in my district. There has never been a known food safety problem with fresh apples; and yet if implemented, these regulations risk putting our growers out of business and pushing apple production overseas.

Would the chairman agree that the FDA should evaluate the risks of individual agricultural products based on the best available science and consider the growing methods and conditions of these products when developing regulations under the Food Safety Modernization Act for the safe production, harvesting, handling, and packing of fresh fruits and vegetables?

I yield to the chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).

I would like to thank the chairman for his words and his attention to this issue that is so important to the growers of my central Washington district. I look forward to continuing to work with him to ensure that the new food safety regulations recognize the diverse way that farms across the Nation grow our food and keep them safe for the public.

Madam Chair, included in this en bloc amendment is amendment #163 to H.R. 1960, made in order by H. Res. 260. This amendment is bipartisan and submitted by myself, Mr. Fleischmann of Tennessee and Mr. Lujan of New Mexico. It will protect and provide public access to Manhattan Project facilities at three Department of Energy former defense sites through the establishment of an historical park. This is essentially the text of H.R. 1208, reported favorably by the Committee on Natural Resources by unanimous consent in May 2013.

These three locations that the park will encompass were integral to the tremendous engineering and human achievements of the Manhattan Project launched during World War II. The three locations are the Hanford site in my home State of Washington, Los Alamos in New Mexico, and Oak Ridge in Tennessee.

The vast majority of the facilities that are eligible to be included in this park are already owned by the federal government, and they are located on former defense lands owned and controlled by the Department of Energy.

As our nation already possesses these pieces of history, the real purpose of this amendment is to officially declare the importance of preserving the history, providing access to the public, and include the unique abilities of the National Park Service to help tell this story.

Currently, some of these facilities slated for inclusion in this park are scheduled to be destroyed at considerable taxpayer expense. A great many local community leaders in all three states and interested citizens have worked to coordinate a commitment to preserving this piece of our history. Additionally, the government will save tens of millions of dollars from foregone destruction, as opposed to the minimal cost of providing public access and park administration.

Under this amendment, not only will history be protected, but so will taxpayer dollars.

Let me describe one example of the savings. The B Reactor at the Hanford site in Washington state is the first full-scale nuclear reactor ever constructed. Walking into its control room and viewing the reactor itself are like walking back in time. The federal government has a legal obligation to clean up the B Reactor that involves partial demolition, then cocooning the building in concrete for 75 years with continual monitoring, before final removal and demolition at a total cost in today's dollars of $90-100 million. With the amendment, this $100 million will not be spent and this piece of history will not be demolished.

This matter has been carefully studied by both the Department of the Interior and the Department of Energy. Both Departments and the National Park Service support this action. On behalf of the Obama Administration, Interior Secretary Salazar has repeatedly expressed support for the park, as have Department of Energy officials of both the Obama and Bush Administrations.

In recognition of the important contributions to the Manhattan Project by the men and women at sites across the country, the amendment contains a provision allowing communities like Dayton, Ohio, for example, outside the historical park, to receive technical assistance and support from the Department of the Interior as they seek to preserve and manage their own Manhattan Project park resources.

Many, many individuals and organizations have dedicated countless hours towards this effort to preserve and tell this piece of history, and to ensure current and future generations not only will learn this story, but be able to visit and see it themselves. Among those endorsing this effort are the Atomic Heritage Foundation, the National Parks Conservation Association, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Energy Communities Alliance, the City of Richland Washington, the City of Oak Ridge Tennessee, the Tri-City Development Council, and many more in Los Alamos and other areas across the nation. Additionally, this effort has received strong endorsements from newspapers from one side of our nation to the other, including the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, and the Los Angeles Times.

This is a good amendment that preserves and shares our nation's history.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 251) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain Federal features of the electric distribution system to the South Utah Valley Electric Service District, 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. 251, sponsored by our colleague from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) transfers the Federal title of an electricity distribution system to a local entity that already operates and maintains the system. This transfer resolves ownership uncertainty due to a Federal paperwork error, gives the local electricity provider equity to leverage capital investment, and reduces Federal liability and cost.

Congress has passed over two dozen similar transfers, including one in my district, the Yakima-Tieton transfer, under both Republican and Democrat majorities. The House passed this identical transfer bill by a voice vote in the last Congress due to its noncontroversial and commonsense nature. So I urge my colleagues to support its adoption once again.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 3

minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests. If the gentleman from Arizona is prepared to yield back, I'm prepared to yield back.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 993) to provide for the conveyance of certain parcels of National Forest System land to the city of Fruit Heights, Utah.

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 materials on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 993, introduced by our distinguished subcommittee chairman, Mr. Bishop of Utah, would authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to convey approximately 100 acres of National Forest System land to the city of Fruit Heights in Utah. Fruit Heights is completely surrounded by Federal land and is in desperate need of a place to develop a cemetery. This legislation would convey a small parcel of Federal land for that important public service.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the author of this legislation, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Speaker, I advise my friend from Arizona I have no further speakers, and I'm prepared to yield back if he is.

I yield back the balance of my time and urge adoption of the resolution.