Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I sit as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs that deals directly with the jurisdiction of Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and other territories of the U.S.

We had a very good briefing this week led by Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon from Puerto Rico, as well as Stacey Plaskett of the Virgin Islands. It was very important information. As we all know of the difficult situation, especially we are seeing so much in Puerto Rico as well as the Virgin Islands; President Trump visiting Puerto Rico this week.

Help is on the way. Indeed, it has been on the way, and we need to just keep pushing to rebuild that infrastructure and push out into the islands where the need is still felt.

So we know, we see, we are aware, and we will keep working to achieve positive results in the short term as well, as we look at the situation with Puerto Rico and the difficulty with PREPA, the power company, and other

issues that we will address as a committee in order to have a long- term, positive solution for the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico and what they need.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend this evening the Office of Management and Budget and Mr. Mulvaney for the special attention they are taking to the wildfire situation we have in this country, especially in the West.

They have put forward a request for $576 million additional funding for fire suppression, but even more importantly is to get at the root of the problem with better forest management that will make sense and make a difference over the coming years of getting rid of the fuel, getting the fuel out of the forest that is so much of the problem, with millions and millions of dead trees, brush, and all the other hazards that cause wildfires, that are going to happen anyway, to become catastrophic fires.

So OMB calling for these reforms that we have been talking about, me and my colleagues, for a long time is really a good sign that this administration wants to get serious about cutting way back on the wildfires and the severe damage to air quality, habitat, wildlife, and the asset the American people own, that they are serious about it.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 289) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to issue permits for recreation services on lands managed by Federal agencies, 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.

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed proud to present my bill today, H.R. 289, the Guides and Outfitters Act of 2017, also known as the GO Act. I would like to thank the Natural Resources Committee for its overwhelming support of this bill, which happened on June 27 of this year.

Mr. Speaker, I expect that nearly every Member of this body has fond memories of being on our public lands, whether it be fishing as a kid or with your kids, hunting with friends, hiking, on a horse, or camping with the family. Outdoor activities generate not just memorable moments and a love and respect for the great outdoors but also important, considerable economic activity, which is especially important for our rural areas of northern California, where my district is, and all across our Nation.

The Outdoor Recreation Association estimates that recreational activity in the United States contributes nearly $900 billion to our GDP annually, supporting about 7.6 million jobs.

Unfortunately, public access to public lands is too often hindered by costly and complex permit requirements that vary from agency to agency, sometimes even crossing from agency to agency what the requirements are to seek a permit.

The GO Act enhances and protects access to our public lands by streamlining Federal agencies' special recreation permit process, moving the permit process online, and providing joint permits for activities across a combination of National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Forest Service land.

In rural America, where rural economies often depend on annual outdoor events--some events, this might be their only event of the year, a big part of their local economy. We have that in northern California in some areas. The GO Act provides greater assurance that such activities on public lands will continue into the future.

This bill also authorizes agencies to use categorical exclusions to grant annual events a streamlined review, ensuring such events don't need expensive and duplicative studies year after year. Really, there is no need to reinvent the wheel each year for an existing permitted activity.

Getting more American families and groups and clubs outdoors can only be accomplished by building a permit process that doesn't deter outdoor enthusiasts from enjoying public lands but, indeed, makes them feel welcome and encouraged to enjoy these lands that belong to all of us.

The idea behind this bipartisan bill is simple: getting more Americans outside, on their lands, for less cost, less

money, less headache of permits, less red tape; that is really what this is about. There is no need for some of the process that people have to go through to get a permit when it is especially an already- known activity with very minimal or no impact.

Mr. Speaker, let's make recreating in our public lands an open and simple experience. Once again, I urge swift passage of this bill, H.R. 289, the Guides and Outfitters Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Natural Resources,

Washington, DC, July 10, 2017.

Hon. K. Michael Conaway,

Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: On June 27, 2017, the Committee on

Natural Resources ordered reported as amended H.R. 289, the

Guides and Outfitters Act, by voice vote. The bill was

referred primarily to the Committee on Natural Resources,

with an additional referral to the Committee on Agriculture.

I ask that you allow the Committee on Agriculture to be

discharged from further consideration of the bill so that it

may be scheduled by the Majority Leader. This discharge in no

way affects your jurisdiction over the subject matter of the

bill, and it will not serve as precedent for future

referrals. In addition, should a conference on the bill be

necessary, I would support your request to have the Committee

on Agriculture represented on the conference committee.

Finally, I would be pleased to include this letter and any

response in the bill report filed by the Committee on Natural

Resources to memorialize our understanding.

Thank you for your consideration of my request and for the

extraordinary cooperation shown by you and your staff over

matters of shared jurisdiction. I look forward to further

opportunities to work with you this Congress.

Sincerely,

Rob Bishop.

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the input from my colleague from Virginia, and we certainly want to have this be a process that works well. By delineating some of the categorical exclusions, we just seek to make it more usable, more user-friendly in that sense. So I thank you for the support on that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), my neighbor.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the input by my colleague, Mr. McClintock, as well, who has lived this in some of those same Sierra counties we are talking about, and other areas in the West. So we, again, are very encouraged by the bipartisan support, the strong support coming out of committee, and that H.R. 289, the Guides and Outfitters Act, is something that will open the gateway to more enjoyment of our public lands without the constraints, such as exorbitant, extraneous fees and permits that really don't yield any additional care for the environment or care for the area with people that are already good stewards.

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

Mr. Speaker, I don't need to add any more adjectives or an official statement about what happened in Las Vegas last night. It has been said: horrific.

What I would like to add is that we see examples of people pulling together to help each other that isn't reported very much. In this horrific thing, giving thanks to the SWAT team who was able to put down that shooter without making it even worse, the emergency personnel, people helping each other get out of the way, hop over a fence, whatever it took, and the people who are so highly impacted in the hospitals around Las Vegas right now making heroic efforts, trying to keep up with the flow there, these are things we should dwell on.

Pray for those who are gone, who are injured, who are on life support right now. Console those who are around them. And an action item we can all do wherever you are: give blood. I do, six-gallon club--not to brag, but it is important.

I ask all of you, if you have never thought of it before, because only a couple percent of Americans do, think about it now, and go do it. It doesn't hurt: just a little pinprick here to test your blood, and just a little needle right here to take that all-important pint.

Just the other day, our friend Steve Scalise, it is a miracle he was here on this floor. It was a miracle he got off that ballfield, because he had 18 pints, units of blood waiting for him there, a miracle he was able to even walk out of that emergency room.

Give blood. It makes a big difference.

Mr. Speaker, a recent Federal audit found that the Obama administration improperly used, via the Bureau of Reclamation, $84 million on California Governor Jerry Brown's pet project, the Delta tunnels. In planning, this is a project that would transfer water from northern California, where my district is, to southern California.

This comes after years of assurance that no tax dollars would be spent on the Governor's controversial legacy project, nor was there even an appropriation made by Congress to do so, and that is where the problem is. It is the illegal use of Federal dollars in the planning of this project.

Taxpayers ended up paying for a large portion of this project's planning costs without their knowledge and, again, without Congress' authorization, which is obviously unacceptable.

The Bureau of Reclamation needs to explain to Congress how and why this happened, and the employees and the appointees who carried it out must be held responsible.

More importantly, California needs to repay every penny to the Federal Government and the taxpayers of the other 49 States for this illegal use and improper use.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a small thing. Congress and the American people need to know what is happening with this and not be lied to.

Mr. Speaker, healthcare in rural America faces many challenges and many difficulties.

This month, there are a couple of issues we will be facing. On September 30, we have the expiration of a program for community health centers and teaching health centers, which both aid greatly in rural healthcare, where it is difficult to get doctors and others to locate to those areas.

On September 30, if Congress doesn't act, we will have to at least get an extension in place to keep those programs alive. Community health centers are often a lifeline to rural residents in areas lacking major hospitals. Teaching health centers, in particular, help train physicians in underserved areas and have been a great tool to address doctor shortages in rural America.

Mr. Speaker, we have much to do. We need to reauthorize these programs before the end of the month or, at the very least, have an extension so that we don't put an even greater burden on rural America and its health challenges.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 2 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, September 14, 2017, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to highlight the importance of the Secure Rural Schools program. It was created to fill a void in the economics left by restrictive forest management practices and regulations that have basically cut off our Federal forests and left many rural communities without the forests that once drove their economy: timber harvest.

The program was established in 2000 as only a temporary program to help rural America until we could restore active forest management, which would allow communities to then be self-sufficient, create jobs, work the land, and keep their schools running.

Indeed, the temporary program has not seen the practices towards forest management, towards timber harvest that is needed, as we see the West up in smoke once again.

We need, in Congress, to put policies in place that allow for timber harvest, for better air quality, for the safety of the habitat, for the economy, and for secure rural schools so they will see funding they need, and for counties as well that rely on that for road money.

In Modoc County, they are afraid they may have to close one of their high schools, which means another 50-mile drive through bad weather over a ridge for some of the students there.

Congress must implement commonsense forest management for a myriad of reasons: again, forest health, school funding, jobs, all the things that make sense for the West. We need to pass Secure Rural Schools funding

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 5 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, September 13, 2017, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, appropriately and necessarily, we will be addressing the issue of Hurricane Harvey and its devastating effects on Texas, Louisiana, and our American colleagues down there. But also we have a crisis going on in the West. Tens of thousands of acres of our forests are going up in smoke this year just like every year. The inability of the Forest Service to act due to lawsuits and lack of will is inexcusable.

Our people are suffering in the West as well: Montana, tens of thousands of acres; northern California and many other areas. It ruins the habitat, it ruins the air quality, it ruins the water quality, and it ruins the people's assets of what they own in their Federal land and the Forest Service.

It eliminates jobs. It is harmful to our part of the country. We need to do something about this crisis that happens every year and is happening right now to the people of the West, to the habitat of the West, and to our natural lands.

Mr. Speaker, we must take action very soon on this and not continue to ignore it. It is hardly even in the news of what a devastating effect this is of wildfire every year in our forests in our Western States.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House was able to pass the extension of the Veterans Choice Act funding for an additional 6 months to allow veterans to have choices, the ability to not wait in long lines, long lists, and have local proximity to treatment and care that they need.

We need to do much more on this in the future, but with today's action, at least we can sustain that program for an additional amount of time and serve our veterans who served us so well.

The Veterans Choice Act is a good outlet, a good opportunity for them to receive the care they need timely and in proximity to where they live.

Mr. Speaker, let's make sure the Senate gets this through and our veterans are served well.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. McClintock for managing this bill and for his help on this.

I am pleased to support the bill, the GROW Act, which, contrary to some claims, protects northern California water rights and keeps more water in the north than the status quo. I should know because I represent the source of the overwhelming majority of California's usable water.

The underlying bill improves water efficiency by allowing junior water contractors in the Sacramento Valley to carry over water supplies from one year to the next in Lake Shasta, retaining access to those supplies the following year, which promotes efficiency when you are banking that additional water for future use.

This amendment improves the bill by ensuring that all Federal water contractors in the Sacramento Valley have the same ability to reschedule their water supplies.

Mr. Chair, under the current system, water contractors are forced to use it or lose it. If water allocations are not fully used each year, the ability to access that water is lost.

Now, around Washington, D.C., that use-it-or-lose-it attitude usually means a lot of money that sits in certain agencies' bank accounts or in their pots, it is just used up. Why would we want to do that kind of thing with water? We need to be banking it and saving it, where practical, to be usable in the next year or to pass to others who could use it as well.

During wet years, farms and ranches may choose to reschedule a portion of their water for the following year. This bill and this amendment will significantly improve planning and delivery of water supplies by ensuring maximum flexibility, flexibility which we need, and allowing water to be accessed when it is needed most.

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

Mr. Chairman, providing flexibility for more parts of California does not, indeed, punish any other part of northern California. With that, we have to dispel some of these notions about what the end goal is for this legislation and for my amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Chair, I am very pleased to be able to work with my colleague, Mr. Costa, to ensure that these concerns are met and addressed as the bill moves through the Senate.

I believe the ability to reschedule water deliveries for these periods when they are needed should be offered as widely as possible, and I appreciate the support in that goal.

Indeed, the opportunity that we can help the Central Valley with this, I relish that opportunity to do so. More facilities to store more water is, indeed, very important so we have more flexibility for Mr. Costa and his neighbors, constituents.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Chair, indeed, whether it is a drought period where we have to work even harder to spread that water around or in a year of abundance like what we had, we have to be wise about storing it where we can and having the flexibility to put it where we need to and having additional facilities in the future to store farther into the drought years that, no doubt, will come. This is what we are looking for in this legislation and what I am trying to promote for my particular area in northern California with this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, indeed, the water battles in California have been very difficult for many, many years, but what I hear from the other side of the aisle is a whole lot of ``no.'' What I hear from normal Californians who aren't in positions of elected leadership who seem to be more interested in catering to a few environmental groups instead of the needs of Californians, especially on the heels of drought, what these Californians are saying is: Get this stuff done. Get these projects done. Help us out. Help us to have jobs in our State and not cater to just a handful of interests here that will help us through another election.

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to present the amendment and proud to work with these folks, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, finally, this week, we are taking up two pieces of legislation that will address a huge problem in my home State of California for a long time.

As California moves more and more towards becoming a sanctuary State, already having several sanctuary cities, H.R. 3003 and H.R. 3004 move in the right direction toward law and order and what people expect from their government in providing for the public safety.

We go back to the story of two Californians I can think of off the top of my head immediately, Kate Steinle and Jamiel Shaw, Jr., taken needlessly by people who shouldn't have even been in the country. They were illegal immigrants who were allowed to slip through the system and cause the death of both of those fine young people in California.

Juan Sanchez was an illegal immigrant with a record of seven felonies. He had been caught and deported not once, not twice, by five times. He should not have been on the streets of California. But on July 1, he was roaming around free in San Francisco. He stole a gun out of a Federal officer's car, fired shots in public, and shot Kate Steinle in the back. San Francisco is a so-called sanctuary city, but it was not a sanctuary city for Kate Steinle.

By shielding illegal immigrants from Federal authorities, sanctuary cities are disobeying the law. These actions have fatal consequences, as Kate Steinle and her family found out.

Action we take this week on H.R. 3004, Kate's Law, will toughen the punishment for illegal immigrants who reenter the country. The second bill, H.R. 3003, No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, cracks down on sanctuary cities, protects the public from dangerous criminals, and sends a message that if you are not with us in enforcing the law, then you are not going to receive funding or other help from the Federal Government.

I think that is finally the right message coming out of Washington, D.C., for those who don't uphold the laws and see to the first duty of government, which is to protect and stand up for the safety of its citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I have a presentation here, but, first, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), my friend, who has a very important topic to cover as well. I appreciate his friendship and his strong leadership on the things that really count around here.

Liu Xiaobo Resolution

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Mr. Smith for standing up for that important issue and making that known. So, I thank him, and I appreciate him joining with us tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to discuss the devastating impacts that illegal marijuana grow operations are having on our public lands--even private lands, as well.

As pictured here, this is not an uncommon scene in my district in northern California, in many of the Western States, or anywhere where people think they can get away with it, where someone may not be paying attention. We see that very often on our Federal lands because, honestly, regretfully, they are not managed very well and they are not managed very often.

We hope to see that turn around under this new administration, this new leadership, that U.S. Forest Service lands have more attention to them, that they are managed more with timber harvest, thinning, things of that nature, to make the forests healthier.

This certainly does not cause a healthier situation for our forests, as you see pictured here, the amount of damage that can come from that. I will tell you a little bit about it here.

The devastating effects inflicted on the habitat and wildlife due to the nonpermitted water diversions, extensive grading of the terrain-- which, people in agriculture and construction have to get permits to do grading--and use of illegal toxicants and pesticides purchased outside of the United States--chemicals, products you can't even use here, that haven't been subjected to an EPA label process that ag chemicals and household chemicals have to do--this is what is coming in and being used on our public lands, poisoning them, poisoning the wildlife, and making it very dangerous for any people that might go in there.

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, many threatened and endangered species which we are bending over backwards to try to recover, to try to protect, have tested positive for these poisons and other contaminants used at these illegal grow sites.

Preliminary tests of game animals, including birds and deer, have also tested positive for these illegal pesticides, again, that are banned by the EPA, not allowed to be used in the United States, haven't been subject to the labeling requirements that are legal materials that we use in agriculture and other things that they have gone through.

So it is difficult to understand how the Federal Government can spend extensive resources going after farmers, ranchers, miners, whoever for doing legal operations. In agriculture, it might be disking or plowing. In mining, it might be panning for gold or normal mining operations.

So we have people cultivating their land for food. We have people extracting minerals that are needed for our daily lives, whether it is paving a road, driveway, concrete, whatever it might be. We have people legally doing these actions. They are the ones who have been--at least until recent months with the new administration--harassed with rules that hadn't even been subject to congressional attention.

But at the same time, until recent months, this blatant criminal activity has been allowed to stand.

Is it because law enforcement can't go into those--areas they are not authorized?

I know local law enforcement is really interested in doing this. But it has been a hands-off approach by some of our Federal officials who have either not wanted to put the resources together or haven't had the wherewithal to put enough of the resources together to go out and enforce on these foreign nationals doing these devastating things to our lands and the danger they cause.

What good are these Federal laws and statutes if we do not properly enforce the law to protect our public lands?

We are protecting, on one hand, again, the wrong people by inaction; and we are criminalizing normal activity, people farming, ranching, mining, et cetera. The priorities have been backwards. I hope to see a big change in that with the new direction of the new administration.

As if the environmental effects are not disturbing enough, the safety of the general public is at risk. Heavily armed drug cartels are using our National Forest to engage in large-scale illegal grow operations. You can see the haul on some of the weapons that have been taken from some of the raids that have been successfully done. This is pretty dangerous stuff.

Somewhere in the picture are people who have grenade-launching devices, if I am not mistaken.

So what kind of situation do we have going on where this kind of heavy armament is coming into our forests?

And on the other hand, law-abiding, Second Amendment-loving Americans are subject to confiscation, threatening high cost of ammunition, multitudes of anti-gun rhetoric that, again, makes you ask the questions: Who are we protecting and who are we criminalizing?

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for example, has been forced to temporarily close refuge units during hunting season to protect the public from stumbling on to an illegal grow that might be guarded heavily by these criminals with these weapons.

In 2012, the DEA's Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Report indicated more than 10,000 or more illegal firearms seized nationwide in raids. This is the people's property. The public should be able to hunt, fish, camp, recreate with their families on it as they wish, safe from this criminal activity.

Unfortunately, the number of illegal grow sites on Federal lands continues to rise at an alarming rate. Even in States that have legalized marijuana for recreational use, like California-- regrettably--and Colorado, they still are doing the illegal grows in lands that are in States that have so far legalized marijuana.

According to the U.S. Forest Service, in 2016, the Pacific Southwest region saw a 52 percent increase in marijuana production on Forest Service lands compared to a previous year.

So maybe the answer hasn't been in legalizing marijuana grows. The activity is still going on. It is still a sought-after market for those people who want to be using it.

While the statistics seem staggering, it is believed that the true number of illegal grows on Federal lands is actually much higher than that 10,000 figure, much higher than what has been documented, much higher than the 52 percent increase that we are talking about.

So with the heavy rainfall that the Western States saw this winter-- thankfully, we have gotten the rain--the regions are expecting an even higher surge of illegal marijuana production on the people's public lands.

The law enforcement capabilities of the U.S. Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management are not currently equipped to handle an issue of this high magnitude. These law enforcement officers are doing what they can with the resources allotted and the permission they are allowed by their higher-ups, but we need much more additional means and support to develop a coordinated approach to enforce against these foreign nationals and others that are doing these illegal grows, despite what the public might be wanting with legalized marijuana in their own grows.

While confronting the challenges of illegal marijuana cultivation in our National Forests is a large undertaking, it is important that we face this head on. Strong enforcement needs to come from the Federal Government that is supposed to be overseeing these lands. So we are talking about scenes like this right here. This is what is allowed to happen.

That is why criminalizing people doing legal activities, such as farming, ranching, mining, what have you, for tiny, very narrow occasional violations, this is what is being fostered out there. Look at this. The trash that is allowed to happen; empty chemical containers; everything else involved in the grow; people camping up there illegally, because the Federal Government, until recently, does not seem to have an interest in enforcing against these illegal grows.

Protecting our public lands from these destructive environmental threats, making sure our National Forests are safe for the public's use, for the habitat, for the wildlife, these are of key importance. This is what the public demands that we do. It is our job to keep the public safe and the lands, as well, in good stewardship. Much more needs to be done.

The Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, they have immediate jurisdiction over these. They need to allow and partner with local law enforcement as well, who knows the lands better than anybody in Washington, D.C., ever would.

And I don't need to remind you once again that marijuana is still classified, Federally, as an illegal drug. So these States--no matter how the voters have been duped, coerced, overwhelmed with dollars at the ballot box and on campaigns, this is still an illegal drug. It is an illegal activity that has been going on.

So I hope what we are hearing from the Department of Justice--they will be looking really hard at whether this is even a legal activity in States that have been legalizing marijuana, and the harmful effects it is going to have on society as this stuff gets more powerful, more potent, and more available to kids.

We have a job to do. It all starts right here: taking care of these lands, the habitat and environment for wildlife that we all care about, the habitat for people, and the water quality.

What is going to come out of here as the water runs downstream through this stuff? What is that going to mean for our streams, rivers, lakes, to the water supplies that the people draw from here, that the animals draw from here?

It is not good. So the Federal Government needs to take a stronger approach, whether it is DOJ, in concert with the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, and that input from local law enforcement in local communities. This could be a very good team operation if we are allowed to do it and we aggressively go after that.

I am seeing the seeds of that in the conversations that are coming out of our agencies here in Washington, D.C. Let's push forward on that and let's hear from the American public on making this happen as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 39 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, July 3, 2017, at 11 a.m.