Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me congratulate the chairman on the Seahawks, and also remind him that there was a long 16-game season. They won their division. They played San Francisco three times, two out of…
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me congratulate the chairman on the Seahawks, and also remind him that there was a long 16-game season. They won their division. They played San Francisco three times, two out of three, and then after that they went into the playoffs. Then after the playoffs, they went to the championship game and, finally, to the Superbowl, which they won. Congratulations. So it is great that you got that cap 1 minute after the game was over. I am pointing out that there was a long, deliberate process with rules, games to be won, that encompassed the whole season. Sometimes us rushing legislation is cutting corners that great championship teams like the Seahawks never do.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright), my colleague.
I will have more to say on the specifics of this legislation later.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Washington (Ms. DelBene).
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2954 is another attempt to weaken landmark environmental protections, to dictate land management decisions, to convey and dispose of Federal land, and to rewrite grazing policy.
This Chamber, once again, will spend a day debating bad policy put forth by the majority, which seems to work tirelessly to undermine the progress of the last century Americans have made in land conservation and environmental protection, undeterred by reality or a desire by the American people for bipartisan legislation and compromise. Furthermore, Republicans have long criticized omnibus bills as an affront to regular order, but they now attempt to force this bill of bad policy proposals through the House, which has no chance of passing in the Senate.
Let me quote a statement from the White House, which strongly opposes the bill. It reads:
Overall, H.R. 2954 contains a number of provisions that
would undermine the responsible balance of interests and
considerations and stewardship of the Nation's lands and
natural resources . . . Provisions of the bill would
disregard or reduce public engagement on a range of community
interests, including natural resource protections, and would
preclude agencies from considering less detrimental
environmental alternatives . . . Provisions of the bill would
waive all Federal laws and consultation requirements that
would now initiate a timber sale without those, that would
eliminate the balanced limitation on off-road vehicle use
within the Cape Hatteras recreation area and that would waive
environmental review requirements for grazing activities on
Federal lands.
The White House said it could support provisions that would restore the Green Mountain Lookout in Washington State and that would modify conservation programs at the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Overall, this legislation is going nowhere. It has no chance of ever becoming law, but here we are. Furthermore, even though we could be working together on a variety of public land issues that need to be addressed, like the reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, we are, instead, debating a package of bills that fails to address significant issues that have bipartisan solutions. In fact, we can work together on some of the individual titles in this bill as stand-alones. We are not legislating. We are wasting valuable time. It is clear why the American people have such a negative view of Congress. Let me review quickly the substance of the package.
Title I would extinguish the reversionary clause covering property on Santa Rosa Island in Florida. The reversionary clause requires that the property in question is used for public purposes, since Federal land is for the American public in its entirety.
What is the reason for rescinding the clause? So that the county of Escambia can dredge and build a harbor that would cut off access to the rest of the island, most of which is managed as part of the Gulf islands National Seashore, a unit of the National Park Service.
Titles II and III are much of the same, Federal land grabs to be used for
windfall profits at the expense of the American people. Title III goes further by waiving a number of laws, including the Endangered Species Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; the National Historic Preservation Act; and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.
Title IV would prevent the BLM from carrying out its mission to manage public lands for multiple use until the agency creates a public database of all lands identified for disposal. BLM would be barred from all land acquisitions until such database is created.
BLM currently uses a public process developed and implemented locally through Resource Management Plans, and approved by Congress, to identify parcels for acquisition or disposal. This measure would just add another extreme layer of bureaucracy.
Title V would threaten endangered nesting shorebirds and sea turtles in the Cape Hatteras National Seashore recreational area. In 2007, the National Park Service placed modest limits on the use of off-highway vehicles on the beaches in order to limit the impacts on these species. The National Park Service was sued, and a judge determined the limits were inadequate protection for the endangered species.
In arbitration, the parties, including all stakeholders, agreed on a new plan that provided adequate protection for endangered species while allowing managed off-highway vehicle access. This measure would require the seashore be managed under the first rule rather than the agreed upon settlement.
Title VIII would change grazing tenure from 10 to 20 years and provide environmental waivers for grazing permit renewals, reissuance, or transfers. If we are going to reform grazing permit tenure, we should also talk about those ranchers who would like to get out of the business and retire their permits.
Also, we should address the low cost of grazing on Federal lands. Grazing fees have not changed since 1996 and are significantly lower than in the past, while State and private landowners generally seek market value for grazing. This measure is completely unbalanced and fails to address significant grazing issues.
Title IX, like many other natural resource measures proposed by the Republicans, waives NEPA, judicial review, and administrative review, completely disregarding the input of critical stakeholders such as the general public.
In conclusion, this so-called lands package should be called the ``Federal Lands Giveaway, Destruction of Protected Species, and Lack of Accountability Act.'' This package undermines the management of our public lands, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It should be noted for the record that the National Park Service provided a series of recommendations to make this portion of the legislation workable, and those were not considered during the process.
I yield to the gentleman.
Reclaiming my time, this land was to be used for public purposes. This is public land, not land to give away and, as stated before, over and over again, be dredged and used for a harbor for potential windfall profit. Not only that, this action completely disregards the conservation goals of the adjacent national seashore by hindering access. On one hand, we talk about limited access to public lands; on the other, we hinder access to those places we see fit.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We have heard our colleagues on the other side of the aisle make fun of the fact that the United States Congress has to be involved in such unimportant matters as the conveyance of Federal land, this great Nation defeated that the Soviet Union, and we allude to the fact that we have a Soviet-style centralized government with regard to land management in this country. I think that my colleagues need to take that up with the Framers of the Constitution.
Article IV of that document states:
The Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make
all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or
other property belonging to the United States.
So I am sorry if the majority finds this burdensome, but the Framers apparently felt that Federal property was valuable and that Congress should play a role in determining what to do with it.
Let's be clear: we are talking here about Federal property, that is, property owned by all Americans. The land in question in Escambia County, Florida; Anchorage, Alaska; Fernley, Nevada; Cape Hatteras, North Carolina; Yellowstone and Grand Teton and the land on which Federal grazing occurs, the land impacted by this package is Federal land, owned by each and every American taxpayer.
In the case of these land transfers, the Federal Government gave the land, gave it to a local community as a means of Federal support, and the only requirement, in most cases, was that the land always be used for public purposes. As long as it is a park or a school or a fire station, it is yours, for free.
What these bills do is end those public purpose requirements. The communities want to use these lands for private profit. They want to close them to the public, in many cases.
This is not a land grab by Uncle Sam. This is not some silly scheme by the Feds to harm local communities and to use their power to hold down the taxpayers and keep the public out. This is a community asking to make money off land that was owned by all Americans, and it is the job of Congress to decide if that is a good idea or not.
Let's put one other misleading claim to rest. While Republicans claim the Federal Government owns too much land, the historic trend has been one of divestiture and fragmentation.
As recently as the late 1860s, the Federal Government owned 1.8 billion of the 2.3 billion acres in the contiguous United States. Grants to States, homesteaders, land-grant colleges, railroads and others settling in the Alaska and the West have reduced Federal land ownership by roughly 640 million acres to date.
We have been giving land away for centuries, not buying it up. Today we have a whole series of bills seeking more Federal land, and we owe it to the American people--the American people require that we consider this carefully, and the Constitution requires that Congress be empowered to consider these carefully.
These mischaracterizations are not helpful in the discussions. These bills are not in the best interest of the American people, on the merits alone, and using misinformation to claim otherwise is wrong.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
I want to respect the chairman. The chairman is correct. The Natural Resources Committee, of which I am a proud member, appears to be very busy passing bills.
But let's be clear: the Republican majority, time and time again, acts unilaterally, alone, without meaningful cooperation with the minority in this legislation, in the House, and with the Senate and with the administration.
On suspensions, the majority insists on ridiculous limitations that prevent consideration of many measures designed to conserve lands, and, of course, they insist on a more than 3:1 ratio of their legislation to the minority's legislation, to ours. No wonder the number of suspensions is lagging behind what we have done in the past.
As to the bills we have considered under a rule, most of them are almost identical repeats of the bills that were passed in the House last Congress, but because they were opposed by the Senate and the administration, they went nowhere.
To keep passing the same, dead-on-arrival bills over and over again to make the committee look busy should not be mistaken for legislating. The idea is to work on legislation that can bring bills of a bipartisan nature, that the Senate will deal with and, more importantly, that the administration will sign.
That is the legislation my side of the aisle looks forward to working on and, in a very serious manner, improving the operation of Interior, improving the operation of our public lands, and creating transparency at all levels.
We want to do that, and we look forward to working with the majority and with our esteemed chairman in that direction.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward. It strikes title IV of the bill. Title IV is the text of H.R. 2095, introduced by my friend from Utah (Mr. Bishop), chairman of the Public Land Subcommittee.
The title would prohibit BLM from acquiring additional land until the agency creates a publicly accessible database that inventories current landholdings and identifies land suitable for disposal.
Much of the bill we are considering today seeks to undermine the public planning process and give away Federal land free of charge. This land belongs to the American people, and if we are going to be in the business of giving it away, we should at least not hinder our ability to acquire more land when it makes sense to do so.
Let me see if I understand this. I do not oppose the idea of creating a database that catalogs Federal landholdings. I do not oppose the idea of transparency at BLM, or any other government agency for that matter, but putting an arbitrary condition on land acquisition authority is just bad policy.
The true intent of the title is not to create a database. The intent is to limit land acquisition.
The majority has been clear about their agenda to limit expansion of the Federal estate, and the bill we are considering today is just another attempt to advance that priority. It is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Through the public land use planning process, BLM keeps an inventory of its land. Land managers, from the folks down the street in the Department of the Interior building to the field staff all over the country, know how much land the Federal Government owns.
In fact, the Federal Land and Policy Management Act, also known as the BLM's Organic Act, provides clear direction and authority for cataloging and the inventory of Federal lands. FLPMA also provides the agency with authority to dispose of lands deemed worthy for disposal through the public planning process.
Like I mentioned before, I don't see a problem with creating a database of information available in BLM's Resource Management Plans. The problem is with limiting authority for land acquisition.
Land acquisition authority makes the management of Federal lands more efficient. It is not the bogeyman that the sponsors of the bill claim. Federal land managers acquire land in order to clean up the checkerboard pattern of ownership, consolidating Federal holdings and making them easier to manage.
Limiting this authority will have the consequence of making the management of Federal lands more difficult and less efficient.
Land is also acquired when it makes sense for conservation and resource management purposes. The Federal Government is the steward of some of our Nation's most pristine and treasured resources. There are times when it makes sense to add to national parks or national monuments to make sure that they have the resources and the protection that they merit.
Popular programs like the Land and Water Conservation Fund have helped conserve millions of acres that provide all of our constituents with opportunities to hike, hunt, fish, and pursue other recreational activities.
If we want to ensure that efficient management of Federal land, limiting land acquisition authority is a step in the wrong direction. My amendment makes sure that this important tool is not jeopardized, and I urge my colleagues to support its adoption.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, in my amendment, we are also talking about the Federal Government having the authority to buy land from willing sellers. And when you bar the Federal Government from trying to buy land, then what happens? The seller still wants to sell. So who steps up? Developers, other high-intensity uses around areas that should be protected.
When you look at Uncle Sam as a buyer for political purposes, you empower developers and others that want the land for completely different uses; and before you know it, an area that you wanted to conserve and preserve is gone. This is bad policy. And to remove the authority from the Federal Government of being able to purchase land from willing sellers I think is a step too far.
And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
This amendment attempts to conform with the Senate language related to the Grazing Improvement Act, but two wrongs don't necessarily make a right. The language is still problematic.
I thank the sponsors for this amendment and for this opportunity to talk a little bit more about public land grazing.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, title VIII attempts to address one issue related to public lands grazing, the backlog of permit renewals, but it fails to take on the larger issue of below-market grazing fees.
The Federal Government charges $1.35 per month per animal unit on Federal lands. If we are going to consider legislation that waives NEPA and extends the tenure of grazing permits, almost doubles the number of years, we also have to review the formula for grazing fees.
The State of Idaho charges $12 to $14 per month to graze on State lands. In
Arizona, we charge $8 to $9 per month. Washington State charges $12 per month; Nevada, $12.50 per month; California, over $16 per month.
We often hear from the majority that the States do a better job of managing their lands. In this case, I would agree. The States do a better job of making sure their taxpayers get a fair return on the use of their State lands, while Federal taxpayers are stuck subsidizing the practice of grazing on public lands.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment, very simply, seeks to limit, if not eliminate, judicial review on those who have an interest in grazing on our public lands. This amendment attempts to, with incentives--negative incentives to the public--limit the public from challenging Federal action on grazing decisions by making them pay the prevailing party's legal fees.
Like I have mentioned before, all Federal taxpayers are on the hook for subsidizing grazing on Federal lands; therefore, all citizens of this country should have the opportunity to challenge the decisions made that have an effect on their public lands.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, grazing has impacts on public lands like no other use, and it is important that we
consider these impacts through the NEPA process and through judicial review, both that are being struck from that process today. Steamrolling and eliminating judicial review and the public process, as in a reference to East Germany, centralized government and thought control, once we begin to limit the public's and the individual's access to redress through the courts by action of this Congress, it is a dangerous not only precedent and a dangerous step in public transparency, but more importantly, in the public's right to know.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, since the Rim Fire burned over 200,000 acres in California's Sierra Nevada Mountains in August of last year, Mr. McClintock has expressed an interest in expediting salvage logging operations in the burned area. The language he has offered to achieve this
goal keeps evolving, and, in my opinion, it keeps getting better. Unfortunately, I still cannot support this amendment, the latest version of H.R. 3188.
Since the fire, the Forest Service has engaged in an extensive planning effort that includes salvage operations where they are deemed appropriate. The planning effort is ongoing, and the amendment seeks to force a decision before it is complete. The amendment references a proposed action that predates the issuance of the draft Environmental Impact Statement. The draft EIS is due out in April. Until then, we should allow the public process to end before backing the Forest Service into a corner with a mandated decision. Otherwise, we take away the opportunity for public input and the ability for the Forest Service to examine the economic feasibility of salvage operations, potential damage to wildlife, and other consequences.
CEQ has already approved an expedited process for the EIS that includes a shortened timeline for the comment period and eliminates notification requirements. The Forest Service is committed to this expedited process and working diligently to advance appropriate restoration.
The amendment still mandates salvage logging in areas where it might not be appropriate while waiving Federal environmental standards. Taking NEPA out of the picture will not end up in more logging or less lawsuits. Supporters of this amendment understand that this is the case. That is why the amendment waives a bevy of other environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act.
The forests of Sierra Nevada provide Californians with clean water, fish, and wildlife habitat and recreation. Indiscriminate salvage logging threatens these treasured forests.
Additionally, the amendment limits judicial and administrative review. This is still a huge sticking point. Salvage logging is extremely controversial, and we shouldn't take away any tools available for the public to be able to weigh in on these critical decisions. Supporters of this amendment argue that the objection process is overused and abused, but it is there to make sure that everybody has a voice in the process.
I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to oppose its adoption. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, the Forest Service, as we speak, is preparing to authorize salvage operations on 30,000 of the 154,000 burned acres, and a decision is due as early as August. As I said earlier, salvage logging is not without controversy, and the decisions to authorize these activities need to be fully analyzed and fully transparent. Many ecologists believe that post-fire landscapes are an essential component of forest lifecycles that provide critical habitat for wildlife and other essential ecological services. Rushing to allow indiscriminate salvage operations, as this bill intends, threatens the overall health of the forest. The planning process is ongoing under expedited emergency provisions set out by CEQ.
Our national forests are more than timber factories, and we have a public planning process that ensures all uses and benefits are considered. This bill ignores that process, and that is why I repeat opposition to it.
I yield back the balance of my time.