Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, look, the Minuteman III has been a great deterrent and a great source of security for this country, but it is 46 years old. It was put in the ground when I was in college, and I can't even remember what I was doing in college.

It has already been extended three times.

As Mr. Turner said, the testimony in our committee said that we have studied this, and the conclusion was more study and more delay was not cost-effective.

Look at the reality of the situation. If we move into a new system, we have to have the infrastructure to make that move so the system can be seamless going from place to place.

If we pause in that reconstruction of infrastructure, what we do is stop the construction. Then, we have to start up again, which is why the cost continues to increase.

There are parts of Minuteman III that are no longer being produced in the private sector, so the engineers at the Air Force logistics centers have to rejigger from old parts a new part. In fact, the blueprints in some cases are so old, they are not readable anymore.

We have to move forward. This amendment stops us from modernizing our efforts. The GBSD has to move forward.

Let's face it: The only reason it is not moving forward right now is because it doesn't have a cute name like Minuteman III. But it is our future. If we want something in our future, we cannot tolerate more delays. This amendment for another study does nothing more than delay what we can actually come up with, the new generation of what we need to defend this country.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition for the process of what we are doing, not necessarily the substance of the amendment at hand.

Since this bill had first been heard in our committee, there have been new voices that have been raised by the people of Windsor, California, which is the town located adjacent to the unincorporated area of the county in which this land transfer would take place. These residents have repeatedly contacted our committee asking that their voices simply be heard.

Now, for whatever the reason was, we asked the committee to have one more hearing and allow these voices to actually be heard. For whatever reason, the majority on our committee decided to silence the voices and just ram this bill through the committee. The reason I and several others voted against it in committee and on the floor was simply because of the process that went through here.

This, as has been mentioned, is not necessarily a new amendment. It is a bill, a bill that has passed this House and is sitting over in the Senate.

It is certainly my hope that this does not portend a future in which those who make the agenda of the House consider the fact that the Democratic House will so incomparably and infrequently work with a Republican Senate that we now need to take every bill that has been passed in the House and turn it into another amendment and then attach it to the next big bill that happens to go through this process. Certainly, that is not what I think would be the best way going forward.

Now, the last reason, the process for which I do object, is simply this bill does not belong on a National Defense Authorization Act. There is no defense nexus. This is transferring of lands from one area to Native Americans.

Now, heaven knows, I have had all sorts of land issues and wildlife issues on the NDAA, but in each one of those there was a nexus to a training range, a military mission. There is no connection with this particular bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, however one wants to spin whatever issue is here, had the Democratic majority on the committee scheduled another hearing to allow those voices to be heard, I wouldn't have objected then, nor would I have objected right now.

The sad part is this is not necessarily the best of proposals. The checkerboard pattern that is created by this amendment is something in other amendments we have tried to do, to consolidate and get rid of checkerboard patterns and not create checkerboard patterns.

But here is, still, the bottom line: This establishes a precedent-- this is not a precedent. We have done it before. But it establishes the wrong approach.

The National Defense Authorization Act should be about military stuff and about the defense of this Nation. This is not even a tangible concept. This is something that has nothing to do with it. We do have a partisan Rules Committee that has decided to lure some people with partisan amendments to be

put in here, but it has nothing to do with the actual bill.

We are going through a whole lot of amendments and taking a whole lot of time on the floor. The amendments to the NDAA should have something to do with the NDAA and not just pulling wandering bills that go all over the place and deciding to shove it on it just because there is a vehicle that happens to be going through this body.

That is why I said I am not talking about the substance of the bill-- although there are some questions; I would have had my questions answered had there been another hearing for the new voices that want to be heard--but it is the process that we are going through. The process here is wrong. The process the Rules Committee did was wrong.

We should not be talking about these kinds of issues and taking our time on these kinds of issues on an NDAA bill. So, as I said, my opposition is purely on process, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the sponsor of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire, first of all, if the gentleman from Arizona has any speakers. I do have several.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to be here. I also appreciate Mr. Cole for his work on this particular issue and the time he has put in over the last decade in trying to find a Carcieri fix.

That 2009 Supreme Court made the decision, but it actually opened up more questions than it provided solutions and answers in the process.

In the years since that decision, the Democrats, when they controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House, did not find a solution. Republicans, when we were in the same situation, didn't find a solution either, probably because there is even a bigger question than what was decided in this particular case. That bigger question is one that is extremely complex and grave, and it indicates the complexity of this particular issue.

Lands taken into trust by Tribes definitely have a benefit and an advantage to the Tribe, but it also has an impact on the counties and local governments where this trust issue is taking place.

Let's be clear that, prior to Carcieri, the fee-to-trust process was broken and fraught with conflicts. In fact, many will still argue that even today, the current Bureau of Indian Affairs process provides very limited incentives for any community or stakeholder to be partners in this process. As a result, we are often left with conflict and political turmoil and accusations and recriminations on the local level.

Some areas of local government, especially the California State Association of Counties, have been repeatedly asking us to try to come up with a reform to the overall process because the process impacts taxes and zoning in communities where these trust lands are acquired.

Local governments, States, and stakeholders who have some kind of role to play in this area, should they have a seat at the table? Should they be consulted? Should they have some kind of input? Yes, obviously.

Should they have a veto in the process? I don't think so.

Where we draw that line to ensure that there is consultation, so you ensure that people have a voice in the process, that is the underlying question. That is the complex question.

During markup of this bill, Mr. Huffman from California and Mr. Gosar from Arizona entered into a colloquy. They actually had a discussion, one of the few times a committee did what a committee is supposed to do, talking about the need to come up with some kind of variance to this underlying issue that is not necessarily the crux of the 2009 decision. But how do we come up with this process?

If this bill is going to go all the way to the Senate and ultimately become law, we need some help in finding a solution to the bigger issue of how much

consultation should take place and who should have their voices heard in the overall process, a process that does not happen right now.

There is a pathway to solve these problems. We can address Carcieri or we can move forward to prevent future litigation that has plagued the land-in-trust process. The Tribes and every stakeholder in this process deserve as much.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

If we, indeed, are going to be serious about a legislative solution to Carcieri, then we need to work out some kind of compromise that could pass both Houses of Congress and be signed by the President.

I have been encouraged by the debate not only on the floor here, but also in our committee, regarding the need to consult with affected parties before land is taken into trust.

Mr. Speaker, I ask Mr. Grijalva whether he will commit to work with us on this type of legislation to solve this underlying problem as this bill moves forward?

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's commitment and I appreciate the comments that he will be there.

There is this bigger question that needs to be answered. Where we draw the line is a matter that still needs some kind of discussion, I recognize that.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a brilliant letter from me to Chairman Grijalva on this particular issue'

House of Representatives,

Committee on Natural Resources,

Washington, DC, May 6, 2019.

Hon. Raul Grijalva,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: It is frustrating that the Democrat

Leadership has scheduled H.R. 375, legislation to reverse

Carcieri v. Salazar, under suspension one week after the

committee markup of the bill. It disregards what I believe

was a bipartisan agreement to work on an amendment to the

bill to improve consultation between the Bureau of Indian

Affairs (BIA) and states and counties to mitigate the impacts

of taking land in trust in their jurisdictions. The Carcieri

decision created vast uncertainty over the fee-to-trust

process for tribes and impacted stakeholders. I voted for

H.R. 375 in committee as a display of my support for

resolving Carcieri. My support for the bill's advancement is

contingent upon the inclusion of reasonable safeguards on

BIA's powers.

During markup on H.R. 375, Messrs. Huffman and Gosar

discussed a mutual, bipartisan desire to respond to long-

standing state and local concerns. The California State

Association of Counties (CSAC), in a letter submitted for the

markup record, reiterated the counties' ``longstanding, valid

concerns'' they have with a fee-to-trust process conducted

under a ``fundamentally flawed regulatory framework'' and

they also submitted proposals to resolve these problems. I

can attest that many counties in Utah share these same

concerns.

Mr. Huffman explained that he found himself in partial

agreement with CSAC's position, and that there should be

``meaningful good faith consultation'' with local

governments. While saying the Gosar amendment went too far,

Mr. Huffman expressed a willingness to ``continue

collaborating on this issue'' to ``come up with something

that would at least codify that good faith consultation part

of a better process.''

Bringing the bill to the Floor this Wednesday is not a sign

that such collaboration is being taken seriously by Democrat

Leadership nor is it a pragmatic approach to resolving

Carcieri for the benefit of Indian Country.

The fee-to-trust system is broken because of a provision of

a 1934 law that has not been updated since that law's

enactment. Realistically, H.R. 375 offers an opportunity

through which to fix it. Moving forward without reasonable

consultation safeguards on BIA's authority will undermine

successful resolution of Carcieri.

It was our hope that after debate on the bill during markup

you'd allow Messrs. Huffman and Gosar, and other interested

Members (on and off the Committee), an opportunity to explore

solutions with H.R. 375's sponsor, Mr. Tom Cole. We need to

work on a compromise bill that solves the underlying issues

and can become law.

Sincerely,

Rob Bishop,

Ranking Member.

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

Mr. Speaker, on May 10, 1869, a Salt Lake paper wrote that the people of Utah--the great pioneers of the Rocky Mountains--received with acclamation the glad news of the completion of the mighty work to which as a people they had contributed their part; and hand in hand with the great circle of States and territories, now rejoicing in union over the event, did thank God for its accomplishments.

They were referencing the Golden Spike which had been driven completing the first transcontinental railroad.

That date, May 10, will forever stand as a tribute to the men of vision who foresaw the potential of an empire stretching from coast to coast in the United States, bound together not only by iron rails but also by a common interest.

From the time of the Civil War when this project started until three or four decades later when the railroad system was completed, America changed. In 1860, the United States was third in the world in production of wheat. When the railroad was completed, we were first. In 1860, England produced three times as much coal as the United States. When the railroad was complete, not only did we lead the world, we were producing 110 million tons of coal more

than Great Britain. During the Civil War, England was producing six times as much steel as we were, but when the railroad was complete, 42 percent of all steel was being produced in the United States--much of that going to the railroad.

During the Civil War, there were only 30,000 miles of railroad track in America. But when the system was complete, there was 167,000 miles crisscrossing this country. Today we still have more railroad track than any other country, 39 percent more than the number two country of Russia, and more than the rest of the top 10, which include in order China, India, Canada, Germany, Australia, Argentina, and France and Belgium combined, even more than nation number 139 on that list, the country of Lichtenstein, which has all of 5\1/2\ miles of railroad track.

The railroad made our economic explosion possible. The railroad made us an industrial giant. Before the railroad came, it was difficult to move goods or even transport people. But once the spike was driven, that was the kick-start to what we were going to do. Now, 150 years later, we are celebrating the coming of the Central Pacific's Jupiter with the Union Pacific's Engine 119 meeting together in Utah's backyard. The railroads still move goods, and they also provide passenger service.

I still remember as a kid my parents taking me to the Ogden train depot for a trip somewhere into Idaho, probably Boise. I was in my Sunday best. As we went up to the observation car, I could look out and see the beauty of this America passing us by.

It is an American national historical park. It is a place where the American story is without equal.

In LaRue County, Kentucky, there is the Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historical Park.

In Seneca, New York, there is the Women's Rights National Historical Park.

In Ohio, you can visit the Dayton Aviation National Historical Park where you can walk into the bicycle shop where Orville and Wilbur Wright first started to conquer the skies.

The Golden Spike National Historical Park is going to recognize in Promontory Summit in Utah, the place where the world changed, where not only was history made that day, but also the Herculean efforts of those who organized this, as well as the immigrant manpower of Irish coming from the east and Chinese from the west, who provided the muscle to accomplish this project.

A national historical park is accomplished by an act of Congress, but the Spike 150 Commission, chaired by Doug Foxley and Spencer Stokes, has mobilized a literal army of history lovers who will host a series of events befitting this historic moment.

It has already started with a horse parade in Brigham City, a hoedown in Tremonton, and a country church service on Sunday. It will also culminate this Friday when we invite all of you to come to Utah to see the celebration of the 150th anniversary of the Golden Spike, which encouraged the pioneering of both the spirit and economy of America. When that Golden Spike was driven, America welcomed a new frontier.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Gosar for yielding me time. I appreciate this opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, look, I was listening to a lecture the other day about the old Romans, the Roman Empire. The Romans' success in creating their empire was that they were incredibly creative and adaptive. They saw situations that needed to be changed, something new, and they did it.

They had perfected the phalanx approach. They learned from the Greeks how to fight. Yet when they came against the Samnites who were living in the hills, that phalanx approach was totally useless. So what the Romans did is created a way around that, another source, to have a very flexible, highly mobile type of attack force, which they called the Legions. They simply became adaptive to the new situation.

This is where I wish the other side of this body would try to become less dogmatic and more adaptive, to try to find solutions.

Instead of bringing another resolution to the floor that has no chance of passing in the Senate and would be vetoed by the President, we should spend our time trying to come up with creative solutions that would be a win-win-win situation. We can do it. We need to.

It would be nice if the other side of the aisle could also understand what Article I actually means. In the last administration, instead of taking this accord through the normal constitutional process of having it ratified in the Senate and doing it by executive fiat, they have to realize what can be done by executive fiat instead of the constitutional way can be undone by executive fiat.

Rather than now trying to go back to the old document that has questionable efficacy, let us try to move forward.

This is happening all over the place. The State of California has a lot of talk about green talk, yet they have increased their dependence on foreign oil in the last year by 57 percent. That is foreign oil.

We have to do things in a way different than simply talking about it. We had a bunch of hearings in our committee about climate change. We heard from the Hip Hop Caucus. We even heard from people who thought NFL concussions were a problem and needed to be solved somehow through climate change. I don't know how that fit, but it was an interesting day.

Let me try to talk to you instead about something that is in the purview of our government, that can be done and that can be a creative and adaptive solution to this problem of too much carbon in the environment: simply, carbon sequestration.

I would refer you to a guy, a doctor by the name of Williams, who took 1,000 acres of land in Mississippi that had been farmed for 150 years, most of that in cotton. Instead, he turned it into rangeland, grazing rangeland.

He had had no herbicides, no pesticides, no seeding, no artificial fertilizer. The only management technique he used was intensive grazing followed by periods of rest so that the soil, the plant life, could recover. That is the only thing he did.

They tell me that the results after 4 years was simply an increase in the number of foraged species that were there, an increase in the number of native species that were reappearing, and an increase in the general biodiversity of insects and wildlife and everything else.

He told me, in technical talk that I don't understand, that for every 0.6 percent increase in soil C per acre in 1 foot of soil, whatever that means, you can take 35 metric tons of CO2 out of the atmosphere. That means nothing to me.

What this guy in Mississippi was able to do is come up with a 2.3 percent increase in that soil carbon, I am assuming, which would equate to 140,000 metric tons of CO2 taken out of the atmosphere. Those numbers also mean nothing to me; I don't know what it means.

What I do understand is that what he was able to do was the equivalent of taking out emissions from 7,600 automobiles every year and sequestering it into his 1,000 acres of ground. That is the equivalent of burning 13,000 tons of coal that he was able to take out of the atmosphere and sequester it into the ground.

Mississippi alone has 10 million acres of land that is farmland of all types. If you were able to use all of that, Mississippi alone could take out of the atmosphere 7 percent of all the emissions that we have and sequester it into their ground in that State simply by itself, which means, if you extend that out mathematically to 150 million acres, the United States could be a net negative emitter. We could be taking more carbon out of the atmosphere and putting it into the ground than we are sending into the atmosphere.

Approximately 5.1, I am told, gigatons of CO2 emissions are automatically sequestered into the oceans and our terrestrial sinks. If you understand what that means, you are a better man than I am. That is what I have been told. That means, to become net zero, we would only have to have 75 million acres of land being used for carbon sequestration, 75.

In the United States, we have 527 million acres of pasture and rangeland. Twenty-seven percent of the land that we have is in pasture and rangeland. We have 410 million acres, which is 21 percent of all land, in forestry.

Simply by having an aggressive way of grazing, improving grazing and improving the quality of our forests, we can suck carbon out of the atmosphere, which would be far easier and far better than anything in the questionable efficacy of the Paris accord.

You could do it with no cost. You wouldn't have to cost jobs or energy increases. You can do it with virtually no cost except for the initial cost of buying the livestock to put on the land, which is why it is there.

We could have the benefits of a better watershed, better wildlife, better biodiversity, and economic productivity of our rural lands. All those things are easily within our reach.

We could help solve the food shortage. We could help solve drought resistance in agricultural lands. We could have watershed integrity, which would provide abundant and cleaner water for us all, as well as biodiversity for wildlife.

I was recently in Arkansas, if I can go on with this. The State forestlands, they had 2 pieces that they were working on. One they just let go on so they could see what would happen, let nature run its course. The other they went through with active management by thinning the trees.

What happened in the one that they just left alone? It was crowded. It was dark. There was no sunlight getting to the ground, which was barren of all kinds of foliage.

On the portion that the State managed, where they allowed the sunlight to get to the ground, there was vegetation. There was forage. There was the ability to have food. Wildlife had a habitat they could use.

That has also been replicated in my home State, where on private property, some of my sheep ranchers did the exact same thing. They improved the ground.

Not only have they improved the ground, but they can also now suck more carbon out of the atmosphere into that ground, which you don't do if you just leave it alone.

We had a hearing in our committee one time, and they simply said the idea was that plants need carbon, so you have plant life sucking the carbon out of the atmosphere. It goes down into the root system, which makes the plant healthier, the land healthier, and you are taking carbon out of the atmosphere. That is a wonderful idea.

We had four witnesses. Even the Democratic witnesses were saying that grazing helps us to accomplish this.

One of our good Eastern members said: Well, look, if plant life sucks the carbon out of the atmosphere, why don't we take the cows out, and then you will have more plant life. They won't eat any of it.

Even the Democratic witness said, no, that is not the way it works.

If you allow the plant just to grow, it grows large and sprouts out and hides the ground so that you don't have any kind of new plant life coming on. You take the cows out, and their hooves don't claw up the land as they walk around, so nothing is germinating. All you have is a bunch of dry, dead leaves that are easy bait for wildfires. What you have to do is allow them to eat and then move them off the land.

Can we destroy the land with bad grazing practices? Of course. But if you do it the right way, we can easily solve the problems.

We have two kinds of problems with carbon: one is emissions and the other is concentration, stuff already out there.

If we just do grazing practices and carbon sequestration on the lands that the Federal Government owns now, we can easily not only solve our problem of emissions but take the concentration out and put it back into the ground, where it does good for plant life and expands and grows that.

We have here the resources that we need to solve this problem. What we need to do is free up people to be able to solve this problem by themselves and not insist that the government tell us what to do, when to do it, and how to do it. It doesn't work that way. This can be a win-win situation.

H.R. 9, I am sorry, does not have anybody winning. It has all of us losing. That is why it would be nice to see that there are solutions out there.

All we need to do is be like the old Romans and be a little bit creative and adaptive, find something that works with material we already have. We can do that. There is a better way to go forward than

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) is spot-on accurate. I thank him for bringing this up.

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

I am here to support H.R. 1222, and I am very pleased that Congressman Kind and Congressman Hunter were able to introduce this and for their part in this particular statement.

As was said by the gentleman from New Jersey, this has been before this House before. We have passed it in committee before and in the House before, and it was part of the original package, the land package that went through earlier this year.

Unfortunately, because of a technicality in the slowdown that we had in having to reintroduce the bill as a Senate bill, this must come through as a House bill.

However, I am pleased to report that all the concerns people had have been resolved at this point. The Senate has already deemed this bill to have passed once the House acts on it. So, with our passage today, I think this bill is going fast into becoming an actual piece of legislation.

I want to thank Representative Grijalva and his staff. Mr. Grijalva is not here today. The gentleman from New Jersey is in his place, and a much better dresser, I might add, and I thank him. I thank them for their efforts to continue on with this program that was part of the original package. We had hiccups that we had to solve in some particular way, so Mr. Grijalva and his staff worked very hard on this particular piece of legislation.

This is something that has been long sought by the sports community. The Pittman-Robertson fund, which is a great fund that relies on excise taxes paid on purchases that are made by hunters and fishers and recreational shooters, that goes into this fund, which has been around for almost 80 years and has already contributed about $10 billion.

It has been important to start hunter education programs. It has been important also for the construction and the maintenance of our public shooting ranges. The long-term viability is significant.

As this Nation becomes more urbanized, the ability of people having a safe place where they can go, and they can do practice, target practice, it becomes even more significant that these ranges have to be maintained. These ranges have to be improved in some particular way.

What this bill does is the perfect solution. It takes this fund of money, but then allows the States to have greater flexibility of how it is going to be administered. By allowing them to even match with just 10 percent, it gives the States the ability to move forward and to use the Pittman-Robertson fund for 5 years to fund shooting ranges and expand existing shooting ranges.

It empowers States--that is what we should be doing more--but it empowers States that will actually now encourage responsible hunting, responsible recreational shooting, as well as ensuring the wildlife conservation system, which is, once again, a responsibility of States.

What we are doing here is, I think, taking the right approach with a fund that already exists, giving States flexibility, and encouraging the sporting community. That is why the sportsmen of our country have long sought for this particular provision. They look at this as a major and important win.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, even though H.R. 91 is a new bill, we have seen it before. The last time we were here, it was a Senate bill that came over and passed our committee but did not pass the floor itself. We did talk about it as part of a package we did earlier this year, that it could have gone in that. For some reason, it was not allowed to go in there.

It does deal with four of the Columbia River Treaty Tribes and the conditions on their traditional fishing areas that are basically unsanitary and simply unsafe. What this bill does is authorize the Department of the Interior to upgrade these areas, to make them acceptable to safety and sanitary standards, and to do that in consultation with the Tribes.

This bill is, in my estimation, a reasonable approach. I have no objection to passing this measure today.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I could inquire of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew) if he has any more speakers. I don't have any other speakers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), the sponsor of this particular piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, this entire day we should have had Yogi Berra come in here and say it is like deja vu all over again because, once again, this particular piece of legislation we saw last year when it passed out of committee--sponsored by Mr. LaMalfa then--at the same time, passed the floor at the same time, and now we are bringing it back here to see if we can get it all the way through to the finish line.

The bill is one that we have talked about for quite awhile, but it also has, I think, three significant things it accomplishes, why it has to be in bill form and can't simply be administratively negotiated in some way.

The first one, obviously, is it nullifies certain restrictions that were imposed by the State of California's conservation law. Even if that restriction to the land title were not a problem, it also solves the problem that was created because the Obama administration BIA appointees, in their haste trying to approve a fee-to-trust land acquisition, cut some legal corners--they cut a lot of legal corners-- which added to a lot of appeals and litigation, all of which cost everyone a whole lot of money.

The second specific thing it does is prohibit gaming in this Camp 4 area, as was said, which is a concern of the county of Santa Barbara that will obviously, when this passes, lose a great deal of jurisdiction over the land in that area.

And, finally, one thing this bill does, I think, that is very important is it references the memorandum of understanding between the Tribe and the county of Santa Barbara that they negotiated. This MOU addresses the concerns that they had, puts them in perspective, and will actually solve a lot of problems and efforts that have gone on in the past.

This is a good bill, used to get people working together, solving certain situations and certain problems. And, I guess, most importantly, the last bill we passed is going to cost us $11 billion; this one has no significant costs associated with it, so Mr. LaMalfa can maintain his status as a true fiscal conservative in the bills he brings here to the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration's notoriously rocky relationship with Congress, and even his own party, meant that he had to resort to overregulations to get stuff done. His pen and a phone approach resulted in considerable executive branch overreach.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support a nominee for Secretary of the Interior who is the exact opposite. David Bernhardt is a lawyer who understands exactly what powers and authorities his department is granted under the law and will never overstep those authorities.

During the shutdown, for example, he expertly used the authorities under FLREA--whatever those initials represent--to keep many of America's parks open, even as other agencies were closed for business. It is this kind of thinking--putting Americans and those who visit public lands first during tough times--that makes David a talented public servant. He will be an incredible Secretary of the Interior, and I urge the Senate to speedily confirm him.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a totally unique bill. What we have done is allowed the seven affected States to get together and work out a solution and bring it to us and then we, in Congress, didn't screw it up too badly.

So what we have done now is, if this bill can actually go into law, we have allowed for the system to build the capacity to store 60 million acre-feet of water that will help 5.5 million acres of irrigated lands, 40 million people, and can also produce over 4,000 megawatts of clean electricity.

It is rare for Congress, but in this case, we respected what the States have done, and we are moving quickly to try and get this into law.

I appreciate the chairman and the 30 other Members from the affected States who have joined me as part of this bill. Now I hope we can expedite this and send it over to the Senate where we will ask them to refrain from their usual practices and to quickly get this bill on the President's desk because, not only is this bill bipartisan, this bill is that important.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), a former member of our committee and one of the original cosponsors of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), another former member of our committee and a long-time worker on water issues in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I would like the Record to reflect that, although they are not noted as original cosponsors, Congressmen Amodei, Buck, and Tipton were, in fact, with us supporting this bill since the very beginning, and it should be reflected as such. Due to an error in the introduction of the bill, they were initially left off H.R. 2030, but they should be original cosponsors.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to another gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), who is one of the great members of this committee and this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate everyone who has spoken on behalf of this particular bill. It is a significant piece of legislation.

As Mr. Schweikert said, hopefully, we will never have to use it. Even in April of this year, the flow into Lake Powell is 133 percent of average. The snowpack is 138 percent of the 30-year average. Hopefully, we will never have to implement it, but at some time, it may, indeed, happen. Having this in place now provides for the future necessity, if and when that negative time has to take place.

I am proud the States came together. They have come up with a plan that is going to be successful, a solution to it, because if this thing does not pass, Utah is going to keep all the water and the rest of you can suck under.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) taking the lead this evening and talking about this important issue.

Look, one of the things we always need to do is learn the lessons of history, so we simply do not repeat them.

In the late 1800-1900s, communism was the new government concept that excited the elites of that particular era to the point that it was such an expansive idea, that part of the reason that Woodrow Wilson wrote his 14 points was to intellectually challenge communism and restate the significance of democracy and republican forms of government.

When communism did obviously take root in the Soviet Union and China, it was not a philosophical statement, it was simply an excuse for the good, old-fashioned dictators to tell people how to live their lives.

So as Lenin called it, it was important to have the vanguard of the proletariat, so the government would tell people how to think until people realized that the government was right in the first place.

Those are some of the parts of history that we never want to repeat again.

Now, if the Green New Deal, this toothless wish, was merely a one- and-done manifesto, then maybe that would be one thing, but my fear is, it becomes an opening salvo into the dangers that are stated when we decide that the government must find the solutions, the government must tell people what to think and what to do, that elites are the ones who have all the ideas; when in reality, history has shown us that solutions always come from people who were empowered to find and make decisions for themselves, and find solutions for themselves.

People need to be given options. People need to be given choices, people need to be able to chart their own destiny.

My fear is elitism enriches and empowers would-be autocrats, denigrates the roles of individuals, and those are dangerous attitudes that must be discussed and must be understood in some way.

And let's face it, some of the people--the cheerleaders for the Green New Deal--they simply don't get it.

When they live in areas where commutes, family errands are measured in blocks and subway stops, that is different from other people in America who, when they take a drive into town to buy school clothes that is going to take the entire afternoon.

It is different than people who realize that they have to make a choice between healthcare and heating their home; and that is a real responsibility for them, and a real problem.

The burdens imposed by the Green New Deal, which have been outlined by several speakers already, are those that land squarely on the shoulders of humble, hardworking Americans while the elites pat themselves on the back.

For the rural west, my State of Utah, it is not really a Green New Deal; it is, rather, a green raw deal for them to live.

Now, recently in my committee where I am the ranking member, we had an amendment that Mr. Graves made to one of the rules that would request an analysis of economics before any bill was considered.

Now, one of the freshmen Democrats spoke to that issue, and I want to just restate what he said. I thought what he said was profound.

He stated, I think we have to be very mindful of the people, their jobs, their ability to pay their bills, because of the changes that we make.

And this is a discussion that should always be had. We shouldn't just be speaking in the theoretical.

Now, ironically, even though I thought his words were spot on, that motion to have that policy was defeated.

Nonetheless, I recently joined other ranking members in asking Speaker Pelosi that if there was serious discussion, that unlike H.R. 1, this is going to be heard by many committees, many voices will have a chance at talking about what will actually happen.

These hearings ought to ask how this Green New Deal might impact energy prices and home prices and jobs and healthcare.

So far, those who have done the series of studies--so far they're from the

outside--the outlook looks pretty bleak on what the potential could indeed be.

There are already many complex examples of negative impacts that would happen if this was actually to become a reality.

So as stated in our plea to Speaker Pelosi, I do fear that this Green New Deal would hurt Americans struggling to make ends meet, the very people it purports to help. And worst of all, it could permanently put the American Dream out of reach for millions of people.

We need to really look very carefully at this and not just assume statements that are being made taking place. We need to learn from history and not repeat those same mistakes.

Mr. Speaker, I am appreciative of having the opportunity of being here as part of this Special Order to try and talk about some of the realities of this purported deal.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of speaking one more time here especially because this is such a significant issue that you are addressing to the people and because, as leader of the Congressional Western Caucus, you have held a whole lot of forums to discuss the implications of what could be there.

So in one of the last forums, we had policy think tanks and industry and conservation groups that were there testifying. I was struck by the comments of Thomas Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, when he said: ``For nearly a decade now, the United States, long blessed with vast natural resources, has benefited from the greatest energy expansion in the history of the world. Our energy producers have delivered the low-cost, affordable, and reliable energy that has fueled economic growth and opportunity for all Americans, no matter their race, sex, creed, or color.''

Now, it is interesting, as we talk about this concept, that, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, by 2020 the United States will become a net exporter of energy for the first time since 1953. That means no longer are we going to be reliant upon questionable foreign powers like Russia or Saudi Arabia for our energy.

Even the concepts that we have developed, the fracking and horizontal drilling, those concepts have allowed us not only to expand what we are doing, but also have allowed us to have a carbon emission reduction at the same time. We were the world leader in carbon reduction in 2015, 2016, and 2017, and we are still on that same track again.

In fact, one of the things I find unique about the Green New Deal is it fails to realize that, because of what we have been able to do in oil and natural gas, energy prices are down for those who are most vulnerable in our society. We can afford to cook our food and heat our homes better than ever before.

And while this production has risen significantly, methane emissions have decreased at the same time. In fact, the EPA reported that U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are already down 10 percent in the last 10 years.

So while the Green New Deal has every potential of destroying jobs for millions of people, it still also ignores other alternatives for green energy. For example, it says absolutely nothing about nuclear or hydropower.

Let's face it, 10 percent of our energy today stills comes from hydropower, and hydropower is clean. It leaves behind no waste. It is considered one of the most effective ways of producing electricity. And yet it is absurd to believe that we can achieve zero net carbon emissions without dealing with nuclear or without dealing with hydropower as part of the mix. That is part of the reality that needs to be brought out here.

We have grown our economics. We have cleaned our environment. We have lowered the cost of living for so many people.

We should not denigrate everything that the current system is already doing that for some people, for some elitists, they simply want to try to ignore that and ignore the fact that, if we want to continue on this path, what we need to do is empower people to be able to come up with solutions on their own. It is not going to happen by the government telling people how to live and what to think. We need to empower people, not empower the government.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity of expressing that idea again.

Mr. Speaker, one of the problems that Baltic countries have--Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania--is they are right next- door to the monolith Russia, that has used its energy potential to blackmail and intimidate these other countries. Even today, they have finally broken away from their oil and gas dependency on Russia. Their electrical grid is still tied to Russia.

What Lithuania was able to do is import a natural gas mobile station. They were able to get off of the Russian dependency so they could, once again, have their own resources coming in there.

Estonia does the same thing with their oil shale. They have been able to produce their own energy, which allows them to have independence and not be bullied by large countries, in this case, by Russia.

That is one of the things we are doing in what we are already doing. That is one of the futures that we are having. In fact, it is interesting that some of the countries we visited that were very proud of what they were doing with alternative energy, they always have to have a backup system.

And that backup system is based on coal. Without that, they could not guarantee baseloads that they have to have just to keep their countries going.

Mr. Speaker, I guess what the gentleman is saying is, if you want the economy to grow, if you want people to be empowered, if you want to find solutions not only to environmental issues but also energy issues, empower people to come up with that. We are actually doing that.

America's history is a history that is positive. Empower that to go forward. Don't try and stop it with some other elitist idea from the top-down theories.

Mr. Speaker, that is true.

Madam Speaker, my apologies for my absence. During the roll call numbers listed below, I was at the Utah State Capitol addressing the state legislature. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on Roll Call No. 104, and ``yea'' on Roll Call No. 105.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I became chairman of this committee, I vowed never to do this kind of a package. I thought that each bill deserved to be debated and to be moved as a standalone.

Basically, we in the House did that. Unfortunately, the Senate did not, which is why there are at least 63 House-passed bills in this package, 62 of which were passed on suspension, that have been sitting in the Senate, languishing for up to a year and a half.

If somebody says they don't have time to look at all the stuff that is in here, there have been months that they have been able to look at this stuff as it has been sitting over in the Senate.

Much of it is of parochial significance, which means it solves local challenges.

The very basis of all the bills that are in here is to put people above government. If indeed we are going to have public lands, there should be access to those lands.

That is one of the reasons why, for the first time in years, we have had some sportsmen's activities that are put into this particular bill. So the sportsmen can assume if they are on public land, it is going to be open for recreational hunting and fishing and shooting and all kinds of outdoor recreation, unless it is specifically closed.

And a land manager cannot be arbitrary with that. If they are going to close it, there has to be a public process they go through that mandates consultation with local officials.

It is extremely important that bow hunters get some protection. Even duck hunters get some certainty in here. For the first time, we are going to have special days for duck hunting, for youth and veterans, as well as those who are on Active Duty.

For the first time, there are real reforms of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. When that program was established a half century ago, 60 percent of all the land was supposed to go into the State and local funds.

Those are the programs that your constituents are calling you and saying: These are the good things on why this program should be reauthorized.

But when that cap was taken off, the amount of money going to State and local programs was reduced. In the time of the Obama administration, it was down to 12 percent. Everything else was for land acquisition.

This bill reforms that permanently by saying no less than 40 percent has to go to those State and local funds that your constituents like.

No less than 3 percent has to go to fulfilling facility recreation access. That means that we are, for the first time now, really empowering people and communities, State and local governments, as well as sportsmen.

I have always said that I want to shrink the Federal estate. This bill finally does shrink the Federal estate, in my State as well as nationwide.

We create four new monuments in this bill, but the right way; not expecting the President to make a declaration but, actually, for the Congress to pass a bill, to debate the bill, and then to pass the bill at the same time.

This administration actually did use the Antiquities Act on one of these monuments--nice and cute--but we are going to do it the right way in this particular bill.

We are going to do wilderness the right way. No longer should an agency simply create wilderness by dicta or fiat. Congress will make those decisions of what is wilderness and what is not going to be wilderness.

Let me talk for just a second about wilderness, because it has some controversy in here.

Over half the wilderness that is established in this section of bills is in my home State of Utah, but, as Mr. Curtis will tell you, the county commissioners, the local officials, endorse this action. They are happy with it because they gain access to other areas that can promote recreation and economic development, which they have been trying to get for several decades.

A quarter of this is also in California, in one district. So we create wilderness in the national park, but, at the same time, we are taking wilderness study areas and releasing those at the same time. We are making exchanges so that some of the lands go into trust funds for education purposes, to fund the education of our kids--something that the East doesn't need, but those of us who live in the Federally controlled West, we desperately need to do that.

For the first time we are taking EAJA, and we will actually have some transparency so we will really know what it costs for environmental litigation.

These are all issues we have been talking about for years in the House. These are issues that we repeatedly passed in the House. But, for now, we have a chance of actually making it happen.

Is this bill perfect? No. It is too big to be perfect.

Is the process for creating this perfect? Hell, no. But I am perfectly satisfied and willing to vote for this, because without this there will be no progress. The status quo will be maintained, and that is bad.

Senator Graham used to say: If I am going from Washington back to Houston and I get as far as Memphis, that is not bad. If I end up in Boston, it is bad, but for Memphis, that is not necessarily bad.

We have been complaining for years about elements that are in this package of bills, and now we have a chance to actually be positive, to get to Memphis and beyond, and to actually get something done.

And if someone says: ``It is not good enough; I am holding out for something better,'' we are holding out for something that never has been and never will be.

And it puts to the lie the complaints that we have exaggerated in the past. Congress is finally ready to act.

We should not refuse the solutions that are in front of us right now. This is a step forward, and this, obviously, is better than the alternatives.

I urge adoption of this package of compromise bills that have been worked out in advance, and I appreciate my colleagues on the Democratic side who have worked so hard to try and come up with a package of bills that we can all support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the dean of the House, someone who has forgotten more about public lands than the rest of us will ever know.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Curtis), my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), one of the senior members from Kentucky who can talk about how you do a monument the right way.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from

Oregon (Mr. Walden), someone who used to be on our committee but went over to the dark side and is now former chairman somewhere else.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), one of the hardworking members of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), a gentleman who has never been on our committee, but we have appreciated his friendship and helping to move this package.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse). We are sending out our members all over the place. He used to be a member of our committee. He has moved on to lesser roles now.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Gianforte), who worked very hard, especially in December, for the passage of this package.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), a former member of our committee, but also a leader in the sportsmen's community.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Burchett).

Yes, I have a couple speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I appreciate those who have come down and spoken on this particular bill, especially when you can say the word ``Oglethorpe'' all the time. It is one of the great names in American history.

This is a good piece of legislation that will make some solutions and move this forward. It is not perfect, but it actually solves some problems. Many are parochial, but significant, local concerns.

That is why this package is here. It passed the 63 bills that we have passed in the House but were sitting in the Senate. This has a chance of actually bringing some kind of cloture to all of that.

Mr. Speaker, I urge favorable adoption of this piece of legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5513) to provide for an exchange of lands with San Bernardino County, California, to enhance management of lands within the San Bernardino National Forest, 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 such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cook), the sponsor of this piece of legislation, to explain why we should actually deal with this particular piece.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a perfect example of how to do something well. I commend Congressman Cook for listening to his local constituents, trying to get their input, and getting a bill that has total local support. It is the way things should be done, solving a problem for both the Forest Service, as well as San Bernardino County.

Not only will the Forest Service get a small parcel of land which solves the problem of in-holdings within their property, but San Bernardino County gets the ability of solving significant problems they have in the area of public safety. This is one of those things that is a win-win situation: a win-win situation which actually provides safety, as well as the changing of that trail, if absolutely necessary, but that has to be worked out before any of this is concluded.

The bottom line here is that we have realized there is a significant problem, we have recognized this is a significant problem, and, by working with local communities to get their input trying to come up with a locally-driven solution to that problem, this is the way government should operate. Unfortunately, it doesn't operate that way all the time, but Congressman Cook has worked very hard to make sure that this is one of those positive efforts. This bill is one of those things that is a win for all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I heartily ask my colleagues to vote in favor of this, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6108) to provide for partnerships among State and local governments, regional entities, and the private sector to preserve, conserve, and enhance the visitor experience at nationally significant battlefields of the American Revolution, War of 1812, and Civil War, 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 such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice), the sponsor of this excellent piece of legislation that protects our heritage and our battlefields.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is one of those bills that makes an old history teacher's heart fill with joy. It is one of the right things to do. We are talking about areas that are living memorials to the heroism and to the sacrifice of those people who made this country what it is.

This bill is about preserving our history, helping us know, understand, and retain the story of who we are as a nation, and also how we arrived there as a nation. All of that is significant.

It is significant in that it will reauthorize the program through 2025, it is significant because it also will reauthorize an authorization level, which is, in practicality, what we have available to spend on this particular program, but, more importantly, it also involves the private sector becoming involved in this. Indeed, if our history is to be maintained, it is not going to be done simply by the government mandating it. We have to involve the private sector to become part of understanding why these areas are significant and what is the lesson to be learned there.

Not only will his bill talk about acquisition of land for these battlefield areas, but also about how we restore this land to the way it was at the time that history was being made on these properties, and, more importantly, how do we improve the education resources. So the story of what we are as a Nation, the story of what this specific site meant as we become a unified Nation as we move forward, that is retained and passed on from generation to generation. That is a significant issue and is a significant process.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Georgia for his commitment to understanding how important battlefields are to the history of this country and how important it is that that history is passed on to future generations. That is why this is a significant program that needs to go forward.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this particular legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3008) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of the George W. Bush Childhood Home, located at 1412 West Ohio Avenue, Midland, Texas, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), the sponsor of this bill, to explain the significance of this study.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, we have a situation here where there is already a museum that is run by a nonprofit entity in this area. What is being asked here is for a study to be done by the National Park Service to find the significance of including this as part of the National Park Service's portfolio of properties.

It is fitting that we try to do this, for, indeed, in American history, there have been only two times when there has been both a father and a son who have served as President of the United States, once with the Adams and now with the Bushes.

So having a home where they, as well as the future Governor of Florida, actually resided is one of those things that clearly is a unique sense of history. It is a unique property that provides that sense of history. So for a study to be done on whether it should be added to the National Park Service repertoire of sites is a proper thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, I commend Congressman Conaway's efforts to recognize and honor two of our country's Presidents, and I urge my colleagues, once again, to adopt this bill.

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

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