Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 839, I call up the bill (H.R. 3144) to provide for operations of the Federal Columbia River Power System pursuant to a certain operation plan for a specified period of time, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3144.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers), the sponsor, to introduce this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington State (Ms. Herrera Beutler), who lives in this area and knows firsthand what is taking place there.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Washington an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader), another person who lives in this area and realizes that this judicial decision is not necessarily based on science and can actually do harm to the endangered species.

Mr. Speaker, as one of the eight Tribes that endorse this bill said: The BiOp exceeds requirements established by the courts and by the ESA, and yet plaintiffs want more. The court should uphold the 2008 BiOp.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), speaking on behalf of the eight Tribes that endorse this in his area.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, NOAA did a study which simply said that the hatchery production of salmon in this area more than offsets any loss that comes from the dams. So even though we have this issue of an endangered species trying to eat another endangered species, which one are we going to support.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), who is a member of our committee who understands this particular issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be here to present this particular bill, or at least sum up on this, especially as our good friend Mr. Todd Ungerecht has done so much for this particular bill and it is going to be his last time on the floor with us. So I appreciate all of his help on this. He is returning back to his native State of Washington where he clearly realizes how important this bill is.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has support via policy from Washington, total support for the bill from Idaho and Montana, as well as eight other Tribes that live in this area, as well as the National Association of Counties, the American Farm Bureau Federation, United Power Trades Organization, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, National Electrical Contractors Association, Public Power Council, Washington Association of Wheat Growers, and scores of other individuals.

I include in the Record a complete list of organizations that support this bill as well as letters that support this legislation.

Support for H.R. 3144

National Water Resources Association, National Associations

of Counties, United Power Trades Organization, National

Association of Wheat Growers, American Farm Bureau

Federation, American Public Power Association, National

Electrical Contractors Association, National Rural Electric

Cooperative Association, Grand Canyon State Electric

Cooperative Association, Americans for Limited Government,

Arizona Farm Bureau, Arizona Liberty, Arizona Pork Council,

Asotin County Public Utility District, Association of

Washington Business, Benton Public Utility District, Blachly-

Lane Electric Co-op, Clatskanie People's Utility District.

Clearwater Power, Concerned Citizens for America (Sedona),

Cowlitz Public Utility District, Douglas County Public

Utility District, Franklin Public Utility District, Grant

County Public Utility District, Idaho Water Users

Association, Inland Ports and Navigation Group, Kittitas

County Public Utility District, Lewis County Public Utility

District, Mason County Public Utility District, New Mexico

Cattle Growers' Association, New Mexico Wool Growers Inc.,

Northern Lights, Northwest River Partners, Pend Oreille

Public Utility District, Port Clarkston, Port of Morrow.

Port of Pasco, Port of Whitman County, Public Power

Council, Salmon River Electric CoOp, Stevens County

Commissioners, Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative,

Tidewater Transportation & Terminals, Tri-City Development

Council, United Electric, Wahkiakum County Public Utility

District, Washington Association of Wheat Growers, Washington

Farm Bureau, Washington Public Utility Districts Association,

Washington State Potato Commission, Yuvapai County Supervisor

Thomas Thurman, Your Touchstone Energy Cooperative.

Mr. Speaker, here is the bottom line for this particular piece of legislation:

States agree to it. There are nine Tribes in this area. Eight of them totally support this particular bill. The Obama administration created a biological opinion which endorsed the ESA and was legal with the ESA. A judge decided to change all of that and ordered a spill with no apparent rationale to it.

Mr. Speaker, there is no one over here who hates salmon. We are not trying to kill them all. Heaven knows, the only way I would like to kill salmon is if I am consuming them myself. However, in 2011, another spill took place on this particular river which had the process of actually killing this endangered species that was there.

This judge's order, without any kind of rationale to it, could indeed be one of the situations that actually sterilizes this river and the species rather than protecting the river and the species.

Let's allow river operators to operate the river. Let's allow scientists to conduct the science and let judges go back to granting divorces. Allowing a judge with no background in these issues to dictate river operations and subvert the science is totally irresponsible on our part.

This is a piece of legislation that clearly is a win for the ratepayers to a tune of $40 million that they would have to do if this decision by the judge stands. It is also a win for taxpayers to the tune of about $16 million. It is a win for the fish by preventing a potentially deadly environmental decision that has no basis in actual science. And, once again, it was the last administration that created the pattern in which we are going.

Let's go back to that and do it. Now, if another science or biological opinion needs to be done, let it happen, but don't allow the judge to change what the river operators are saying is the wisest policy until you do that. That is the basis of this particular bill. It helps the power. It helps the fish. It helps all of us. And let's face it, if you are not using that hydropower, you are going to have to pick up fossil fuel power to make up the difference--see which one actually is healthier for the environment.

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues for doing this, and I urge all in the House to support this legislation which is a bipartisan bill that has bipartisan support.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Shuster for agreeing to help expedite consideration of this bill today.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Natural Resources,

Washington, DC, April 12, 2018.

Hon. Bill Shuster,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

Washington, DC

Dear Mr. Chairman: I write regarding H.R. 3144, to provide

for operations of the Federal Columbia River Power System

pursuant to a certain operation plan for a specified period

of time, and for other purposes. The bill was referred

primarily to the Committee on Natural Resources, with an

additional referral to the Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure.

I ask that you allow the Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure 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 Transportation and

Infrastructure 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the commitment of the gentlewoman from Washington, the effort to solve some problems, and many of the issues that were brought up. Unfortunately, many of the issues that were addressed simply are not covered in the motion to recommit at the same time--great speeches, but not necessarily really relating directly to the motion.

If you actually look at what the motion will do, ultimately, it is very clear that it will ensure that rates actually do go up; carbon emissions will go up; and farmers, families, union members, and small businesses will all have to eventually pay for it.

The underlying bipartisan legislation, though, and not some poorly worded gimmick that cedes more authority to courts and lawyers will protect ratepayers and endangered salmon and the whales and the taxpayers at the same time.

In all due respect, I actually feel happy that I was here when we saw a display of the Senate actually passing something. So I would suggest, in all humility to the other side, if they actually want to do something which would encourage my commitment and my approval of an MTR, it would be to realize and recognize something that happened 107 years ago this Friday, in which the socialist Member from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 107 years ago, Friday, introduced a resolution to dissolve the Senate.

Now, if that were a motion to recommit, that I would firmly endorse. That would actually help us move forward. Unfortunately, that is not the motion to recommit in front of us. The motion to recommit does not help us move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows:

Mr. BISHOP of Utah: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R.

4609. A bill to provide for the conveyance of a Forest

Service site in Dolores County, Colorado, to be used for a

fire station (Rept. 115-624). Referred to the Committee of

the Whole House on the state of the Union.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R.

5133. A bill to reauthorize the Federal Land Transaction

Facilitation Act, and for other purposes; with an amendment

(Rept. 115-625). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House

on the state of the Union.

Mr. Speaker, this bill involves 80 acres of land controlled by the Forest Service but not in the actual national forest.

Over the past 50 years, this land has been used by the Space Dynamics Laboratory, by NASA, by the Naval Research Laboratory, and they have a great deal of infrastructure on this land.

Unfortunately, the Forest Service decided to list this as disposable lands without contacting anybody, and now they don't have the ability of going back and delisting it so these groups can actually use this land for what they have been doing for the last 50 years.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is the cleanest and simplest way of simply transferring control of this land back to the entity which is using it now so they can continue their research, much of which is done in support of our military. It is a simple and easy and correct way to solve an administrative lapse, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4300) to authorize Pacific Historic Parks to establish a commemorative display to honor members of the United States Armed Forces who served in the Pacific Theater of World War II, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Monday next, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate, and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Curtis) be permitted to take the oath of office today.

His certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to his election.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you realize you just swore in another vote for sage grouse.

Utah, for too long, has been at 75 percent. We are now united at a full 100 percent, which means, Mr. Amodei, be

careful: we are going to reannex eastern Nevada.

Mr. Curtis comes here with a background of being mayor of Provo City, so he understands local government. He is going to be a fine addition to our body. I look forward to it.

As he has taken the place of Jason Chaffetz, he is going to be in Mr. Chaffetz's office.

I just want you to know, as you are getting settled in and before you find your proper bed, I think I can get you a good deal on a used cot.

I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Curtis), our new Representative.

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

As we make this transition, let me try and sum up where we are at this particular time.

This particular bill was done in coordination with the U.S. Forest Service under both the Obama administration and the Trump administration. This has the approval of local governments, Tribes, sportsmen's groups, and labor unions. The last time we had this bill, it had a good bipartisan vote on it, but these are issues that the Forest Service needs and they can use on day one of their issue.

What the Forest Service needs are resources, obviously. We know that. But they also need the tools that they need to actually do their work.

Now, there are some on the fringe who are going to say that everything is wrong here, but I would encourage them to get rid of the usual rhetoric and to pocket the dogma for a minute and realize that what we need to do is come up with a system that affects the planning process.

The Forest Service admits they have 50 to 60 million acres of forestland today that is ready to be a catastrophic catastrophe. They want to treat 25 percent of what they own a year. They are only treating 2 to 3 percent. That means, of the 50 to 60 million acres they have that are in dire situations right now, they can only treat 3 a year. That would take them 20 years to try and get through what needs to be treated unless we give them new tools to reform the system to make that process going in, and that is exactly what this bill does: it rewards collaboration; it tries to stop unnecessary litigation; it comes up with arbitration concepts that are in there; it expands the ability of streamlining the process so they can get to work.

Our people need the resources to do their job. They need the tools. We should make it very clear that money alone is not going to solve the problem of wildfire catastrophe. What we have to do is solve the conditions that create the catastrophic wildfires in the first place, and that means that we need to make sure that we are doing things so we can prohibit what has happened, which has been devastating to people and their property; which has destroyed habitat for species, endangered and unendangered; and which has created conditions of pollution in our atmosphere.

All that has to take place. Everything in this bill is what the experts in the Forest Service said they can do on day one after it is passed. It needs to take place. It needs to be in addition to the financial solving of the wildfire situation. You need to have these reforms, and that is what we are pushing in this bill. It is why it is so desperately needed and why it was worked out with the experts in the field.

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

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers and a letter sent from 40 forestry coalitions that are in support of this particular bill.

National Conference of State

Historic Preservation Officers,

Washington, DC, October 24, 2017.

Hon. Rob Bishop,

Chairman, House Committee on Natural Resources, Washington,

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), who has sat through 2 years of discussions of the ideas from the Forest Service in creating this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from California for his work on forestry issues and understand the importance this bill has to forestry management in his state.

It is my intent, and I believe the intent of my colleagues, that all provisions of H.R. 2936, including title I and title II, unless explicitly excluded, apply to national monuments and all other lands managed by the United States Forest Service.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).

Mr. Chairman, I am amazed at how critical people have been about the experts of the Forest Service, as if people don't realize that these provisions in Mr. Westerman's bill weren't coming out of thin air. Somebody told us the tools they need to deal with this.

Mr. Chair, may I also add, there are still other issues which we will work out when we get to the Senate on these, some that Mr. Gohmert presented. We will still work on those issues.

Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), the author of this bill, the only Member on the floor who has a degree in forestry.

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

Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Chair, I voted for last Congress' version of this bill, one of 19 Democrats to do so. It wasn't perfect, but the bill was step in the right direction. I hoped the Senate would improve it and we would finally make needed changes forest management and fix ``fire borrowing.'' But the Senate never acted on it, or on any other forest management bill.

In the 113th Congress, I worked with Reps. Schrader and Walden and crafted a bipartisan bill to create a long-term solution to properly manage statutorily unique forestlands in Western Oregon. It would have devoted nearly 1.3 million acres for sustainable timber production for local mills, created thousands of private sector jobs, and provided much-needed revenue for our rural counties. The legislation was included in a larger bill which passed the House in September 2014. Again, the Senate failed to act.

Like last Congress, there are provisions in this bill I support. However, there are provisions that I cannot support. For example, the bill doubles the amount of acres exempt from nearly all environmental analysis for projects up to 10,000 acres, and in some cases 30,000 acres, nearly 47 square miles.

I agree there is a need to need to increase the pace and size of forest restoration projects. But the Forest Service and BLM already have many tools to accomplish more management objectives. What they need is funding to complete projects. In fact, Forest Service NEPA experts have initiated a comprehensive review to determine opportunities, already allowed under law, to increase efficiencies and management tools to expedite environmental review, including proposing new categorical exclusions.

It's true that in some cases the Forest Service and BLM don't use authority they have because of legitimate concerns about the threat of litigation and the accompanying expenses it incurs. But it is disingenuous for us to claim that this bill, or any forest management bill, is a miraculous fix to harvest more timber, improve forest restoration, or reduce fuels to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires, without Congress providing funding to do so. In fact, according to the Forest Service, in Oregon there are over 1.8 million acres of treatment projects that are ``shovel ready,'' meaning all environmental analysis has been completed. But they stay on the shelf, because the Forest Service doesn't have the funds to complete them.

We've all seen the destruction from this year's severe fire season. Homes and businesses were destroyed, and dozens of lives were lost in Northern California. In my district, over 300,000 acres burned. The Forest Service says that nationally there are now more than 44 million homes are within the Wildland Urban Interface, at high risk of burning in a wildfire.

In 2004, Congress passed, on a bipartisan basis, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, which if properly implemented would go a long way to reduce the threat of wildfires in our communities. It authorized up to 20 million acres to be treated to remove hazard fuels in the Wildland and Urban Interface, as well as protect municipal water supplies from catastrophic wildfires. We authorized $760 million annually to perform the work. So far, thirteen years later, only 2.5 million acres have been treated.

Why is that? We have never come close to appropriating enough funding to get the job done. In Fiscal Year 2017, Congress appropriated $390 million for hazardous fuels reduction.

As always, I stand ready to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to improve forest management and help our rural communities get back on their feet. But it must be balanced approach. Unfortunately, this bill is not a balanced approach.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not totally opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the amendment that has been presented by the gentleman from Oregon. I think it is a well- thought-out amendment.

I also appreciate the comments he made, as he is trying to get us past the rhetoric and the dogma, and to try and come up with a truly bipartisan effort to solve the problems that the Forest Service has clearly delineated, giving them the tools that they want to try and solve these problems in the future.

I think the gentleman is also correct when he said that if you go through the list of those that are going to use categorical exclusion, you can't actually do those functions without producing timber. So, at worst, the language that was put in here is redundant. We are still after the same goal. We are still after the same game. That is why I actually will accept the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon and urge its adoption.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I have to strenuously oppose this particular amendment because it strikes one of the core provisions of this bill.

From 1989 to 2008, there were 1,125 lawsuits filed against the Forest Service, and hundreds have been filed since that time. Half of the active management lawsuits of the Federal Forest Service account are spent, and 40 percent of all Forest Service lawsuits are brought on this specific point.

In addition to that, the Forest Service, in an effort to try and mitigate against that, simply tries to delay the processes, which creates a culture of analysis paralysis going through there, and at the end they get sued anyway.

This provision is one of few creative efforts we have had that does not impact people's access to justice, but having a binding arbitration pilot program allows us to try and give you the merits of a lawsuit and move forward quickly. This is creative. This is what they need.

If we need to end endless litigation, frivolous lawsuits that impede the

work of our land managers and cost taxpayers millions of dollars, this is the kind of thing that we need to start doing. The Forest Service recognizes they need this. It is about time we recognize they need this, too.

Mr. Chairman, keep this creative approach in the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), the author of this bill.

Mr. Chair, once again, I would ask our Members to reject this particular amendment. It is a core provision, one of the few creative efforts, and only a pilot project to try and find a solution. It has received bipartisan support. It has received support from a broad coalition of outside groups. Admittedly, some of those who actively litigate and raise money and profit by it don't like this provision, but most of the other people recognize this is something the Forest Service can use on day one. They need this tool.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this is another one of the amendments that basically guts the whole purpose of this entire bill.

There is nobody who is cut out of the process. None of the public is cut out of the process. What is cut out is redundant, duplicative NEPA analysis, all of which can result in litigation. It simply says you do the process the first time. You don't have to redo it again and again and again and admit the Forest Service to litigation again and again. In fact, they admit 71 percent of all their lawsuits mention these types of provisions in there.

As we said before, these provisions were not coming out of thin air. They are coming from what the Forest Service tells us they need to do their job, the tools they need so they can take the resources they have and do it once the first time and get it over with and do it right and not have to spend it on frivolous litigation.

NEPA is not taken away. The analysis is not taken away. The public is not taken out of the system. All you are simply doing is saying you don't have to do it repetitively, in other words, don't have to do it redundantly. This is one to streamline it. This is what they need desperately.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will say once again, the tools the Forest Service needs to do their job are harmed if these sections do not remain in the bill. It is not talking about public input. It is talking about redundant, unnecessary public review that goes through there that creates unnecessary and redundant litigation. There is a NEPA process that needs to go forward. You just don't have to do it four and five and six times just because. We have an analysis paralysis.

I remind you once again, we have 50 to 70 million acres that are in a desperate, dire situation, ready to explode in catastrophic wildfire. The Forest Service can only get to 3 million acres a year, and part of it is the problems they have that we are trying to remove with these specific provisions. They need these tools. If we don't give them these tools, we exacerbate our wildfire problems. We don't need to do that. We shouldn't do that.

Mr. Chairman, we need to defeat this amendment. It is essential to defeat this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Arizona presenting this issue about Secure Rural Schools. I am an old school teacher. I understand how significant and important it is.

The issue, though, for Secure Rural Schools is not the reauthorization, it is finding a funding stream to keep it going. Unfortunately, this amendment doesn't solve the problem. It is not reauthorization, it is the funding, and this provides no funding whatsoever. It doesn't do what we need to do. It simply is another delay tactic.

And let's face it, we are dealing with more significant issues in this Nation, like who is going to win game seven tonight. That is important stuff. That is what we should be talking about. And if you don't pass this forest resiliency act today, there won't be enough trees to make bats for next year's season.

Please vote ``no'' on this amendment, vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill, and let's go home.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise to share my concern regarding potential budget reconciliation instructions to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. These instructions could potentially result in significant harm to federal employees and federal retirees, many of whom I represent.

The national debt is a serious challenge that Congress must address, but I urge members of this body to maintain the promises made to federal employees at the time of their hiring. At a minimum, any changes to federal employee retirement or benefits should only be made on prospective employees, not current or former employees.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2611) to modify the boundary of the Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site, 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 material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), the sponsor of this excellent piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), also a member of our committee and who has helped shepherd this bill through our committee and here on the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill, to me, is an extremely important bill. Sixty years ago, during this month, nine extraordinary students attended Little Rock, Arkansas' Central High School. They were kids picked for their academic ability and their maturity level because they were going to go through a year that no one had seen before and, hopefully, will ever see again.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps because I taught high school for almost 30 years, I understand the environment that took place here, and I have a great deal of empathy for these nine kids who went there. They could have easily been my students.

This becomes a significant concept that on September 4, 60 years ago, the Governor of Arkansas ordered the National Guard to bar these nine kids from entrance into Central High School in Little Rock; then, after some pressure, he withdrew the protection so the kids were subject to the mobs and the violence that took place there at that time.

On September 25, 60 years ago, Dwight Eisenhower had the courage and leadership--one of the reasons I respect him so much as a President--to order the Army 101st Airborne Division to go down to Little Rock to Central High School and to escort these nine kids through that first year and lead them to a school year like no other has ever been.

This situation was, in my estimation, a pivotal moment in our Nation's civil rights history as well as our education history. We have often talked about how buildings and monuments are used to interpret history. That is exactly what Mr. Hill is attempting to do here with a significant site in America's history, to make sure that it is preserved--and not just the high school itself, but the seven residences that are across the street on South Park Street. Those residences there are part of the historical landmark which was made and designated in the Reagan administration. They are part of the designation on the National Register of Historic Places.

Finally, in 1998, the high school and some surrounding areas were established as a National Historic Site. Those buildings still have significant historical integrity. They add to the definition and the story of history which must--which must--be remembered at all times.

This bill expands the boundaries of this National Historic Site to include those residences so the National Park Service can, in cooperative agreements with the residents who still live there, make sure that that area will always be preserved as a place to interpret, improve, and provide the technical assistance to make sure this story of American history is not forgotten. It is part of the milieu.

As the gentlewoman from Hawaii said, when you see pictures of these kids giving press conferences, you see these homes in the background. It is part and parcel to this story. The residents who live across the street are connected to the landmark events in September of 1957 and provide the backdrop for this particular element.

I am appreciative of Mr. Hill of Arkansas for leading forth with this particular bill, realizing the significance, and I am happy that today, on the very month this was happening 60 years ago, we actually are talking about this particular event and desiring to secure these areas so that the history of this country will be remembered to its fullest extent.

One of our staffers in the committee who helped in the drafting of this bill had the opportunity of having lunch with one of those Little Rock Nine. His essay won, and his reward was to have a chance to actually meet one of these heroic young women who went to Little Rock's Central High School 60-plus years ago.

This is significant, and I cannot think of this story without in some way feeling choked up inside because I know what it must have been like for those kids to go there, and I know what it must have been like to be part of that milieu. This was historic. They were true heroes. They were truly brave kids who took this event on and did it with such aplomb. They need to be remembered.

That is why I am happy that this bill is coming forward, so that we can expand the horizon and we can expand the area of this historic site so that we can make sure that this will be a protected area, so that the history will not be forgotten and so what these kids did in that very historic year of 1957 and 1958 in Little Rock will not be forgotten, and so the significance and the conviction those kids had and the experience they had to go through can be remembered and that we can never again go back there. We could never again replicate that area, and we will move forward in the area of civil rights as well as education.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here to support this bill. I am going to ask my colleagues to support this bill because it says so much about us, about our commitments, about our priorities, and about what we want to do, and it says so much about what is good in this country. This is the primary example of what we are attempting to do.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, we appreciate all those who have spoken on behalf of this particular bill, those who have worked on this bill, and those who have sponsored this bill. This bill is something I think is really significant. It says something that is very positive about this country and helps us to remember that which is positive about this country.

Mr. Speaker, I am urging all my colleagues to support this, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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 H.R. 218.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record my statement on the ABCs of Izembek.

Alaska's ardently asking for action and assistance to acquire acute acres to always allow actual access across areas and assuredly avert atrocious aviation accidents after appalling administrative blockades on building basic boulevards between beautiful bays before blizzards.

The bill doesn't bombard birds like Black Brants because Congress can carefully craft conveyances to create consistent courses for certain care in this Cove community. Construction cop outs and crumbling commitments cause a cacophony of complex concerns and constitute considerable consternation when crossing channels in choppy conditions. Don's diligently doting on his district, dutifully demanding demonstrable developments daily so the Department doesn't dawdle on their domain. Despite dangerous dashes and emergency evacuations, expanding elevated environmental evaluations exploded expenses. Exact exchanges exempt events to enhance embarking on equally enjoyable exits in eleven expanses. Frankly, fifty-five frigid flights fleeing fast from freezing fields in furious flurries found frighteningly few fancy facilities for fearful families.

Geese gradually got generally greedy, grimly generating genuine grief on giant goals of going great grounds on gravel and grabbing glory from good glacial gateways.

Historically, hovercraft hijinks harmfully hampered hurrying to hospitals and hobbled healing, harpooning hope and hardening hardships near the harsh harbors. The House must hastily have a helpful hand in halting havoc and hindering hefty hazards for Izembek inhabitants instead of idling indefinitely. Interior's indecision impeded infrastructure and informally interrupted implementing instant improvements, isolating irate individuals in increasingly impassible journeys. Jewell jumped into jeopardy when justifying juxtapositions and jarring, jolty jaunts from King Cove that keep killing kind kin without kindling key kernels of keen knowledge.

King Cove lacks life-saving lanes linking lonesome localities on land while lofty liberals lamely lament losing limited landscapes and maroon many who might make mends with medical ministration. Masterful mandatory medivacs must make miraculous moves after miniscule mainland migrations. Narrow native neighborhoods need necessary navigable networks now that nasty neglect notched nineteen needless obituaries. Other offered options outlined aren't okay or optimal for opening outbound opportunities over a one-lane, non-paved preferred path across a pulchritudinous peninsula. Patients patiently practice peacefully praying to postpone pain and postmortems while partisan panels prioritize protecting a percent of the preserve over the perishing population.

Perhaps people quietly question this quixotic quandary, quickly quarreling over quality, quaint routes. Resilient rural Refuge residents require really rapid resolutions to reliably ride on requisite roads routinely in rough situations. Seventy segments of street are still stationed in the sanctuary, so small sections won't subvert the surroundings. The State swap saves the site's sheltered status while swelling up safety and security for this scorned society. 1,000 tormented townsmen tempt their tombs in terrifying travels. They take threatening treks that traverse the tough tundra between the two towns in treacherous temperatures. United, we urgently untie this unbelievably unjust ultimatum for a unique unwinding of unfortunately unreliable voyages.

Valid in vibrant victory we venture to vote to viciously vanish vanity and vacate this wrongdoing. When we want wins, wavering willfully won't work. We weigh wishes of wilderness with wild winter weather while ways wane for wandering within windstorms. Xylophone.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, you're yawning and yearning for me to yield and stop yapping like a yelling yahoo while you're still young. So I'll zig-zag and zoom past zany zealots in Zen like Ryan Zinke.

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the author of the bill, the only Representative Alaska has here on this floor, and someone who understands this issue because he has been dealing with it for a number of years.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), who is hurriedly making his way to the front podium.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), a subcommittee chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), the chairman of the Federal Lands Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Chair, may I inquire of the ranking member if he has any germane speakers left on this issue.

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

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

This is an issue that people have, for three decades, been trying calmly discuss and find an alternative. Unfortunately, the people of Alaska, who have been engaged in this effort for the last three-plus decades, have been rebuffed at every turn in which the only answer they got was the Federal Government here in Washington giving them an alternative, and forcing upon them an alternative that flat out didn't work, and it hasn't worked in the last 7 years.

One of the things we should realize is that this idea of building this road is not new. The House has voted to build this road. The Senate has voted to build this road. Unfortunately, they didn't vote it on the same bill, except, in 2009, when there was a piece of legislation that went through both the House and the Senate, which was very clear at the time that it was the intent of both the House and the Senate to build the road, but it did require the Interior Department to do the NEPA process. They took 4 years.

Now think of that. It was in 2009 when the bill was passed and the intent of Congress was very clear. Four years later, the Interior Department finally got around to doing the study, a study which, I might add, had five options that were added to it, one of which was to do nothing, and the Interior Department chose, after 4 years of study as their preferred option, to do nothing.

Therefore, all of the efforts and anguish of these people in Alaska went to naught because a bureaucracy here decided, despite what the House had said and despite what the Senate had said, that they knew best, despite what the people of Alaska needed, they knew best and their option simply was to do nothing.

This bill, let me remind you, all of the masses of people who are here, is not about a road. It is about a land transfer for a road. The State of Alaska is putting up 43,096 acres for new wilderness in exchange for 200-plus acres--240, I think, acres to be a road, a road that already exists. There is a 30-mile road that exists. The only problem is, only 19 of the 30 miles are constructed. They exist. They are there now.

What Alaska is asking is: Simply give us the last 11, so the road that does exist can be used. It can be used for them, for their medical needs, for their recreation, if they want to. I mean, it has been brought up that, heaven forbid, this might be used for economic advantage. I don't know why this community of around 1,000 people, about 80 percent are Native Alaskans, would ever have the audacity to think that they ought to have a job, or the audacity to think that maybe they should try and use something that is there to further their economic ability to actually earn a living.

How uppity can you get, when we realize that those of us sitting here 6,000 miles away really have the superior wisdom to tell those people living in King Cove how they actually should live their life, and we did it. We did it in the 1990s. We said: No, you can't have a road because we have a philosophical opposition to it. Instead, we will spend a heck of a lot of money to come up with a hovercraft that doesn't work, and is too expensive, and is useless, and it no longer exists.

And now you are saying, ``No, no, no, you can't have access to the mainland. You can't have access to an all-weather airport. You can't have access for medical care; you can't have access for jobs. You can't have access for anything. Instead, let's work together to come up with another really stupid idea that won't work as well,'' when the solution is simply to build a road, 11 miles to connect an existing road so people who live in King Cove can do it.

You have already heard the data that has been presented. In the last 30 years, 19 people have died. Nineteen people have died, and it can be traced specifically to the fact that they didn't have access to healthcare.

In the last 3 years, they have had over 50 cases when medevac had to be used, very expensively, by the Coast Guard to try and help people out there. You wouldn't have to do that if you simply had the silly road; the 70-year-old woman who had to wait 7 hours, suffering a heart attack before she could get medical care; the woman in labor who had to go 6 hours before she could get someplace to have medical care; the man who had the saw accident, who had to wait 12 hours before he was able to get any kind of medical care, simply because there is not an 11-mile single-lane gravel road to connect to the rest of the 30-mile road that already exists.

And we sit here and try and tell these people in Alaska what is best for them, what is good for them? And that is emotional? And that is irrational?

No. What is irrational is that we are going through this again, the same thing we did last decade, the same thing that happened in the 1990s. And it is going to continue until we finally say: People should have a right to decide for themselves what is best for them.

The people who live in this community want a road. It is not going to hurt anything. It is 200 acres, and this is a land exchange. Actually, I have to admit, I don't like that. Alaska is giving up 40,000 acres-- 40,000 acres--so they can do 200 acres of a road. I think that is an exorbitant fee that is being extracted from the State of Alaska just so they can give these people, the overwhelming majority of whom are Native Alaskans, the opportunity of having access to their community so they can get medical care or whatever else they need so they can have it.

And we are sitting here because we don't want to do a precedent. This is the right thing to do. We should do this. We should have been done it back in the Clinton administration when it first came up. We should have gone through with it in 2009 when they finally passed it in both the House and the Senate, and then had to wait 4 years for the Interior Department to study the issue, and their conclusion was: let's not do anything. That doesn't exist.

It is time for us to do something to help people, to put people above ideology, to pass the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I can say I don't support this because even though I had three bills in that package, I voted against it. It was a bad package going through.

But the problem is that this amendment does nothing more than reinsert the language that caused the problem in the first place. This language is the reason that we don't have the solution right now. Remember, the solution was no action, not to do anything whatsoever.

I understand sometimes we have distance issues that come here. The gentlewoman from Massachusetts has not an inch of BLM land in her entire State. Only 3 percent of the land is controlled by the Federal Government, which is much different than having 90 percent controlled by the Federal Government as in Alaska. I would contend that if there was any other area in the Nation--especially the eastern part of the Nation that had a situation like this--they would not tolerate this existing.

They also had the ability of actually solving the problem on the local level, which is what they are asking in this bill to simply do. Eighty percent of these people are Native Alaskans. They don't have the lung power to come up here and express for themselves. They don't have the resources to hire special interest groups to come express for themselves. They are depending on us to do it for them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from California. I would remind him, when he was in the Clinton administration and the Clinton administration forced the community to buy a hovercraft instead of building this road, that was made in Canada.

However, I want you to know that I am actually livid for the people of King Cove, Alaska, because they lack a lifesaving lane on the land to link this lonesome locality that has been left alone while lofty litigious liberals lamely lament losing a little landscape.

Mr. Speaker, the arguments are limited and they lack love for the Aleuts who are there.

This amendment is a loser. Vote ``no.'' Vote ``yes'' on passage, and let's get out of here.

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

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

Mr. Chair, let me say in 90 seconds then, it may sound counterintuitive that BRAC doesn't save us money, but even though it can take money off the Defense rolls, the question is: Where does this property end up and who pays for it?

The bulk of the property ends up in the hands of local government, State government, and if it was public domain to begin with, the Department of

the Interior has got first crack at it. I have also always sarcastically said every time there is a BRAC base closure, I end up with a new national park and national monument. And even though we have never done a study to verify it, I can give you a half dozen off the top of my head where that happened.

So the question is: Does the taxpayer save money? And if you invent a BRAC process that will guarantee that the Federal estate will not be enlarged, that you won't simply transfer property from one Federal entity to another or from the Federal Government to State governments so the taxpayer saves money, then I will gladly support a BRAC process.

But until we can guarantee that, all we are doing is shifting the money around, shifting the entity around. We may help the Department of Defense change their budget, but the taxpayer is still on the hook for all the property and all the efforts that go into it, and that is wrong, and that is the process.

When we change the BRAC process to make it more public, to make it so the taxpayer saves, then I will support it, but that hasn't happened yet.

Therefore, I ask Members to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, management of the forests and forest fires is an important and significant topic, but it is not the issue that we are having here today. Climate change is an important significant topic, but it is not the issue that we are talking about today.

We are talking about how you transfer power from point A, where it is produced, to point B, where people live, and make sure that you can continue to have that power flowing there because it impacts the quality of life. This is about how we improve our lives. That is the key issue.

The examples have been given out here before of examples of where that has been interrupted simply because we failed to maintain transmission lines. A good example is down in New Mexico, where, once again, an ash tree--pun intended--actually fell on a forest, on the line, creating a 150,000-acre fire; and then the company that actually owned the line and wanted to maintain it but was not allowed to by the Forest Service was given a $35 million bill. Unfortunately, the liability of that company was only $20 million, so you can understand the difficulty that company is in right now.

That is the reality in which we are dealing, and we have to realize that this is a solution to that issue. It is about how we provide power to people.

The only chance I had of meeting President Obama was when he came to Utah and visited Hill Air Force Base, and he was there to talk about solar power that is being used on Hill Air Force Base.

Hill Air Force Base also has a great power source that comes from a neighboring trash dump, which provides steam and methane power that goes to the base itself. And I told the President, when he asked us questions about this, that it is very easy for Hill Air Force Base to have this power source because it is next door. But for most people, they live miles and miles away, and you have to have transmission lines that get the power from where it is produced to where they live, and often across Federal lands.

To his credit, President Obama lit up and said: Yes, not only is that an important issue, but it is also an issue dealing with our entire grid structure that needs to be worked on; another issue that is not today's discussion matter.

And to his credit, his office did contact our office, our committee, and started helping us work on some issues. Even though they did not stay with us to the final conclusion of the bill, the bill we have before us today is the result of those discussions, the result of that effort.

I try to emphasize how bipartisan this bill is; an effort to try and solve a real problem that helps real people with real circumstances that have caused problems in the past that need to be changed. That is what we are attempting to do here.

So I applaud the committee that came up with this bill. I applaud the chief sponsor of that bill. I urge my colleagues to please support this. This is the right thing to do if you really care about helping people.