Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, Utah has some large educational shoes to fill.

Martell Menlove, the State superintendent of public instruction in Utah, is ending a nearly four-decade career in public education. He has

served kids as a classroom teacher, a counselor, and an administrator in the Jordan, Tooele, and Rich districts, and he was my superintendent while I was teaching in the Box Elder district.

Twice he was named Superintendent of the Year in Utah before he joined the State office in 2009.

His wife, State Representative Rhonda Rudd Menlove, is also a career educator and is retiring after five terms in the Utah State legislature.

Utah is losing a great team who inspired kids. They will be missed. We want to wish both Martell and Rhonda all the best in the new adventures they will be taking together.

We thank you for what you have done for kids in Utah.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 604 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days with which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be with you here today. It seems as if only a few hours ago we were all here together-- because it was only a few hours ago.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution before us today provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 4681, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2014 and 2015, and it makes in order a number of amendments for consideration. In addition, this combined resolution provides for an open rule for the consideration of H.R. 4745, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2015.

This resolution provides for 1 hour of general debate on each of these bills equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the appropriate committees of jurisdiction.

The intention of the Rules Committee was to provide ample opportunity to debate issues related to our intelligence community. The intelligence community has done very good bipartisan work on this bill, which is being brought forward under regular order. And while the committee was able to work with some Members to modify their amendments so they would comply with House rules and be made in order, some amendments were still subject to a point of order or were already debated and voted on last week during the USA FREEDOM Act. Some amendments were simply not possible to debate on the floor in open session due to the national security implications.

The net result is that this rule makes in order a total of 11 amendments to the intelligence bill, four Republican, six Democrat, and one bipartisan amendment. So the process is inclusive, the rule is fair, and will provide a wide ranging debate on a topic of interest to all Americans.

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

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

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

I am ready to close whenever you are.

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

I am actually pleased to stand before the House today in support of this rule as well as the underlying pieces of the legislation, H.R. 4681 about intelligence and H.R. 4745 called the T-HUD bill.

From the testimony that we received in the Rules Committee on these measures, it appears that both of these measures have enjoyed bipartisan cooperation in their formation and from their respective committee processes.

One of the toughest responsibilities that a Member of the Congress has is to help prioritize the Federal expenditures of resources that we take from the American people. Sometimes, worthy projects and programs have to be trimmed to meet budget requirements and prioritization. While there are some spending choices--which I disagree--contained in H.R. 4745, overall, it is still a balanced measure which will provide for American infrastructure so essential for the economic growth and jobs, and maintains discipline by adhering to the top-line funding levels arrived at through that 2-year budget agreement that was passed by Congress. The $52 billion for transportation provided in these agencies is $7.8 billion below the President's request and still actually $1.8 billion less than the 2014 enacted level.

Members have a chance, under the open rule of this resolution provided, to argue for changes in the prioritization. I am pleased that one of the things this bill recognizes is that States are different. Those of us who live in the wide-open West have been able to use transportation to help the desert blossom. We should not try to restrict every State to the same standards with a one-size-fits-all approach. The committee was very wise in what they actually did.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, switching gears to the intelligence reauthorization measure, every Member of the House takes seriously our responsibility to preserve individual liberty and freedoms under the Constitution.

We also have a constitutional obligation to provide for the common defense, because without a strong national defense, which includes the indispensable work of the defense intelligence agencies, personal freedoms are also at risk. The question is achieving and maintaining a balance in deciding how to best preserve inalienable constitutional rights against possible incursions by technologists, whether inadvertent or intentional, as our Nation deals with the very real threats both at home and abroad.

Technology gives us wonderful tools, but it can also be a fertile ground for abuse of privacy. We have a responsibility as Members of Congress to exercise oversight in U.S. intelligence agencies, and that can be difficult since much cannot be debated in open forums with any degree of specificity without bringing great harm to the national security. That is why we have the expertise of standing committees. Not only do they understand these issues, it saves time by allocating the proper amount of time to the discussion of these issues in advance. And from the testimony received in the Rules Committee, I believe that Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Ruppersberger have demonstrated a strong bipartisan commitment on this issue.

Provisions of this bill are aimed at bolstering personal and individual privacy. Passage of H.R. 4681, when you combine it with the passage last week of the U.S. FREEDOM Act, is a good step towards enhancing our U.S. intelligence capability as well as congressional oversight on these issues.

It is a good bill. It is a fair rule. I urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida.

The underlying defense authorization bill is a good bill. This is a good rule with maybe one caveat that there are too many amendments that are in here.

Henry Clay, as the first Speaker of the House who went from the Senate over here and was elected Speaker on the first day and served as Speaker every day he served in the House, he is

given credit for starting the standing committee process where people with expertise discuss all these issues before they actually come to the floor. Some of these amendments we have had have not gone through that process and will be given 10 minutes of debate time on the floor, which is rather small when you compare it to the process of each subcommittee on the Armed Services Committee: having established their bill, going to the full committee, with a full day of debate on the bill before it comes here.

There is, for example, one amendment that is made in order, has a great sponsor, a wonderful Member of this body, but it has untold side consequences that probably need that experience of being explored. Let me give you a simple example. It starts with the words ``notwithstanding any other provision of law.'' That should be something that scares someone. It means this bill, except for section B, which it exempts, takes precedent over everything else that already exists in law, and not only for the military issue, but also in every element of Federal Government.

I am only going to talk about the military side because that is the only expertise I actually have. The one part that is not exempt deals with the concept known as ``inherent governmental functions.'' Unfortunately, the reference this makes is to title 31. Most of the military stuff, especially dealing with our depots, is in title X. There is a reason those are in different titles--because they have a different substance and a different purpose.

At the end of this reference, there is also the provision put in there--actually, it is in the first of this reference--that what is an inherent governmental function can be changed by any official of OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, which simply means, I assume, that is one of the reasons the Defense Department is opposed to this particular amendment, because it removes decisions from the Defense Department over to the President through OMB. That is not the way we wish to go.

When it deals with programs, weapons, and systems that we have, there is an acquisition side and a sustainment side. On the acquisition side, often competition is extremely important to driving down cost. When it comes to sustainment, the maintenance of those provisions, sometimes that saving has a detrimental effect that is an unintended consequence because the maintenance is directly tied to the readiness issue, which is why we define in title X what is a core workload, which would be overturned by the very first phrase in this particular piece of legislation, this particular amendment.

Core workload by law has to be brought into the depots for work once every 4 years, or at least at one time in the initial 4 years of operating capability. Prior to that time, maintenance is usually done by the contractor.

But after that, it goes into what is known as an endangered mission readiness that is determined by the military, and should be determined by the military.

What it simply means is we have military depots for a military reason. There is a direct extension, or these depots are a direct extension, of the soldier on the field. Civilian workers at these depots cannot go on strike, they cannot undertake a work stoppage. Sometimes, especially in times of war, Federal civilian employees have been ordered to work around-the-clock or do other kinds of dangers.

All of these things which have been worked out traditionally in title X are overturned by the first phrase in this amendment: A wonderful amendment in its purpose and goal, has a wonderful sponsor, but it has unintended consequences. As we go through this bill, as we go through these amendments, we should consider what those unintended consequences may or may not be. It is one of the reasons why the Committee process was so wisely established by Henry Clay back in the 1800s and should be respected today.

Mr. Chairman, this chart--for those with keen eyesight--kind of puts this in perspective.

The blue is what we spend on the civilian workforce. The green is what has been spent over the last decade on military personnel. The yellow is on contract services. And the white is the rest of it.

The premise of this amendment is that the blue is too big.

There are times when competition, especially on acquisition, is extremely helpful. There are also times where competition on sustainment or maintenance has a habit of unintentionally hurting our readiness, at least that was the result of the GAO study in 2010.

So the committee has wisely tried to strike a balance between those two, making sure that there is competition when it makes sense, all of which is defined in title X of our code, which demands a core workload be established

by the military of what our needs are and what is most cost-effective.

Unfortunately, the first line of the amendment which says that ``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' simply turns all of that on its head. This takes precedence over the entire code, which I am assuming is the reason DOD communicated the Defense Department does not want this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, again, I am pleased to join my friend from Colorado on this particular issue.

When you have a partner, which is Russia, who is already engaged in a cyberattack against Estonia, they have invaded and declared independent the two northern provinces of Georgia, and they also have done everything we know about in the Ukraine right now, and, in addition, have violated the existing INF Treaty--and we can talk about that classified material because it was quoted on the front page of The New York Times; they have violated that--it is in the best interest of the United States to wait until we have a more profitable, reliable partner before launching into another endeavor.

With that, I actually support this amendment. I think it is well- timed, well-placed.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 524 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which they may revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 1459, Ensuring Public Involvement in the Creation of National Monuments Act.

It provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources. The rule makes in order three amendments, two of which are Democrat amendments, in addition to a manager's amendment. The rule also wisely provides for same-day authority for the legislative day of Thursday to consider the so-called ``doc fix'' bipartisan proposal, which may come forward for our consideration, as well as for the consideration of measures aimed at supporting the people of Ukraine against Russian aggression and expansionism. So this is an important rule. Therefore, it deserves our strong support.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House today in support of the rule as well as of the underlying legislation primarily because it is my bill. I appreciate the hard work and support of the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), in forwarding this important bill to the floor of the House for our consideration.

I have to admit, Mr. Speaker--perhaps because the underlying bill is my bill--that I have had a closer consideration of the discussion, of the comments, that have been made about it, and I have taken some of them rather personally. To be honest, I am, quite frankly, amazed at some of the inaccuracies and the misinformation that has taken place by some outside groups in blogs, in Internet descriptions by special interests groups, and, actually, even by some Members of the floor.

When I originally saw some of the reports that said this bill would stop the creation of any more national parks, nothing could be further from the truth, because actually the President can't create national parks; only Congress can. It has nothing to do with national parks.

Eventually, they changed it to say this will stop creation of national monuments. Again, that charge is simply ridiculous.

The essence of this bill is very simple. What it says is the President should be treated like everyone else. Congress, if they are going to make any kind of land decisions, must have an open process where they have hearings and markups and bring things for an open vote.

If an agency of the government is going to make some sort of land designation, they have to go through NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, the process which provides for input--public discussion and public advice--about it. The only one who cannot do that is the President.

When the administration testified about this bill in committee, I was amazed, because they said the President should not have to go through the open process of obtaining public input on his decisions because even though the entire Federal branch has to, he is only the head of the Federal branch, he is not the Federal branch.

That just does not make sense to me. The idea is that everyone, including the President, should ask for public input.

One of the groups, the National Resources Defense Council, wrote on their blog that NEPA was the Magna Carta of environmental laws. They wrote:

Much like the Magna Carta protected people from dangers of

monarchical rule, NEPA protects people by providing

transparency in Federal projects. Both the Magna Carta and

NEPA espouse the ideas of public participation in democracy

by giving citizens a voice in government decisions.

Yesterday, in a different bill in a different committee, the administration testified against the bill, saying it would stop public comments about this particular issue. I am sorry, but that is why I get so confused about the rhetoric about this particular bill.

What we are asking is that before the President uses this authority, it go through NEPA to provide for public comment and concepts.

If NEPA is the Magna Carta and it provides for citizen voices in democratic decisions, how can you then say that this bill, which provides for NEPA and that kind of policy, would eviscerate one of America's bedrock conservation laws?

This is simply intellectual gymnastics at the highest level. Either getting public input is good, in which case we should pass this bill, or getting public input is bad, in which case there are a lot of things that we should change around here. I happen to think that getting public input is good. Because it does one thing: it solves problems before they develop.

In our State, we have had a National Monument that has been designated by Presidential proclamation for almost 20 years now. We are still dealing with issues of what kind of grazing rights were or were not included in that proclamation, what kind of roads were or were not open. Even though we tried to solve the problem, because the President had no concept of what School Trust Lands were in that area, and we have tried to exchange those out, not all of those exchanges have yet to be consummated.

Another of the monuments that the President recently proposed, they have already come to us and said there are problems within the boundaries of that monument. We have found private property we didn't know existed. We don't know whether there are provisions in there to allow duck hunting to go on, but we are not quite sure how you accomplish that. We are really not quite sure which land agency is responsible for the administration.

Those issues are all the issues that could be settled before you make the designation. And if, indeed, the NEPA process was required, those would become the issues that would be brought up, they would be understood, and they would be dealt with before you make the initiative.

So I have had people tell me that this is actually the ``No More National Monuments'' bill. It would stop national monuments. It is patently false. It is a false premise. It is a scare tactic, not an argument. And it is incredibly wrong.

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

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

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

I am pleased to see the passionate fervor of the gentleman from Colorado on this issue. I wish that that passion and fervor had been there a couple of years ago when I had an immigration bill on the floor that dealt with many of these issues.

Unfortunately, today, we have an issue that is extremely important to those of us who live in the West. I think my county commissioners, all of whom see this as a very, very critical issue, will take some kind of umbrage to saying that this is not a significant thing, especially if you are one of the county commissioners that lives in the West and the Federal Government has control of your land--the entire county. Take Wayne County, for example: 3 percent of its county is private property, and that is not a small county. The rest is controlled by the Federal Government.

There is the constant fear by these people that the President, by a stroke of a pen or picking up a telephone, can make a ruling or a proclamation that will change their lives significantly; that will make their economy turn upside down. And there is not a thing they can do about it. This is the reason we have asked for this bill--to at least give these county commissioners the chance of having public input before the decision is made. That is why this becomes so significant.

These county commissioners want to be treated fairly, as all people want to be treated fairly, and one of the problems they have in being treated fairly is simply this particular archaic act.

The original Antiquities Act was passed in 1906. Think about that for a minute. What kind of environmental laws were there in 1906? Also consider the state of the Nation in 1906. In 1906, the States of Alaska, Hawaii, Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma were not part of the Nation.

Even my State of Utah was less than a decade old as a State in this particular Nation.

A lot is made often about how the Grand Canyon was created by using the Antiquities Act. Actually, it was. Unfortunately, it was a monument using the Antiquities Act, but the Grand Canyon had actually been a national forest before it was created a monument; and when it was created as Grand Canyon National Park, that was done by Congress because only Congress has the ability to create national parks.

So one of the situations we have is the situation is extremely different from 1906 till today; and one of the things that also is different is that the Antiquities Act has been used in the past, but it has basically been abused in the current time.

There are three criteria for which the Antiquities Act is supposed to be able to be used to create a national monument. One is it has to have a specific element that needs to be protected: archaeological, historical, geographical.

Secondly, it has to be in imminent danger of being destroyed.

Third, it has to be in the smallest footprint possible, which meant, when they were debating it in 1906 on the floor, the debate was very clear they were talking about 2 to 300 acres.

President Bush created thousands of acres of a national monument. Fortunately, it was in water, but he created one because it had a lot of fish without ever deciding what the significant factor was.

The President has created a couple of national monuments, our current one, for structures that were already under preservation status. There was no imminent danger.

When President Clinton did the Grand Staircase-Escalante, that was not 200 acres. That was 1.9 million acres, which is larger than a couple of our small States combined. So the criteria for the use of the Presidential authority has changed radically.

Also, the way it has been used has changed radically. Look, from the Depression era to the beginning of 1976, let us say, roughly a half century, the Antiquities Act was only used nine times.

President Roosevelt, in his four terms, only used it three times, and one of those was reversed by Congress.

When President Carter came into office, he then used it 15 times in his 4 years.

President Clinton then used it 22 times, all of which were in his last 4 years.

President Obama has already used it eight times, and is counting.

It is very clear that we are doing it differently than it was in the past. All those other uses of the Antiquities Act were done, actually, to designate a specific topic and try to preserve it. What we are finding now is it is being used as a political weapon, a ``gotcha'' effort, a power play, without letting anyone know about it.

In the case of the Grand Staircase-Escalante, the Governor, the morning, at 2:00 in the morning, was explaining what public trust lands were to the White House. At 12, the President then designated the Grand Staircase-Escalante monument without ever dealing with the issue of school trust lands in those particular areas.

What I am saying is, we need to change something now because we are starting to use the Antiquities Act as a political bludgeon, and it shouldn't be that way. The most mellow way, the most moderate way of doing that is simply doing this bill that says, okay, we are not going to take the power away from the President. All we are going to do is, before you use it--you can't surprise people with it--you have to go through the NEPA process, which requires public comment, public input, which is what every other agency in the Federal Government has to use. Congress has to go through that same process.

The only one who is exempt from public comments is the President. That is why this is important. That is why this is vital, especially to people who live in high rural areas that have a lot of Federal land in which they are frightened that the President could upend everything simply by a stroke of a pen, and they don't have an avenue to give input. This bill gives them input. It is easily the most moderate approach that will ever come about the Antiquities Act on this floor, and I think it is worthy of supporting the rule and bringing it to the floor for a final vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not yield for this purpose.

Mr. Speaker, I do not yield for this purpose.

May I ask an inquiry?

Was that for a vote on Tule Springs or something else? Apparently, it was something else.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate my earlier announcement that all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only. I am not prepared to yield for any other purpose.

I thank the gentleman for giving me his time, which I would be happy to talk about the bill that is actually before us and will be here because it is a wonderful bill.

I, again, appreciate the gentleman from Colorado giving me the opportunity to speak about the issue that is at hand. I would even be happy if he would give me the opportunity to speak about a good immigration bill, which is mine, but since that is not the case, let me go, once more, to the issue that is at hand.

I reserve the balance of my time for the moment.

I am actually prepared to close and will reserve the balance of my time until that time.

Mr. Speaker, I have not.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In all due respect, I have been called very sarcastic in the past, and I probably am. So as I speak to you now, Mr. Speaker, I don't want to be considered flippant in anything I say, but in all due respect, the speaker was not just divining what I was thinking at the time. I clearly said at the very beginning of what my purpose was and for what I would yield, and you did that very well.

The continuous requests for unanimous consent were for immediate consideration of a bill which, in my humble opinion, I think is a poorly written bill. There are better bills out there. I have one of those. In fact, a couple of years ago, I had one of those that I would have liked the support of the other side, as well.

Perhaps if we had talked about some of those that I think actually go to the point of the issue and are properly written, it may have been somewhat different. But, instead, I am going to come back to the issue that is at hand which deals with the Antiquities Act and how the Antiquities Act has been abused.

Congress has recognized that in the past. It is kind of ironic, and I don't think many people realize this, but not every State allows the Antiquities Act to be used in their State. Congress, in 1944, withdrew the use of the Antiquities Act in the State of Wyoming. Responding to an abuse later on, the State of Alaska was withdrawn from that consideration. Even the ranking member of our committee has introduced legislation and voted for it, and it passed this House, which would limit the use of the Antiquities Act in his district.

So people are recognizing that there is a reason--a reason--that the use of the Antiquities Act has changed over the years, and not necessarily for the better. The best way of solving that problem is not necessarily taking that act away or that power away, but simply making sure that the President of the United States gets public input before he actually pulls the trigger.

Now, you may ask why I consider this such a significant issue. Well, to be honest, it is for two reasons: one, I am from the West; and number two, I am a schoolteacher.

You see, when the Antiquities Act is used without public input, it has the potential--and has in the past and could in the future and I think will in the future--to destroy economic patterns that take place, especially in rural counties. When that happens and that disruption takes place, then the ability of raising revenue for local needs becomes significant. And it is more difficult in the West than it is in the rest of the Nation. Let me try to illustrate why.

The States that are in red are the States that are considered public land States. Those are the ones that have the greatest potential of having abuse of the Antiquities Act foisted upon them. The States that are in yellow have very little public lands. In fact, two-thirds of everything the Federal Government owns is found in the red States.

What I am holding up here is the ability of these States to generate funds for their education system. As you can look over the past two decades, those States in the eastern portion of this country--the yellow States--have increased their education funding at twice the rate of those of us who live in the West. And the simple question has to be: Why do you think this takes place?

There is a distinct correlation to the amount of Federal land and the inability of States who have all that Federal land to raise money for their education systems. That is one of the continuous complaints that we have.

When monuments are made without getting the input of local citizens, the chance of making this even worse is a reality. It has happened in the past, and it will happen in the future. So I am not saying do away with the act altogether. What I am simply saying is make sure that the people who live in these red States who have a more difficult time funding their education system have the ability of making a statement before final action takes place, before simply a pen is signed to a proclamation that can change the dynamics of everything. It has happened in the past.

So that is why this is not simply a procedural bill for me. This is a bill that impacts my kids. It impacts my profession. It impacts the future of education in the West and should not be dismissed as insignificant. That is why this issue becomes so vital to those of us who live in the West because it has a direct impact on the way we live.

The gentleman from Colorado did say one thing in which I agree. He said that at some time we should all play by the same rules. That is the purpose of the underlying bill. The President should play by the same rules Congress has to use and as every agency of the Federal Government has to use, which is simply to come up with the concept that before decisions are made you get public input. And that is why all the discussion I have seen in blogs and from special interest groups are so confusing to me, because at one time we say, yes,

it is important that we get public input, except for this particular bill in which public input is bad. That does not make sense. That is mental gymnastics of the worst variety.

If this bill were to pass, it would not change the Antiquities Act, it would not prohibit the President from making national monuments, and it would not prohibit Congress from establishing national parks. All it would do is simply say you have got to go through the NEPA process which requires public input, especially from those who are going to be directly impacted.

And we have seen that if you mandate that ahead of time, you solve problems before they develop. We have practice, we have proof, and we have examples of where the monument was created without getting the input and problems developed which still have not been solved.

Don't do that. Do it the right way. We can do that, and we can make this effort happen. And, once again, of all the concepts of how to deal with the Antiquities Act and the problems it presents for those of us who live in the West, this is easily the most moderate approach, a simple approach which simply says, look, before you do it, listen to us. Let us have the chance to say something.

That is the way it ought to be and the way it should be. This bill is actually a vast improvement on a 100-plus-year-old bill that has outlived its usefulness and has changed not necessarily for the better over that course of time.

So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the comments that had been made. I would have appreciated it if people would also recognize the significance of this bill to those of us who live in the West. I wish they would also look at the bill as it is written. It is a very positive approach. It is something which we can all support, and it is a very good bill. I am biased because it is my bill, but it still is a very, very good bill.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to close to reiterate the fairness of not only the bill but also of the rule, the other parts of the rule, the appropriateness of the underlying pieces of legislation, the potential of putting up other issues that are significant that must be addressed this particular week.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Chairman, as I said on the rule, sometimes I am amazed at the kind of misinformation and inaccuracy that is taking place about this bill. This bill does not stop parks. It does not stop monuments. We have heard about the Grand Canyon being made a monument under this act, under this power, but please realize it was a national forest before that, and it was made a park by Congress because only Congress can make parks.

The gentleman from Delaware, I appreciate him being here, he still has his park because only Congress can go through that particular process.

I also get somewhat confused when people talk about how this is a way of rolling back any kind of protection. Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government owns over 635 million acres. We already have 336 million acres that presently are in a protected status. There is no way they can be touched by anyone at any time for anything. And those that are for development are only 38 million acres. It is almost a 10 to 1 ratio between the two of them.

I want you to think back on when the Antiquities Act was originally passed. It was 1906. The States of Hawaii, Alaska, New Mexico, Arizona, and Oklahoma did not exist. They were all territories. My home State had only been in the Union for a decade. There were very few environmental laws. Today, if you were to list all of the environmental protections that we have on the statutes, both by the Federal Government and by the States, it would take four or five pages, small type, just to list them all. There could have been a reason for doing this. This is back in the era when there was no Bureau of Land Management. There was not even a Park Service when this was being done. The majority of the designations Teddy Roosevelt made were in territories that were not States. Things have changed since that time. Unfortunately, this law hasn't.

And if you don't allow the NEPA process to allow public input, you make mistakes. You made mistakes in Utah--and, yes, we have had bills that have been filibustered by the Senate to make those changes, but 20 years later we are still trying to work through what ought to have been there.

The gentlelady from Maryland was here, and I appreciate her concept. Her Harriet Tubman national monument is a good idea. The unfortunate thing is it was poorly done because you didn't take the time to go through the NEPA process and get some public input. It is still in draft status. This is the boundary within the green. The stuff with the stripes on it are private property they just kind of found within the boundary that now they have to try to get approval to try to acquire that property. The white is also other private property that right now they don't think they need to acquire.

Now, how come we missed all that stuff? It is simply because the President decided to use the Antiquities power without taking the time to get public input to go through those situations.

Yes, a lot of Presidents have used this stuff.

One other thing, too. The proclamation that created Harriet Tubman said there would be 11,750 acres set aside. The Park Service says it is actually 25,000, and no one knows the difference--25,000 acres of Federal, State and private lands. See, that is the problem. If you rush this stuff through without taking the time to get input from people, you make mistakes.

Don't make mistakes.

The National Resources Defense Council said that NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, which regulates the requirement to have public input before you go forward with that, held that the Magna Carta protects people from the dangers of monarchy, and NEPA protects people by providing transparency in Federal projects. Both the Magna Carta and NEPA espouse the ideals of public participation and democracy by giving citizens a voice in government decisions.

Giving people the chance to have a voice in government decisions is the purpose of NEPA. Every Federal agency has to use NEPA. Congress has to do something very similar because everything requires some kind of hearing. The only person that doesn't have to do that is the President when he uses this archaic act, over 100 years old, in situations that have changed.

Instead, what was said about this in some of the misinformation going out, they said if this bill is passed, it eviscerates one of the America's bedrock conservation laws. Look, you can't say it is good to have public involvement except here, in which it is bad to have public involvement. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the administration said. The administration said the President should not have to go through NEPA, should not have to get public input because he is only head of the executive branch, he is not an agency of the executive branch. That is intellectual gymnastics, and one of the reasons why we have problems.

This bill doesn't stop anything. Any monument that was made could easily be made. This bill recognizes there may be an emergency situation, and anything less than 5,000 acres can be done.

Mr. Chairman, what I was trying to say was, this is a damn good bill. And there is a reason why it is a good bill: because it simply requires the President to have public information and get the input of people.

If there is an emergency situation, it allows for them to create something under 5,000 acres on an emergency basis without doing NEPA, it is just that Congress has to respond within 3 years to validate it, otherwise it reverts back. Anything that he wants to do with NEPA, he can do it regardless of the size. It is the appropriate thing to do.

This bill moves us forward and takes a bill that may have been appropriate in 1906--but we are certainly living in a different time and a different era, and we need to make sure that a President, before he puts his pen to a paper, has actually talked to local people, and it has not always happened.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment tries to clarify the process for monument designations of 5,000 acres or less, providing that they can become permanent if the President follows the regular NEPA public involvement process.

There was a question on the clarity of the language in the underlying bill that is there.

It also ensures that new taxpayer dollars are spent by requiring the use of existing funds to conduct any study or analysis that is in the bill or may be added by an amendment.

With that, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Chairman, just to respond one more time, the purpose of this is to make sure that it was

very clear on those emergency situations that were 5,000 or less. If, indeed, the President uses the NEPA process, that 3-year clock does not tick on all those parcels of property. Anything that he does NEPA process, that is okay.

It was not clear in the underlying bill. This attempts to make it clear.

With that, I encourage adoption of the managers' amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I think what the Barber amendment does is reemphasize the fundamental purpose of this bill, which is to ensure there is transparent public participation and input in making these types of designations.

I appreciate the addition he has made as to what should be studied and what should be encompassed. I think it an addition to the bill. I think it is a good amendment. I would urge its adoption.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim opposition to the misguided amendment to the well-proportioned bill that is under there.

I appreciate what the gentlelady from Massachusetts is trying to do. I am an old history teacher, so these sites are important to me.

But as well-intended as this amendment may indeed be, it still undermines the intent of the legislation, which is to make sure that any designation that is at large has public transparency, and you allow the local people to do it, whether it is a military site or not.

This would create a very large loophole that is unnecessary because the provisions of the bill provide for that. If something is smaller than 5,000 and in immediate jeopardy, it can be handled.

If it is larger than that and goes through the NEPA process, it is handled. There is no problem that could develop from this particular piece of legislation.

I might also add that, in the Antiquities Act, any harm to anything that is an antiquity of element on a public property already is subject to fine and imprisonment.

This amendment was attempted in committee--I appreciate the sentiment--but it was also defeated in committee by a vote of 24-13. It is the same amendment here.

I would urge my colleagues to also defeat it, simply because it undermines the very purpose of this bill, and it does not lead to the public process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I am still having a difficult time trying to grasp the concept that my good friend, the gentleman from West Virginia, would be opposed to such a brilliant bill in its current form in the first place; but with that, I appreciate his efforts and his concept dealing with this MTR.

I just want to remind of you of one element. If you pass this motion, you don't raise the minimum wage, and you don't bring about any of the consequences CBO or other organizations talked about, that concept.

All this amendment does is delay the bill. It doesn't raise anything. It simply delays the bill.

This bill, the underlying bill, tries to take an act that is 108 years old and modernize it, so that the American people are given the right to be heard before the President takes his pen and signs his name to a piece of paper and a proclamation.

This bill simply says let Americans have the chance to talk about this before the President acts, like every other element of government has to do.

With that, I urge your rejection of this MTR. I urge you to favorably vote for passage.

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

Madam Chair, when the ranking member was speaking, he quoted from the bill and said: This does not limit the Secretary's right, nor does it expand the Secretary's right. So he said then, What does it actually do?

What it does is very simple. It stops the Federal Government from hurting people. This came to view in the Federal Government trying to take away water rights from ski resorts, and not just in Colorado. It was all ski resorts. As I have said repeatedly, the ski resorts in Utah are far more significant and far better than the ski resorts in Colorado. It affects all of us.

It is not just limited to ski resorts. We also found out these same tactics have been used by BLM and other entities to affect farmers and ranches, same concept, same area.

So what the Tipton bill is trying to do is solve the problem for everybody, not just for a few people. Even people in the East who have water rights will be protected by this bill, whether they recognize that or not.

I want to introduce you to a guy by the name of Tom Lowry. He came to our committee to testify about what they were doing. This is a person, as soon as he got his ranch, the Federal Government--the BLM in this case--started to attack his private water rights. It took him $800,000 in legal fees to go through the system to try and protect his rights.

He eventually got to the Idaho Supreme Court and won, where the Supreme Court said: You are right, the Federal Government was wrong, they have to back up. But it cost him 800 grand in legal fees to do it. That is what the Tipton bill is trying to solve--the rights of those ranchers and those farmers, the rights of ski resorts to actually conduct business and have their rights protected.

That is why any effort to try and limit this down to say, oh, let's just deal with the ski resorts because we care about them, and forget the Tom Lowrys of this world, is a ridiculous approach. The issue is, How can we protect the rights of our people? That is what Congress is supposed to do. The Forest Service hasn't solved their problem yet. They have withdrawn their rules but haven't changed the rules. They have still yet to propose new ones. It is the purpose, and the right, and the responsibility of Congress to step in.

It is the responsibility of Congress to tell the bureaucracy what they can and cannot do. We establish laws, not their rules and regulations, and we should tell them they have to respect the rights of individuals, and treat them as real people, and not take away their personal property rights, and that is exactly what the Tipton bill does.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to recognize the 100th anniversary of the Logan Regional Hospital, which serves the citizens of the Cache Valley of northern Utah.

In 1914, a new hospital with 60 beds was established that boasted modern patient conveniences, such as an X-ray machine. From 1948-75, the LDS church assumed responsibility for the hospital. In 1975, Intermountain Healthcare, a not-for-profit community service, was organized, which became a model for health care excellence.

In 1980, the hospital was expanded and moved to its present location, thanks to the help of $2 million from private donors. Today, the hospital has 148 beds and offers a full range of hospital services.

The 100 years of continued health care service has been possible thanks to the professionals who have donated so much of their lives to provide excellence in health care to their patients.

Logan Regional Hospital fulfills the dreams of its original founders. Its not-for-profit community governance from committed board members continues to excel in providing for quality health care services.

Mr. Chairman, let me begin by talking about some things that have been overstated on parts, especially the one that is my title.

My title does not stop the BLM or anybody in the Interior Department from doing multiple use on land. It has nothing to do with management. It simply says they can buy no new land until they first become transparent and provide a database that anyone can easily accomplish.

As with some of the other statements that have been made on the floor, some of them are somewhat exaggerated from what this bill intends to do.

Mr. Chairman, let me talk about this bill as an entity. There is a common thread that runs through this bill that deals with public lands and people from Florida to Alaska and all stations in between. What we simply have found is the Federal Government has large, centralized bureaucracies that do our land management process that no longer meet the needs of people, but, rather, they hide behind rules and policies and regulations which make them safe for them. But they don't actually help people, which requires sometimes people to be flexible and think outside the proverbial box.

The island in Florida that Mr. Miller was just referring to was given by Florida to the government, and the government gave it back to Florida before I was born--and that has been a while. But the concept here is that the government does not own this land. They don't need it, they don't use it, but they still wish to control it--it doesn't matter why; they still do--and there is no purpose for that.

It is ludicrous that the Congressman from Alaska must come down here and write a law to transfer 3 acres of land in Anchorage back to the city of Anchorage so it can be used to benefit the people of Anchorage. Again, land the Federal Government does not own, they don't need, they don't use, but they still wish in some way to control it.

The grazers in Idaho who produce the stuff from which Big Macs and Whoppers are made--and I know that from personal experience, obviously--only wanted to be treated fairly and consistently and with consideration for the needs so they can be successful in their trade.

Kayakers in Wyoming simply want the ability to recreate on an area that was designed for recreation without being specifically prohibited by rules and regulations that were to insist and support a policy that we have found no longer is necessary and does not work.

If these 10 bills were to pass, unfortunately it doesn't solve all our problems. Because all these 10 bills do is show a tip of the proverbial iceberg of the problems that we face in dealing with land management when it comes from a large, centralized bureaucracy and we no longer put our primary interest in helping people meet their needs.

Mr. Chairman, when the Berlin Wall fell down, the entire world realized that large, centralized bureaucracies of the communist world failed.

Eastern Europe learned that, entrepreneurs learned that. They found that lean, aggressive companies simply take market share from the lumbering corporate products of the past.

Everyone realized that a large, centralized bureaucratic program is ineffective, except here in Washington, D.C., where we still address every problem with an effort to try and build something that is going to be controlled here in the center of all wisdom that is large, that is centralized, and that is bureaucratic. It is mind-boggling that the Nation who defeated the Soviet Union with creativity and freedom still decides to solve all problems and all management issues by going back to a Soviet-styled agency program and concept.

This bill is needed because it affects people throughout the length and breadth of this country, and it is only the beginning of what we need to do to set it right and make sure that our highest priority is people, not rules and regulations.

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

I appreciate very much the gentleman from Arizona. I do enjoy working with him on the subcommittee. And I have to admit, at this stage of the game, I am a little bit perplexed about the amendment.

The gentleman purports that the idea of transparency and keeping a database is not a bad idea. He just objects to the enforcement mechanism we put in there. If that were the case, I would wonder why he didn't just strike the enforcement mechanism out or come up with a substitute enforcement mechanism. I am not bound to this particular one. Had there been a date certain or some other ideas, I may even have accepted that as a friendly approach to try to help this particular title. But, instead, the amendment strikes everything. It strikes the very essence of forcing them to actually come up with a database that is there.

During the Clinton administration--and that has been a while ago--the Interior Department did come up with a database of lands that were available for disposal, that were needless, that were useless for the government. We have the data. The only problem is it is almost impossible to get to the data. The data is found in books in over 150 different local offices. It would take a huge road trip to try to come up with just the information.

This is now 2014. The idea that the BLM cannot actually put this data on a Web site that is available to everybody is, quite frankly, not acceptable. That they are too busy to do this is simply not acceptable.

All this says is the data is there. Put the data on a Web site so it is transparent and it is viewable for everybody to see.

And then we said, since there has been a whole lot of dragging their feet since the Clinton administration in trying to do this, we will give you some incentive. You can't buy new land until you put on this Web site so people can see what land is available for disposal. It does not stop them from managing the land for multiple use or for nonmultiple use or any other reason. It simply gives them an incentive to go ahead and do it.

Like I said, if your goal was to change the incentive, I would have been amenable to discussions on that. I will still be amenable to discussions on that. But this amendment strikes the entire thing, not just the enforcement provision. For that reason, I would oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman) to show how this amendment would impact the Chesapeake Bay area.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 472 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days during which they may revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides a structured rule for the consideration of two separate bills: H.R. 2954, which is the Public Access and Lands Improvement Act, and H.R. 3964, which is the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery Act.

It provides for an hour of general debate, each measure equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources. The rule makes in order five amendments to H.R. 2954 and eight to H.R. 3964, and of those amendments made in order, nine are Democrat amendments. So this is a fair and generous rule. It will provide for a balanced and open debate on the merits of both of these important pieces of legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

My good friend from Florida was correct in at least one aspect. There are two bills that are involved in this particular rule, one which involves 10 different sections dealing with land issues that are critical to 10 States chagrined that they have to come to Congress for redressing their grievances. The other one deals with water issues.

To explain that water issue, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao), the sponsor of that particular bill.

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

I appreciate the gentleman's frustration. Those very proposals were offered by Chairman Lucas in the farm bill and rejected by the Senate.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, before I go into complete pivot to nongermane issues, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes) to talk about how the first bill deals with water diversions, not water consumption.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

If the Speaker would forgive me for trying to get us back on the subject matter of the bill in front of us, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock) to talk about the water bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I have appreciated the tone and the tenor of today's discussion and all the words that have been said on all the bills that are before us.

We have the opportunity of making the desert bloom if we do things in the appropriate way. We have done it in the past. We can do it in the future.

I recognize that most of the debate has been on the one bill in this particular issue which deals with the issue of water in California. Totally ignored was the other issue that is equally significant, especially to the 10 States that have an interest in that, dealing with land policy.

You see, there is a role for government if government is efficient and effective and compassionate and uses common sense. As I have worked with individuals, both on the ground from the Forest Service and the BLM, who live in the communities and know those people, they are usually fair, efficient, and effective people. They get it. But the further they ascend or are removed from the people and go up into the hierarchy of the administration, as they tend towards Washington, D.C., they tend to forget people and the importance of helping people, and they become hamstrung, as agencies, with a blind obedience to policy and to regulation so that the agencies become inefficient and ineffective. They lack compassion, and they are certainly devoid of common sense.

For example, we have one of the titles here that deals with islands off the coast of Florida, in 1946, given to those counties. They were told, as they had done that, that they could not sell the land, they could only lease it, which means that homeowners and businesses on this island that had been Federal property can now pay no property tax that helps the entire community to defend not only those areas but also keep the public lands open. It is an unfair situation.

Now think of this: This is property the Federal Government does not own, they do not need, they do not use, and yet they still control, by policy, what they are doing on that land which, I am sorry, is a silly policy that simply hurts the people.

We have the same thing across the country in Alaska. In Anchorage, there are 3 acres--3 measly acres--in the middle of the city, a city surrounded by Federal land, and you have to come to Congress because the rules and policy of the administration--the agencies--hurt people and lack common sense by denying Anchorage the ability to use that land efficiently, as they wish. Once again, this is land the Federal Government does not own, they don't need, and they don't use, but they still control what the local government can do with that particular piece of property.

In Nevada, Fernley, Nevada, they are willing to pay the government just to leave them alone. All the land they

want is within the city boundaries of Fernley. Once again, in this case, the Federal Government does not need this property, and they don't use this property. They simply insist on controlling it. What we need to do is simply get them out of the way so we can help the community to move forward.

It seems amazing that at many of our land agencies we simply have a gridlock as we have a highly centralized bureaucracy that values power over the principle of actually helping people. If Congress has to be involved in moving 3 acres in the middle of one community, that is a preposterous situation which we find.

I recently read a book that dealt with my church members living in Communist East Germany who had a very difficult time finding places in which they could build chapels so they could worship. If they found an area, simply a vacant space, they had to find equivalent private property to give to the state because the state government in East Germany insisted there was no net loss of property by the state. What I find amazing is we in America, with these land agencies, have that exact same philosophy: there can be no net loss of property to the government. That means either we are wrong today or Communist East Germany was correct back then, and I really don't think it is the latter.

We have another piece of property in North Carolina. In 2007, the government came up with a management plan. It was agreed to by the community, not happily, but they agreed to it. They did a biological survey and they found out that this plan does nothing to impede or harm any of the species available at Cape Hatteras. Yet the next year there was a lawsuit, and the land agencies, instead of fighting for what they knew was right and they had agreed to, caved, in a sue-and-settle settlement, which harmed the people living in that area. It hurt those people who were making their livelihood after the tourism going to Cape Hatteras.

Yes, in this case, the Federal Government owns the property and uses the property, but their control of the property is a total lack of common sense and a total lack of compassion and hurts the people who live there.

During the Clinton administration, the Clinton administration identified land in the Federal Government control that was not needed and that was useless. However, trying to find what those lands are requires you to go to 150 different sites to look in 150 different books. Why would they not put that on a computerized system so that anyone can have access to it and there is transparency in what we do and do not have? Yet the agency simply says that, even though that is a good idea, they are simply quite too busy to actually accomplish that task. In a response that makes the rollout of ObamaCare look well- managed, why do we need to understand where these lands are?

I will take a simple example. The Forest Service had land in one of my communities that they had owned for 40 years and did not know they actually had; and when the community wanted to expand their cemetery and did the title search, we finally found out this actually was Forest Service land. Needless to say, even though the locals wanted this land transferred and they didn't need it and they hadn't used it in decades, it still took 4 years to try and get this Congress to actually authorize it to take place, and then the Forest Service still charged the community $6,000 to do the paperwork to transfer the land over.

We have, in the middle of one of our National Guard units, BLM land that they don't need and they don't use, and yet we are still trying to get them to transfer the land over to the State of Utah so they can build needed infrastructure on a National Guard base that is still owned technically by the BLM.

That is why we need to understand what this is. We have a simple system, but we have bureaucratic lethargy in this country.

We have a mountain lookout, a historical site in Washington that was historic before wilderness was created in that particular area, and to try to shore up that lookout so it doesn't collapse, they were then sued by an agency. And some judge back on the west coast decided you have to send helicopters in there to tear it down because you couldn't actually make those kinds of improvements in a wilderness area on a piece of property that is revered by that community and they want to keep it there. Even the environmental community uses that as a staging point for their hikes and trails in that area. But this is a decision that is silly, and we have to make that decision by this summer to save that historic site.

In Yosemite National Park in California, a horrific fire destroyed both public and private lands. We now look at the fact that most of the private lands are now 60 percent recovered. They have gone through to take out the dead wood and the dead timber. They are starting the reforestation process. But on the public side of that land, we are still going through an evaluation process that even under an expedited system simply means that it will be until late summer before they can actually finish that, and then the lawsuits get to start.

Now, look, if you don't remove that dead timber, that burned timber within a year, it is totally useless, and all it does is become infested and becomes a source and a fuel for a future fire in a State that we have already heard is in their third year of drought and desperately needs the water for other things rather than fighting a fire.

These bills in this section of land try and solve these problems so we finally force the agencies to do that which helps people instead of hindering people's process. We find a situation where the agencies, today, of our government are inefficient, they are ineffective, and they lack compassion, which actually hurts constituents, hurts people, and they do not have common sense. That is why this package is so important, and it is important to do it now to help people.

It is simply sad that we are in a situation where Congress has to push the agencies to do the right thing. We should be better than that. We can do better than that, and that is what these bills attempt to do.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to reiterate that this rule is fair, it is appropriate, as appropriate and as fair as are the underlying measures that are being presented to Congress in this rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 472 Offered By Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

See. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

3370) to delay the implementation of certain provisions of

the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, and

for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be

dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of

the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the

bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Financial Services. After general debate the

bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute

rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are

waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for

amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the

House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill

and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening

motion except one motion to recommit with or without

instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports

that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the

next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the

third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,

resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill.

Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 3370.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

I appreciate all of those who have been involved in this piece of legislation, which is very important.

Mr. Speaker, 100 years ago, the National Park Service was established to try and help people enjoy these natural wonders for, indeed, if people are not visiting our national parks, they do not fulfill the measure of their creation. It fills no purpose. Unfortunately, in the last 100 years, it seems like there has been an attitude shift amongst many of those who are involved in our national parks and other wonders that we have, especially in the West, in which people who originally were supposed to be the reason for having these parks have now been placed last.

The horrific example of what happened at Lake Mead in Nevada is a horrible thing to take place. Were it the only example we have of these types of negative things taking place, this legislation would still be well-deserved and well overdue. Unfortunately, it is not. It is just an example of significant issues that keep coming back in which our administration seems to be putting people last and doing things which are not positive and not helpful.

Let me give you a couple of examples.

In Washington State, we have another national park in which there is an open area, almost like a community park within the National Park System, and yet the land manager in Washington decided to cancel a traditional annual church picnic because it would make too much noise for the rest of the national park. They also canceled a youth soccer tournament because it would make too much noise and disturb the rest of the national park.

During our shutdown, whether, indeed, they were told to try to make life miserable or not, they seemed to be able to do that on their own. The effort for the Park Service was to shut down the parking lot at Mount Vernon until someone had to remind them that Mount Vernon is not Federal property, that it is private property. At the same time, they were able to shut down a road in the Smokies to stop a schoolbus from making its rounds to pick up kids and take them to school and back again.

At Yellowstone, an armed guard came upon a busload of seniors to try and escort them off of the Federal property, not allowing them to make any kind of stops, even for restroom breaks. At Lake Mead, at the same time, residents who were living on their private houseboats were escorted off the lake and were told they could not come back. We have in this particular area the Claude Moore farm and the restaurant over on the Blue Ridge Parkway. Even though they were private establishments, the Park Service was doing everything it could to stop people from attending those areas and allowing them to make a success of the particular business.

This doesn't happen to be just in the shutdown period. This was happening well before that time.

In Alaska, on the Yukon-Charley Rivers, a private boater was stopped by the Park Service personnel. They took him over to the shore. He was held at gunpoint and was told that he could not continue on up the river because they said he couldn't continue on up the river. The unfortunate reality is that they didn't have the right to tell him he couldn't go on up the river. They were simply wrong and eventually were replaced in that particular area.

Other agencies of the Federal Government seem to be doing the same thing. We have a Wyoming rancher who did not want to give an easement to the BLM. Instead, he was threatened; they trespassed his property; they followed him and his guests; they photographed what he was doing, including his female guests, who were trying to relieve themselves at the time; they were harassed and punished, and were told they would not have any of his permits renewed if he did not accede to the Federal request.

At Cape Hatteras, the Park Service went into a sue-settlement agreement, which shut down areas that had never been before even though the local people were opposed to that particular effort and even though it had a devastating impact on the economy.

The Forest Service, unfortunately, has done the same thing with ski resorts and, in California, on another ski resort where they closed summer activities unless they renegotiated the water rights of those resorts. Then there are the grazing permits in the West. They refused to, once again, renew the grazing permits unless they were willing to renegotiate their water rights.

All of these are examples which, unfortunately, continue to go on.

What the good Representative from Nevada has presented us is a terrific case in which the Park Service actually disrespected individuals and did not allow them to do what is humanitarianly appropriate. Yet, when they were allowed to go in there and they found these bodies, they could have overcome all of this if they had just cared about people first, but they did not.

With the Keystone pipeline, the Park Service, once again, made a comment that the Keystone pipeline would have a devastating impact on parklands that were adjacent to the Keystone pipeline. Unfortunately, the nearest Federal land--the nearest national parkland--to the Keystone pipeline is 30 miles away. That is some kind of buffer zone we have.

If, indeed, we decided that this agency--the Department of this administration--were to put people first, we would have a much better relationship. Unfortunately, time after time, we see where actually people are being put last and bureaucratic responsibility is taking the place of that. That is simply wrong. This bill is an example of what is happening, and it is one that should be passed. I appreciate that both the majority and the minority realize the significance of passing this piece of legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise to engage in a colloquy with Agriculture Committee Chairman Lucas of Oklahoma and Interior Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Calvert of California regarding the issue of Federal land ownership and Payments in Lieu of Taxes, commonly known as PILT.

PILT is a program for counties all across America that have federally owned lands within their boundaries. Counties in every State, except Rhode Island, benefit from this program first established in 1979. PILT helps to offset the loss of property tax revenues caused by the presence of Federal land. The Federal Government is the largest landowner in the United States, and PILT fulfills the Federal Government's obligation to local communities where their ownership presence is the greatest.

One out of every 3 acres in our country is federally owned. As you can see from the map, most of this land is concentrated in the West. Counties with Federal land in their jurisdictions are denied property tax revenues typical of communities with privately owned land. The diminished tax base hinders rural communities from fulfilling some of their most basic functions, such as education and public safety.

PILT's previous funding has expired, and now we are in a situation where we have to find a new source. We were pleased yesterday when the Speaker and majority leader pledged their support to the Western Caucus that qualified counties would receive 2014 funding.

Subcommittee Chairman Calvert, as we continue to work on 2014 funding matters, it seems apparent that funding for PILT will be included in another important legislative vehicle in the future. Is that your understanding?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday marked the 125th anniversary of one of Utah's premier academic institutions, Weber State University.

Originally Weber State Academy, a religious school with 200 students, today it is a full university with over 25,000 students. It is a great addition to its home city of Ogden, as well as its satellite campus in Davis County.

I am very proud of my association with Weber State University. My father-in-law played football there. My wife and daughter are graduates. Even one of our colleagues, Representative Jenkins of Kansas, is a graduate of Weber State. My son worked for the administration, as well.

Its first president was a renaissance immigrant from Germany, Louis Moench, who composed my favorite hymn. Its second principal, David O. McKay, became a leader of my church. The most recent president, Dr. Millner, was the first female leader of the university in the State of Utah. Under its current leadership with President Wight, I expect another 125 years of great research, innovation, and education taking place at Weber State.

Everyone in Utah wore purple yesterday in honor of this event. As cold as it was here, I am also proud to say I was wearing a Weber State hoodie and sweats all night long--obviously, in honor of Weber State and to try to stay warm back here in Washington.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 419 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 1965, the Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security Act, as well as for consideration of H.R. 2728, the Protecting States' Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act. The rule provides for each bill to receive 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources, except that on H.R. 2728, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will control 20 minutes of the 1 hour provided for.

The rule makes in order eight amendments for H.R. 1965 and five amendments for H.R. 2728. In both cases, the number of amendments to be offered by Democrats outnumber those to be offered by Republicans. A number of those amendments which were filed and not made in order violated the House rules either by not being germane or by violating CutGo. So this is a very fair and generous rule and will provide for a balanced debate on the merits of these important pieces of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House to support this rule, as well as the underlying pieces of legislation, which are both important bills aimed at making the United States more energy independent.

I appreciate the hard work of the sponsors, Mr. Lamborn of Colorado, Mr. Flores of Texas, as well as the work of the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), as well as that of the chairman of the Science Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith). These are significant pieces that will move our Nation forward.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the rule that we have before us is about two bills. The first bill deals with fairness for those who live in public land States as to the ability to process oil and gas leases. The second bill deals with fracking, the fracturing of oil that is a policy that started in the 1940s in the State of Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores), who is the sponsor of the second bill, to discuss that particular portion.

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

When Ronald Reagan was first elected President, he talked to his National Security Advisor--I believe his name was Richard Allen--and told him that his policy for foreign affairs was going to be ``we win and they lose.'' It shocked his National Security Advisor because they had always been talking about managing communism or coexisting with communism. This was the first time somebody had actually come up with such a specific and precise rationale and policy for the Nation.

But President Reagan also realized, for him to actually enact his goal, they first had to fix the economy, which, as strange as it seems, was worse than the economy we have today. With double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment, double-digit interest rates, he had to first fix that before he could go on to his goal of actually winning the Cold War.

He also recognized that if he was going to fix those economic problems, he had to have a reliable and affordable source of energy, and that, indeed, was one of the problems that caused the situation they were in under the Carter administration.

Earlier this year we brought a couple of bills forward, one for the Defense Authorization Act and the Defense Appropriations Act, and I said at the time that the reason we had those here was because it allowed and empowered our State Department.

Foreign policy is whatever we are willing to fund as far as military growth. They are interrelated.

One of the things this administration appears to have forgotten is the interrelation between improving our economy and improving energy production at the same time, although they have done well in trying to forward green energy solutions.

Unfortunately, as much as that is a positive and proper approach, most of what they have done has failed to reach the goals they established for themselves, and not only that, much of it has also been involved in scandals. Also, it cannot be done at the time you are attacking traditional forms of energy.

So that is why we are here. One of the realities is that, oddly enough, at this particular time, we are producing more energy in America than we have for a long time. And the numbers are always all over the place, depending on what the starting date is with these surveys. Whether you go to an industry like the Western Energy Alliance or a neutral entity like the Congressional Research Service, they are all saying basically the same thing. There is a slight increase in offshore energy on Federal lands. There is not an increase in onshore energy production on Federal lands, depending, once again, on what base you are using, and our increase in production, which is true, has almost all come from private lands, State-owned lands, and Native American lands of this country.

Now, the fact that we are closer to energy independence is nice, but that is not our goal. That is simply an infamous goal that we should have.

The goal should be to reduce the amount of energy coming into this country and becoming more energy independent so we can actually help people, so that we can come to the point where we are producing enough energy from this energy-rich Nation to make sure that we have affordable electricity, so when a family goes into a room, they don't have to worry about turning on the light, impacting their kids' college education fund; so that even low-income families can realize they can heat their homes in the winter; so that one can travel from Point A to Point B in your car and realize it is affordable; so that jobs actually are plentiful, especially spinoff jobs.

It is not those who necessarily are working at the site in which you are developing the energy, but the spinoff jobs: the trucker that goes to and from bringing product into or away from the site, or those who are doing the motels and the restaurants that are feeding the workers, those who are working on Main Street that are providing food and resources to those who are providing the services to those particular workers.

In Western States, like the State of Utah, it is essential, also, to our education fund. If you were to look at this particular chart, the chart on the top, the States in red are the States that have the hardest time, the slowest growth in their education funding.

The chart on the bottom, the stuff in red is what is owned by the Federal Government. I hate to say it, but there is a relationship between the amount of public lands owned by the Federal Government and the inability to try and fund the proper education system.

What that comes to, in gross terms, is over the last 20 years, Western States, the predominantly public land States, have increased their education funding by 35 percent. The rest of the Nation, which has very little public ground, has increased its education funding by 68 percent. They are doubling the growth of it.

What simply matters is that States in the West that are public land States have a difficult time of funding their education system when they are prohibited from being able to develop a lot of the resources which are found in those Western States. That is one of the reasons why we have a difficult time in funding our own education system and why the first bill in this rule is asking for Western States to be treated fairly in this particular process.

Whether one likes it or not, to vote against these bills unintentionally harms kids, and it harms education in the West. If our funding for education in my home State is going to be effectively increased, it has got to come from development of the natural resources that are in my State and not putting impediments in the way of the State moving forward.

This is the map of significance that I showed you. Everything that is red is that which is owned by the Federal Government, and you find-- glory be--we have the predominance of it here in the West, in my State.

There is a difference in how energy is developed in the red areas, as opposed to the basically white areas. If you were trying to develop areas in the white, which has very little Federal land, it simply means a company goes out, they contact a property owner, get the right to do exploration, and then, if they find something which they wish, they buy either the land or the mineral rights and go ahead and do it.

On the red areas, the public land areas, the process is far, far different. It has been said on this floor that this bill would allow oil companies to go wherever they want. That is an overstatement. It is not quite accurate.

In the red areas, what happens is, first, the Federal Government, in this case, the Department of the Interior, will establish a regional management plan to establish which areas are proper for economic development, for drilling, and for mining. Not all areas are, so not all areas become part of the regional management plan, and only those areas that have potential for economic development in oil and gas are the ones that are listed in the RMP.

Then it goes through a NEPA process. Once the NEPA process for the RMP is completed, then the Interior Department decides what areas that are listed as potential energy development areas will actually be leased by the Federal Government.

Then they are let out to bid. That also has to go through a NEPA process before, finally, a company can bid on lands and go through and try to find out if it is worthy to develop. If they wish to develop, then they also have to go through an application for drilling.

Now, in most States, the white area, that application for drilling by itself takes between 15 to 30 days. In the red area, that application has been averaging over 300 days, which is where the unfairness takes place.

The first bill that is in this rule would say, okay, let's split the difference, and we will say you make the decision within 60 days; plenty of time to make that particular decision.

It is also noted that, in all of these processes I went through, from the RMP to the NEPA process, to the lease, to the lease bid, to the second

NEPA process, to the APD, there is opportunity for citizens to have input, free speech access to input.

Now, that costs the Department money to access that, which is true, but it is part of their job, so we accept it.

However, when the bid is actually made or a protest is made to that bid, that is extra work for the Department, which, in every other area of government, we would require a fee when some kind of citizen action requires extra work to expedite the paperwork for that type of protest or that type of policy or that type of request.

The companies that do an APD are already charged that by the Department of the Interior. They pay a fee of $6,500 every time they have a request to drill. This bill codifies that. But also it says that, if you are going to challenge or protest one, this is not the opportunity for citizen input that you have along the process each and every step. But if you are actually going to do a challenge of this, then you also should pay a fee because this challenge requires extra work and extra expense on the part of the Department, and this is put at a $5,000 fee. It is $6,500 to actually request the permitting process to start and $5,000 if you want to protest it.

In my State, unfortunately, we have seen examples where, on what I consider to be a whim, the President or the administration or the Department of the Interior has simply withdrawn leases that have gone through all of those steps I indicated and were effective and were put into motion. The first thing this administration did was to withdraw 77 leases in Utah. It had a catastrophic effect upon the Uinta Basin in my home State, where unemployment skyrocketed immediately after that was done, not only because the leases were withdrawn, but the private companies that were doing their work on private lands also saw the handwriting on the wall and wished to no longer go forward with that because of the implications of the withdrawal of those leases.

I got a letter from one of the kids who was living there. She was in junior high school. She asked me to please do something about it because her father was not working on the wells or the sites of those leases. He was one of the truckers, a private contractor who was taking stuff into those sites and trucking stuff out from those sites. And she was so happy because her family had been situated. They were doing well. They had finally bought a house and bought some property, and she had her dream of finally having a horse. And she wrote to me, pleading to see if we could change what this administration had done with those 77 leases so she could simply keep her horse. It didn't happen. She lost the horse. Her father lost the job. They lost the house. They lost land and had to go back to Salt Lake City to find employment.

Recently, in this same area, once again going through the process, the Interior Department identified 800,000 acres that were susceptible and appropriate for economic drilling development. They were those that were already abutting existing leases or intermingled within existing leases. But there were 800,000 acres. When they came up with the lease process, the administration decided to only offer 144,000; and then before the lease actually went out to bid, they withdrew almost 100,000 of those 144,000 because they had found a question in their minds as to what the impact might be.

Now, I recognize this could be legitimate. I mean, the Federal Government has only owned this land since the Mexican War. Obviously there are things that can slip somebody's attention in the first 180 years of looking at a piece of property. But nonetheless, only 44,000 acres were put out to bid. That is 5 percent of the total that was identified as acceptable for this kind of development.

Now, we are not talking about wilderness areas or national park areas or conservation areas; only areas that were susceptible and appropriate for this concept, which is why the 25 percent figure is really kind of a modest figure of what should be the case and should be taken.

If we were to pass these two bills, it is very easy to realize that the desert could bloom again because that is the purpose. These bills, for the first time, identify Native American interests and make sure that Native American interests on Native American lands are going to be respected by the Federal Government. They take it.

Four score and 7 years ago, we started a fracking process in the United States--give or take a score. But this fracturing process has, so far, been working. We have a list of those from the EPA, from the Interior Department, from both Energy Secretaries, the last two Interior Secretaries, a former EPA Administrator, the current Administrator, former BLM Directors who have all said that there is no identifiable problem with what the States are doing with fracturing. The States do have this experience in doing it.

The language is very clear. Sometimes people say, well, there are no regulations because they can't find a specific regulation. It mentions the word ``fracturing.'' But to be honest, and not trying to be too wonkish, if you have rules and regulations that talk about wellbore construction or drill site integrity, that is what is necessary to ensure the health and safety of individuals. And States do know how to go do that, and they do know how to protect that area.

The actual question, though, is, if we are coming up with rules for fracturing--and this deals with the bill that Representative Flores was addressing--where should the decision be made on how to implement those rules? Should it be made here in Washington or should it be made in the State where the situation exists?

I have a great deal of empathy for what the gentleman from Colorado was saying was what he wished to see in his home State. I would be more than happy to allow him to do anything he wanted to do. If, indeed, they want to cancel all kinds of fossil fuel development in the State of Colorado, I would be more than happy to allow him to do that. I just don't want that in my State.

And unfortunately, the conventional wisdom is always that only people in Washington, D.C., have the broad view to make decisions for the entire Nation. That is a ridiculous wisdom. That is inaccurate. States are just as competent. There are as many smart people who live and reside in States, their Department of Environmental Quality, which we have in the State of Utah, as live here in Washington. They can make these decisions. They can do it well.

If a State does not want to make these kinds of decisions, does not want to have these kinds of rules, allow a national rule to take precedence. No problem. But if a State is willing to be independent and make decisions for themselves, we should allow them to do it because the States are just as good and, unfortunately, often better than the Federal Government in making these kinds of provisions.

You see, one of the things that is happening--the good gentleman from Colorado did talk about what is happening in his State. And once again, if his State wants to ban all kinds of these activities, if they want to ban all development of fossil fuels, that is fine.

This bill's adoption does not stop Colorado from doing anything that Colorado wishes to do. Not passing this bill will stop the State of Utah from having primacy and doing what the State of Utah wishes to do.

Look, we are not talking about the decimation of enormous tracts of Federal land. Within the Federal campus, there are over 650 million acres. That is one-third of America that the Federal Government owns. Of those 650 million acres, 450 million acres are already set aside for preservation and conservation and will never, never have any kind of development or any kind of drilling taking place on those 450 million acres.

The amount of area that has been identified as potential for economic development is only 38 million acres. But on those 38 million acres, allow the States to move forward to make sure that what the State wants on our local lands is respected and that what happens on Federal public lands is fair and equitable to what happens on private lands in non- Federal States.

With that, I look forward to anything the gentleman from Colorado has to say, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, if I could, simply to say that what the bill does, does not restrict any kind of free speech opportunity for individuals. They still have the right of comment, which is totally free, in any of those processes from the RPM to the NEPA to the lease to the leased bid to the second NEPA to the APD. So that is there only when an effort actually causes an additional expense to the government, which is typical and standard. That fee is actually going to be initiated to try to cover the costs to the Federal Government.

It is my pleasure now to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the sponsor of the first of the two bills, who has a bill that will ensure that the standards become fair and equitable for everyone throughout this Nation.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I have no further speakers.

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

I appreciate the poll that was presented into the Record; but that is why, I would submit, the Interior Department has a resource management plan. Those RMPs are established in the first place so that incompatible relationships and incompatible entities are not put in the same area. It is why you can actually have both.

What the two bills before us that would be brought to the floor under this rule do is allow States to have a say in what is going on, because States are confident. They are closer to the problem. They should have a say and a stake and make a statement in this particular issue.

If these bills were brought to the floor, public land States in the West--the red areas on my map--would be treated fairly and treated closer to what is happening in the white States, where there is little public land.

This is also, though, one of the things that I want us not to lose focus on. It is not about drilling or not drilling. It is what is the purpose of developing our energy resources, that is, to make sure that people can heat their homes and have lights in their houses, that they can drive from point A to point B and afford it, and so that people can have jobs so that that little middle school girl in my State can actually have a place for her horse. That is what these bills are about.

More importantly, for Western States, the public land States, is to allow us to generate the revenue we need from the resources we have in our State to fund an education system. If these bills are defeated, the ability of Western land States to adequately fund their educational systems will be stymied.

It is important. If you care about kids, you have to provide this kind of resource for the Western States. That is why these two bills are not just rehashes. These two bills are essential for those of us who live in the West.

For the sake of the education system of Western kids, I would encourage everyone to support not only the rule, but support both underlying bills. They are important. This is a fair rule. It is appropriate legislation. They are good bills and a fair rule. I urge their adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, in 2003, 5-year-old Isabelle Jane was diagnosed with leukemia, a disease that has driven the decisions her family has made since that time on where to live, what doctors to have, what insurance to gain. She had daily chemotherapy for 3 years and is now in remission.

But 18 months ago, she started to have side effects from this disease. It affected her heart, her bones, and her cognitive processing. Since that time, and since ObamaCare was passed, her insurance rates have more than doubled, and she was told this year that their insurance would be canceled by the end of this year. As Isabelle Jane's mother wrote:

The Affordable Care Act has seriously threatened my

family's way of life. For over 10 years, we have had the

coverage we have needed to care for our family. I defy anyone

who says the insurance we currently have is not enough. My

daughter is living proof that it is.

Mr. Speaker, these people are being hurt by the present system, and that needs to change.