Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following:

Grand Junction Area

Chamber of Commerce,

Grand Junction, CO, November 22, 2013.

Hon. Scott Tipton,

Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Hon. Jared Polis,

Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Honorable Representatives Tipton and Polis: As the

voice of business on Colorado's western slope, representing

over 900 businesses, we want to thank you for introducing

H.R. 3189 as a way to ensure that water rights are

continually protected in Colorado. It is absurd that the

federal government requires ski resorts to relinquish their

rights as a condition of granting permits, and this practice

must be stopped.

The Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce offers legislative

guidelines on water that include the following points: Water

rights in Colorado and the West have been considered a vital

asset and personal property for many years. Water is an

essential component of the economic, social and environmental

quality of life that we enjoy. The preservation and

protection of private ownership and the right to use water,

its conservation, and its wise use are necessary to preserve

the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of

western Colorado and the entire state. Furthermore,

industries in Colorado such as agriculture, small businesses,

tourism, and natural resource development require steady

reliable and high quality water supplies.

The passage of H.R. 3189 would ensure that tourism

operations as well as other businesses' private property

rights are protected when it comes to water. It will also

help the regulatory uncertainty and remove the concern that

if a ski area wants to grow or expand it will not lose its

property. This helps create a sure business climate in

Colorado. Thank you for sponsoring this bill. We urge the

passage of H.R. 3189.

Sincerely,

Michael Burke,

Chairman of the Board.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following:

Montezuma Valley Irrigation

Company,

Cortez, CO 81321

To Whom It May Concern: At their regularly scheduled

meeting on October 8, 2013, the Board of Directors of

Montezuma Valley Irrigation Company voted unanimously to

support the proposed House Resolution 3189 introduced by

Representative Scott Tipton and others.

We believe that this Bill is critical to protect water

rights held by citizens and entities such as ours from

usurpation by Federal agencies. In doing so, it preserves the

water rights long held by, and essential to the survival of,

agribusinesses, recreational businesses, municipalities, and

individuals throughout our state and all states that receive

water from rivers and streams originating in the state of

Colorado.

Regards,

Gerald Koppenhafer,

MVIC Board President.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following:

Rio Grande County,

Board of County Commissioners,

Del Norte, Colorado, October 16, 2013.

Re Support of the Water Rights Protection Act H.R. 3189

Hon. Scott Tipton,

Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Hon. Jared Polis,

Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Reps. Tipton and Polis: The Board of County

Commissioners of Rio Grande County supports your efforts

through H.R. 3189 to protect the privately owned water rights

within the State of Colorado.

The control of water within the State of Colorado and any

other state in this nation has been controlled and regulated

by the State. The Constitution of the United States does not

allow the federal government to regulate private water

rights.

There is no provision in federal law authorizing or

permitting the Forest Services or the Bureau of Land

Management to compel owners of lawfully acquired water rights

to surrender those rights or to acquire them in the name of

the United States. Thus, H.R. 3189 does nothing more than

assure holders of BLM or Forest Service permits that their

lawfully acquired rights will not be abridged and that

federal agencies may not unlawfully use the permit process to

acquire rights they do not currently possess.

We thank you for your attention to this crucial issue, and

for supporting our rural communities and our public lands.

Sincerely,

Karla L. Shriver,

Chair, Board of County Commissioners.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following:

Crested Butte Mountain Resort,

Crested Butte, CO, March 21, 2014.

Dear Representative Tipton, I am writing on behalf of

Crested Butte Mountain Resort (CBMR) in support of H.R. 3189,

the ``Water Rights Protection Act.'' CBMR currently operates

on U.S. Forest Service Special Use Permit on over 4,300 acres

in Gunnison County and generates over $28 million dollars

into the local economy from destination skiers in lodging,

dining, entertainment and retail purchases.

CBMR supports H.R. 3189 because it would prohibit the U.S.

Forest Service from requiring our resort to transfer valuable

water rights to the Forest Service as a condition of

receiving a permit, or to apply for water rights in the name

of the United States, without compensation. This bill would

also prevent the federal government from making an end run

around state law by merely taking water rights that it does

not own through its permitting authority. It would not only

protect ski area water rights--it would protect any water

rights owners that operate on federal land.

Furthermore, requiring transfer of valuable water rights to

the U.S. Forest Service as a condition of receiving a permit

raises serious Fifth Amendment concerns. Most Colorado

resorts' water rights were acquired and developed at great

expense pursuant to Colorado law, and in some cases pre-date

the Forest Service itself. If the U.S. Forest Service wants

to secure its own water rights, it should buy them on

Colorado's well-regulated water market like everyone else.

Thank you for scheduling a hearing on H.R. 3189 and for

your leadership on this issue. It means a great deal to CBMR

and

other ski resorts operating across Colorado on Forest Service

lands.

Sincerely,

Ethan Mueller,

General Manager.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following:

National Water Resources

Association,

Washington, DC, March 10, 2014.

Hon. Scott Tipton,

Cannon House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Tipton: On behalf of the Board of

Directors and the members of the National Water Resources

Association (NWRA), I write in support of H.R. 3189, the

Water Rights Protection Act. The NWRA is a nonprofit

federation made up of agricultural and municipal water

providers, state associations, and individuals dedicated to

the conservation, enhancement and efficient management of our

nation's most important natural resource, water. Our members

provide clean water to millions of individuals, families,

agricultural producers and other businesses throughout the

western United States.

Collectively, NWRA members have spent billions of dollars

investing in the development of state issued water rights and

the associated infrastructure in order to provide a safe and

reliable water supply to their customers. Their ability to

continue meeting the nation's growing demand for clean water

is dependent upon access to this vital resource. The Water

Rights Protection Act would protect NWRA members' water

rights and those who depend on the water they deliver by

preventing federal agencies from making a permit, permit

renewal or other action conditional upon surrendering a water

right. The protection of water rights is of the utmost

importance to our members. Water rights constitute a valuable

property right and as such are valuable assets that are often

irreplaceable.

For more than eighty years NWRA members have helped

finance, maintain and manage some of the most valuable and

iconic water systems in the world and have turned virtual

deserts into some of the most productive agricultural land on

the planet. To accomplish this irrigators have worked

collaboratively with federal agency partners at the Bureau of

Reclamation and Army Corps of Engineers. That collaborative

partnership, formed through contracts and other agreements,

is protected by this bill. Our members are gravely concerned

by recent efforts by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) that have made agency actions

contingent upon the relinquishment or modification of a water

right. These efforts go counter to the principle foundations

of western water law, fly in the face of state law and set a

dangerous precedent. Our members count on federal

infrastructure to deliver both project and non-project water.

Non-project water is privately owned; it has not been

appropriated, acquired by, or apportioned to, the United

States. In addition, many of our members deliver water

through facilities that cross USFS or BLM land. The creation

of a process through which water deliveries could be made

contingent on the modification, relinquishment or surrender

of a water right is unacceptable. Moreover, allowing such a

precedent would cause this assault on state water rights to

spread in various forms to other agencies within the

Agriculture and Interior Departments. Congress, needs to

provide the respective Secretaries with clear guidance on

this subject, H.R. 3189 provides this guidance.

The USFS and BLM efforts to curtail water rights have been

focused on western states, but the implementation of this

kind of policy would have ramifications throughout the

nation. According to the United States Geological Survey,

nearly seventy five percent of the irrigated agriculture in

the U.S. is found in the seventeen western states. These

states on average receive less than twenty inches of rain

each year, making the reliable delivery of irrigation water

vital. In order to protect our members' water rights, assure

the continued delivery of clean water to millions of people

and protect the integrity of western water law the NWRA

supports the Water Rights Protection Act.

On behalf of NWRA's members I thank you for your attention

to the critical water supply issues facing our nation, and

for supporting our members as they continue to be

stewards of our nation's water supply and a critical part of

the economy.

Sincerely,

Robert W. Johnson,

Executive Vice President, National Water Resources

Association, Washington, DC.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following:

Aspen Snowmass,

Aspen Skiing Company,

Aspen, CO, October 11, 2013.

Re Support for H.R. 3189, the Water Rights Protection Act

Hon. Doc Hastings,

Chairman, House Natural Resources Committee, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman: I am writing on behalf of Aspen Skiing

Company, a four-season resort in Aspen and Snowmass Village,

Colorado. We employ 3,600 people in winter and host 1.3

million visitors at our four ski mountains, 18 restaurants

and two hotels. Most of our operations take place on National

Forest System lands under a special use permit from the U.S.

Forest Service.

As you are likely aware, the USFS is trying to require the

transfer of privately held water rights to the federal

government as a permit condition on National Forest lands.

There is no compensation for the transfer of these privately

held rights despite the fact that many stakeholders have

invested millions of their own capital in developing the

rights.

I'm writing in support of H.R. 3189, the Water Rights

Protection Act, to address this unfair situation. This bill

would prevent the federal government from making an end run

around state law by taking water rights that it does not own

through its permitting authority.

Thank you for scheduling a hearing on H.R. 3189 and for

your leadership on this issue. It means a great deal to Aspen

Skiing Company and other Colorado ski resorts operating on

federal lands.

Best Regards,

David Perry,

Senior Vice President.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it is with some dismay that I have to address some of the comments that have been made by my good friend and colleague from Colorado.

Unfortunately, through their own words, they are willing to throw farmers and ranchers--hardworking Americans--under the bus, for an ideological cause, something that we simply cannot accept in the West. In the Western United States, water is the lifeblood of our communities. H.R. 3189 codifies that existing right.

The water grab that is taking place is not by this legislation but by the

very Federal Government that our opponents seem to want to be able to protect and put in a position of authority over State rights and the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

As a sponsor of this bipartisan legislation, I support the rule on H.R. 3189, and I encourage an open debate because I believe the merits of this bill will truly speak for themselves.

Federal attempts to be able to manipulate Federal permit, lease, and land management processes to circumvent long-established State water law and hijack privately held water rights have sounded the alarm bell for all non-Federal water users that rely on these water rights for their livelihood.

The most recent case of the Federal Government's overreach and infringement on private property rights involves a U.S. Forest Service attempt to require the transfer of privately held water rights to the Federal Government as a permit condition on National Forest System lands. There is no just compensation for the transfer of these privately held rights, despite the facts that many stakeholders have invested millions of their own capital in developing them and, in many cases, rely on them for their livelihoods.

This Forest Service permit condition has hurt a number of stakeholders in my home State of Colorado, including the Powderhorn ski area near Grand Junction. The Aspen ski area in my district, which he cited, supports this legislation.

Despite having been excellent stewards of the environment and their water rights, the Forest Service has demanded the relinquishment of State-granted water rights from these ski areas in order to continue their operations.

The same tactics have been used in Utah, Nevada, and other Western States where agencies have required the surrender of possession of water rights in exchange for approving the conditional use of grazing allotments.

This water grab has broad implications that have begun to extend beyond the recreation and farming and ranching community, and are now threatening municipalities and other businesses.

As a result of efforts that began in 2011 and encompass testimony from several hearings by the Natural Resources Committee, conversations with numerous stakeholders across Colorado and the West, and close collaboration with my friends on the committee, I introduced this bipartisan Water Rights Protection Act.

This legislation provides critical protection for water rights holders from Federal takings by ensuring that Federal agencies cannot extort private property rights through uneven-handed negotiations. The Water Rights Protection Act offers a sensible approach that preserves water rights and the ability to develop water requisite to living in the arid West without interfering with water allocations for non- Federal parties or allocations that protect the environment that is cherished by all Westerners.

To this end, the bill prohibits Federal agencies from pilfering water rights through the use of permits, lease, and other land management arrangements for which it would otherwise have to pay just compensation under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. The bill also prohibits Federal land management agencies from forcing water users to apply for or acquire water rights from the United States rather than for the water users themselves.

Finally, this commonsense legislation provides certainty by upholding longstanding Federal deference to State water law in which countless water users rely.

As the American Farm Bureau states in their letter of support:

H.R. 3189 grants no new rights to any party, nor does it in

any way infringe on existing rights of individuals, States,

or the Federal Government. This legislation simply reaffirms

what has been existing law for generations in the West.

I am proud that this important piece of legislation that is supported by a broad coalition of stakeholders is now present. Water is our most precious resource in the West, and long-held private property rights to it must be protected from uncompensated Federal takings.

I urge adoption of the rule.

Madam Chair, after listening to our Democrat colleague's statement, probably the best thing that we can do to be able to allay their fears is for them to read the bill. It actually protects private property rights, and let me fill in the balance of the story from the letter that you just cited:

The ski areas are saying that they strongly support the passage of the bipartisan Water Rights Act, H.R. 3189.

I would like to submit for the Record letters from over 40 different organizations--farmers, ranchers, ski areas, municipalities--that are supporting this legislation to be able to protect private property rights in the United States.

Madam Chair, the fear in Washington is palpable. Yesterday, we heard from the White House of the threat of a veto, a veto against a piece of legislation which is just codifying what is protected in the Constitution--private property rights in this country. There is going to be a headline in tomorrow's paper. With the affirmative passage of this legislation, it will read that the House of Representatives stood with the American people--stood with private property rights--to stop a job-killing Federal water grab. That is what this legislation is about.

A very clear choice exists today. You can choose to stand with farmers, with ranchers, with municipalities, with our ski areas to be able to protect the Constitution regarding the Fifth Amendment for just compensation, or you can embrace the heavy hand of government and support a job-killing Federal water grab. That is the clear choice that we face today.

This bill is narrow in scope. In fact, the manager's amendment that I will be putting forward is actually going to make sure that many of the concerns that we have just heard expressed are reasserted in that legislation to be able to protect the Endangered Species Act, to make sure that authorities are not currently under law or exceeded, and to make sure that our tribes are actually protected from the heavy hand of government being used as a tool for another Federal water grab.

This is a commonsense piece of legislation--legislation that is designed to stand for the very principle that we have in this country of private property rights.

Protect the water of the West. Protect that private property right. This is simple, 2-page legislation.

Madam Chair, this is legislation which serves the interests of this country, serves the interests of the West, and I ask for its adoption.

Colorado Cattlemen's

Association

Arvada, CO, March 12, 2014.

Hon. John Boehner,

Speaker, Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi: The

Colorado Cattlemen's Association (CCA) and Colorado Public

Lands Council strongly support the Water Rights Protection

Act (WRPA), (H.R. 3189). The CCA and PLC represent Colorado's

public and private lands ranching industries through a

grassroots network of affiliates and individual members. Many

of our members hold private water rights on federal lands,

which serve as an integral part of their operations; thus,

these water rights keep our members in business and rural

communities thriving. However, landowners face an

unprecedented threat to the future of their water rights on

lands managed by the USFS and potentially other federal

agencies.

H.R. 3189, introduced by Congressmen Scott Tipton (R-

Colo.), Mark Amodei (R-Nev.), Rob Bishop (R-Utah), Tom

McClintock (R-Calif.), and Jared Polis (D-Colo.) disallows

the USFS and the Bureau of Land Management from seizing water

rights without just compensation. An issue that arose in a

USFS directive applicable to ski areas was seen by industry

as an issue that could threaten all water users, including

ranchers, as they depend on water rights on public land (and

private) to keep their businesses viable. It is important

that H.R. 3189 pass without limitation to specific

industries--ensuring ranchers have access to the water rights

they own, maintain and have developed.

We support an amendment by Representative Tipton that would

make revisions to the legislation which would clarify the

intent of the bill. We also understand that several

additional amendments have been submitted that would too

narrowly focus the legislation so as to not protect livestock

producers, and one amendment in particular that would cause

the legislation to become applicable only to ski operations.

CCA and PLC strongly oppose any amendment with exclusive

language that will jeopardize the efficacy of the bill for

our constituency, ranchers. Our members face the same threats

as ski companies do--perhaps, with more at stake, as they are

individuals and families depending on these water rights for

their livelihood. It is important to include all industries

that may be impacted in the legislation, to keep our rural

communities thriving. Rep. Tipton's bill accomplishes the

purpose of protecting all water right holders, including

ranchers.

There is no justification to include an amendment that will

only protect one type of water use, and we strongly urge all

members of the House to vote against any such amendment.

We thank you for your attention to this crucial issue, and

for supporting America's ranchers as they continue to be an

essential part of rural communities and stewards of our

public lands.

Sincerely,

Gene Manuello,

President,

Colorado Cattlemen's Association.

Tim Canterbury,

Chair,

Colorado Public Lands Council.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I offer this amendment to further strengthen and improve this bipartisan bill. As we heard during general debate, the bill has one goal: to eliminate Federal extortion of private property.

The Federal Government cannot and should not take and seize what it does not own without compensation, but that has been happening, and the threat continues to exist for a host of individuals and businesses who responsibly use our public lands for multiple purposes.

This bill ends this Federal property rights grab; however, we just heard a litany of charges that the bill impacts other Federal actions. Nothing could be further from the truth. The bill already has a savings clause ensuring that any existing Federal authorities are not impacted. Importantly, the Federal Government does not have the authority to take private property rights without just compensation; but, to further clarify, my amendment reiterates the specific actions into the bill-- the protection of existing Federal water contracts.

The Colorado River Water District, the Family Farm Alliance, the National Water Resources Association, all organizations whose members have contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation, already support this bill, and that should have been enough. Yet we heard rhetoric from the other side today that water contracts are in danger despite the ardent support of water organizations.

This amendment specifically reiterates this protection, ensuring implementation of the Endangered Species Act and any flows needed for the species, the protection of reserved water rights for national parks and other Federal lands, and continuing the hydropower relicensing process for non-Federal dams. These additions to the bill are a simple reiteration of protections already built into the bipartisan bill.

Yet, in a good-faith effort to dispel any myths, I offer these provisions to ensure, once and for all, that the only thing the bill does is protect private water rights owners from being extorted by the Federal Government through underhanded administrative means.

I certainly yield to the chairman.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I suppose I can bring some good news. It is not a 5-page bill, but actually a 3-page bill that we have actually put forward.

What I think we are really frustrated about is that we often hear from our colleagues that they want to be able to have bipartisanship. They are concerned about endangered species. While it is already protected in the bill, we add a further savings clause to be able to protect it.

They are concerned about the Federal Government being able to continue operations under legal authority--already protected in the original bill. We put in an additional savings clause to be able to address that.

We are concerned even more than they are, apparently, about standing up for Native American tribes in some proposed amendments that we are going to be putting forward to protect them from using Native tribes as a tool to extort water for the Federal Government.

This is a commonsense, sensible piece of legislation. Our colleagues want to say that it is expanded. Actually, I have the original bill in my hand. They say it is simply about ski resorts. We have common ground. I, too, want to be able to protect ski resorts, but I am not willing to sacrifice, on the altar of the Federal Government, our farm and ranch communities in addition to our municipalities.

Looking at the original bill, it doesn't mention ski areas once, yet an author of an amendment today said it has become more broad. Show me how.

This is a good piece of legislation. The manager's amendment addresses their very concerns.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, how much time remains?

Madam Chair, for the point of clarity, to ease the concerns of my colleague from Colorado, the National Ski Areas Association endorses this bill today. That has not changed. Also, to alleviate the concerns that you just demonstrated, no existing authorities will be impacted under this legislation. No existing authorities will be impacted. No bypass flows will be impacted.

Effectively, what this bill is doing, Madam Chair, is we are codifying existing practice, which I think we all agree is a desirable thing to have continue.

This is about political theater. The job-killing part of what is happening right now is being conducted by the Federal Government. They are killing jobs with a Federal Government water grab.

Either you stand with the farmers, the ranchers, and long-held practices of the West or you don't. If you don't, I do, and that is what this bill continues to support.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, again, I will refer my colleagues to the text of the bill. No Federal water rights that they currently have are going to be impaired. That includes national parks.

We continue to hear about the upcoming Polis amendment. The original bill that Mr. Polis and I introduced never specifically mentioned just ski areas. It talks about any permit. So if you care about farmers, if you care about ranchers, if you care about municipalities, and if you care about ski areas, which we all share, let's protect those private property rights from Federal extortion.

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

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We continue to hear letters of support, ironically, out of my colleague from Colorado's home district. Eagle River Water and Sanitation District supports this legislation as we put it forward.

Colorado River Water Conservation District, Colorado Water Congress, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and Family Farm Alliance support this bill.

When we look at the original incorporating legislation that my colleague and I introduced, it doesn't fit the narrow scope that they now want to talk about; so we do have to ask that question: Why are they so willing to be going to disregard farmers, ranchers, municipalities? Aren't they worthy of concern? I believe that they actually are.

We actually just received an email that came from the National Ski Association, which is dated March 12, supporting the bill with the Tipton manager's amendment. We are addressing their specific concern, but we aren't stopping there.

We think that that right to private property is inviolable, something that must be protected. If our friends want to say that farmers and ranchers and communities aren't worth protecting, we say they are.

That is what this legislation will do. We have worked with the minority. We have got a bipartisan piece of legislation that is standing up for those private property rights and to be able to assure that that constitutional right to receive just compensation that it is taking is actually preserved.

Madam Chair, I urge rejection of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the two outstanding athletes from Colorado's 3rd district who are competing in the 2014 Winter Paralympic Games in Sochi, Russia. With their dedication, passion, and spirit, these two women are fine examples of the best our nation has to offer, and they serve as role models for young people around the world. To formally acknowledge their distinction and excellence, I stand to recognize these athletes from Colorado's 3rd district:

Melanie Schwartz of Aspen, Colorado, will represent the United States in Alpine Skiing. Ms. Schwartz began her Paralympic career in her home country of Canada during the 2010 Vancouver games. In 2012 and 2013, Ms. Schwartz chose to represent the United States in two World Cups, placing first in the slalom event in 2013. Earlier this year, she took second place at the 2014 U.S. National Championships for downhill. When she isn't representing us on the mountain, she spends much of her time giving back to her community through volunteer services, including serving as a ski instructor for children with disabilities.

Heidi Jo Duce of Ouray, Colorado, will take to the slopes to compete in the challenging snowboard cross events. Ms. Duce has rapidly become a champion athlete since she won the U.S. National Championships in 2013, her first year of competing professionally. She is currently ranked second in the world for para-snowboard cross. An avid outdoorswoman, she enjoys all that Colorado has to offer, including rock climbing, mountain biking, backpacking, and hunting.

Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honor to recognize these fine athletes. Together, they show us what determination and passion can accomplish. Ms. Schwartz and Ms. Duce continue to inspire all of us and it is an honor to congratulate them on their extraordinary careers as they represent the best of America to the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Steven R. Swanson, a United States Astronaut who will launch on his third trip to the International Space Station (ISS) on March 25 from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. Dr. Swanson will spend six months on the station, serving three months as the ISS Commander.

I'm proud to say that Dr. Swanson lives in Colorado's 3rd Congressional District, in Steamboat Springs, with his wife, Mary and their three children. Dr. Swanson attended the University of Colorado, where he received a degree in Engineering Physics. He has also received both Masters and Doctorate degrees in Computer Science.

Since joining NASA in 1998, Dr. Swanson has led a remarkable career, earning the NASA Exceptional Achievement Medal, the Johnson Space Center Certificate of Accommodation, and the Flight Engineering Award. He travelled on the space shuttle to help assemble the ISS in June of 2007 and again in March of 2009. It is fitting that he now becomes the station's commanding officer.

Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honor to recognize such a distinguished ambassador of the sciences. I rise today to thank him for his continued service in the name of exploration and congratulate him on his truly remarkable career.

Mr. Speaker, last week, the nonpartisan Office of the Chief Actuary for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reported that as many as 11 million small business employees throughout the United States may see their health premiums rise after full implementation of ObamaCare.

That means approximately 14 percent of the men and women who are participating in the U.S. workforce will have less take-home pay and higher costs for services that they are forced to buy.

Just last week, I met with small businesses in Grand Junction, Colorado, and discussed this very issue. They told me about how they already provide affordable, quality health care plans for their employees. However, like many small businesses, they are concerned and confused about what the future holds for them under the President's health care law.

We can provide certainty to businesses, families, and every American looking to have affordable and accessible health care, but the President's health care law isn't the answer. Almost every week, there are new reports of increased costs and decreased access to care.

Why don't we put people first, rather than putting government first? That is why I support replacement legislation, such as H.R. 2300, making it market-based, affordable, and lower cost for our people.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Graves and Chairman Goodlatte for all of their work.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment to title III, the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, which will ensure that a requirement under current law, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or RFA, remains intact.

As the 1970s came to a close, Congress took note of the challenges that small businesses were facing. They were struggling to run their businesses while complying with an increasing number of complicated regulations. This led to the passage of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, which was designed to improve agency rulemaking. Under statute, the Federal Government agencies looking to regulate the private sector must evaluate the costs of doing so on small businesses, and where the costs are found to be significant, seek less burdensome alternatives to their proposed actions.

A key piece of the RFA is section 610, the ``look-back'' provision, which requires agencies to periodically evaluate the necessity of every existing regulation that has ``significant'' economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses and determine whether those regulations should be amended or rescinded to minimize burdens on small businesses. As a part of the section 610 review process, agencies must annually publish the list of regulations they plan to review in the Federal Register. This amendment makes a technical correction to the text of title III to ensure this current annual publication requirement remains in place. It is an entirely appropriate exercise for the agencies to review old regulations and weed out ones that are outdated, ineffective, or overly burdensome.

Ten years is a lifetime in terms of our private sector's ability to radically transform marketplaces. Reviewing the actual impacts of existing regulations every 10 years just makes sense. Understanding real-world consequences of a regulation on small businesses and taking into account changes in other areas of Federal, State, or local law that may affect the necessity of the regulations are just a few of the reasons that make these reviews absolutely essential.

The regulatory burden for small businesses has not lightened since the passage of RFA. In fact, agencies have been so busy issuing new regulations that they have sometimes failed to comply with already existing requirements to annually publish their list of regulations to be reviewed and then to review them. This simply isn't acceptable.

This amendment will relieve Federal agencies of any ambiguity as to whether or not this annual publication requirement still exists and ensure that small businesses can continue to make their voices heard after a regulation has become implemented.

I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for his support of this amendment. It speaks to a very important point. We have got to make sure that the agencies are actually doing what the law is requiring. This clarification simply achieves that.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the athletes from my home district in Colorado that are competing in the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia. With their dedication, passion, and spirit, these 15 men and women are a fine example of the best of our nation, and they serve as a model for young people around the world. To formally acknowledge their distinction and excellence, I stand to recognize these athletes from Colorado's 3rd district:

Competing in Skiing: Aaron Blunck, Bobby Brown, David Chodounsky, Lyman Currier, Simi Hamilton, Keri Herman, Gus Kenworthy, Heidi Kloser, and Torin Yater;

Competing in Snowboarding: Arielle Gold, Taylor Gold, and Justin Reiter;

Competing in Nordic Combined: Todd Lodwick and Bryan Fletcher;

And competing in the Biathlon: Lanny Barnes.

I am especially proud and honored to have watched one of these fine Coloradans carry the U.S. flag high in the Opening Ceremony of the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics. Todd Lodwick, competing in the Nordic Combined, has inspired athletes from around the U.S. since he began his Olympic career in Lillehammer in 1994. I could not think of a more deserving U.S. athlete to display our flag on this world stage. While I stand to specifically honor the athletes of our Olympic delegation who hail from my home district, I would like to thank every member of Team USA for their continued contribution to their sports and communities.

Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honor to recognize each of these fine athletes. I rise today to thank them for inspiring so many people and congratulate each of them on their truly amazing careers representing the best of America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Suzanne Benton, Rio Grande's County Administrator and the 2013 recipient of the Colorado County Administrator of the Year Award.

Throughout her distinguished 35-year career as the Rio Grande County Administrator, Mrs. Benton has proved to be a valuable asset and member of her community. In addition to her role as County Administrator, Mrs. Benton has served her community in many ways. She has served on the Del Norte Bank board, assisted with multiple community projects, served the local museum as an interim curator, served on the County Health Pool Board in an interim role, and spent nine years on the Colorado County Technical Services, Inc.'s County Worker Compensation Board.

In addition to her community involvement, Mrs. Benton oversees the county's budget. For many years as the county's finance director, she has managed the budget well despite the numerous challenges that come with declining revenue and increased demand. Without a doubt, her hard work has made the Rio Grande area better community, and she is greatly appreciated.

Each year, the Association of Colorado County Commissioners receives applications from the 64 Counties throughout Colorado to vote on the County Administrator who has shown leadership in their county and community. Mrs. Benton's dedication, hard work and commitment to her community has earned the respect of her peers and makes her a worthy candidate to be named Colorado County Administrator of the Year.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to recognize Suzanne Benton. She is an exceptional, hardworking County Administrator whose work has made Rio Grande County a great community, and I thank her for her continued public service.

Mr. Speaker, the proposed Endangered Species Act for the Gunnison Sage-Grouse and the Greater Sage-Grouse will impact millions of acres in Colorado and hinder existing conservation efforts. It will put private lands off-limits to most use and development, including agricultural production, without providing any compensation. It will kill jobs, devastate communities, and disrupt effective species preservation efforts currently under way. It won't, however, more effectively preserve the grass.

In my district, plans at the local level are under way to effectively preserve the species. Because they take into account the unique geography and environment of the region, these efforts are seeing success.

Interior Department bureaucrats have yet to provide measurable species preservation goals so that State and local officials can meet them. Local conservation efforts are all too often disrupted by Federal attempts to implement blanket plans. One-size-fits-all plans create endless litigation that ties up resources that could be used for preservation.

If the true goal is species preservation, then I hope Secretary Jewell will come to Colorado and see firsthand the effective work being done to preserve the sage grouse and provide measurable species preservation laws.