[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 93 (Tuesday, June 19, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H3755-H3787]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  CONSERVATION AND ECONOMIC GROWTH ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill H.R. 2578.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 688 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2578.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1415


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2578) to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act related to a 
segment of the Lower Merced River in California, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Bass of New Hampshire in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) each will control 45 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Conservation and Economic Growth Act is aimed 
squarely at cutting government red tape and bureaucracy to boost local 
economic development and job creation. This legislation contains 14 
commonsense bills from the House Natural Resources Committee, nearly 
all of which have received bipartisan support.
  By solving problems and reducing red tape, this legislation will have 
a real impact on the people it affects. Among its many economic and job 
creation benefits, the bill will encourage tourism and recreation by 
ensuring public access to public lands. It will promote responsible use 
of our resources. It will protect the environment. It will secure 
Federal lands along our borders. And it promotes clean and renewable 
hydropower.
  Month after month, Mr. Chairman, Republicans in Congress have been 
focused on encouraging and supporting new job creation. The House has 
passed over 30 job creation bills that sit in the Senate, where 
Democrat leaders have refused to take any action.
  By reducing red tape, promoting American-made energy, and 
streamlining bureaucracy, we can start creating jobs for tens of 
millions of Americans who are looking for work. The Conservation and 
Economic Growth Act fits into this same job creation mold.
  When it comes to the Environmental Protection Agency, the American 
public is well aware of the ability of this Federal agency to slow our 
economy with debilitating regulations. And when it comes to our Federal 
lands, which are predominated located in the Western part of the United 
States, there is plenty of bureaucracy and red tape to go around.
  In that regard, there are four primary Federal land management 
agencies: the Bureau of Land Management; the Forest Service; the Fish & 
Wildlife Service; and the National Park Service. Combined, they manage 
over 600 million acres of Federal land and have over 60,000 Federal 
employees. Many of these Federal employees do important, helpful work. 
But there are many times when their actions or outdated Federal laws 
have a tremendous negative impact on their surrounding communities. But 
these Federal policies, restrictions, lawsuits, and the bureaucratic 
decisions can harm local economies and the public's ability to access 
public lands for the multiple uses for which these public lands were 
intended.
  It doesn't have to take Federal spending or taxpayer money to solve 
these problems. It simply takes Congress making commonsense changes in 
laws and regulations to restore reasonableness, transparency, 
accountability, and, yes, Mr. Chairman, sometimes sanity to the actions 
of the Federal Government.
  That is the purpose of this underlying legislation: to fix local and 
national problems caused by Federal red tape and policies that are 
harming the public and our economy throughout America. We will hear 
more specific information from the sponsors of these solutions during 
the debate this afternoon.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation also reflects the promises of House 
Republicans when they were elected as a new

[[Page H3756]]

majority in 2010. The Conservation and Economic Growth Act is an 
efficient way to uphold Republicans' commitment to an open and 
transparent House.
  The text of the act has been online since last Tuesday and available 
for Members and the public to read now for a week. Each and every one 
of the 14 bills that is in this package has had a public hearing, has 
been open to amendment in the committee, has been voted on in the 
committee, and amendments will be debated and voted on here today by 
the full House.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, this stands in stark contrast to the previous way 
of doing business, when we had monster omnibus bills that were forced 
through the House without any chance of amendment. In fact, one can 
compare this small 14-bill package that has undergone full public and 
legislative review with the 2009 monster omnibus lands bill enacted 
into law when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. The 
2009 omnibus bill was over 1,200 pages in length, it cost $10 billion, 
and it contained over 170 bills, including 75 that had never been 
considered in the House.

                              {time}  1420

  Yet through all of this process, not one single amendment was allowed 
to be offered, and even the minority--the Republicans at that time--
were denied an opportunity with the motion to recommit.
  Well, those days of the monster omnibus are over. No longer will 
controversial bills that haven't seen the light of day be hidden deep 
inside a thousand-page bill. Since the start of this Congress, we 
reviewed bills one by one in the Natural Resources Committee. Each has 
had a public subcommittee hearing; and once the committee acts, the 
full House considers them in a transparent manner.
  This bill, the underlying legislation we're dealing with, lives up to 
this standard. It is an antidote to the abusive processes of the past. 
It is a bite-sized package that can be easily read and today is getting 
a thorough debate on the House floor.
  So now the House can act to approve this bill to roll back red tape, 
to restore some commonsense to solve problems, and to boost economic 
activity. This bill deserves bipartisan support, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote for its passage.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the House, I rise in opposition 
to H.R. 2578.
  Now, some of you may recall the old Rod Serling television show, 
``The Twilight Zone.'' At the beginning of each episode, Serling would 
explain that viewers were ``about to enter another dimension--a 
dimension not only of sight and sound, but of mind, a journey into a 
wondrous land of imagination. Next stop, the Twilight Zone.''
  Well, that is very much where we are this week on the House floor. We 
are truly entering another dimension--a wondrous land of paranoid 
imagination. Republicans call it the ``Operational Control Zone,'' but 
it is really the ``Drone Zone.''
  Submitted for your consideration are the following facts:
  This week, world leaders are gathering in Rio to deal with the threat 
of global warming. Meanwhile, the majority has us gathered here to 
address the threat sea lions pose to salmon. Right now, firefighters 
are working day and night to try to contain wildfires in forests in 
Colorado and New Mexico, and the majority has us working here to give 
away old-growth Alaskan forest.
  We have just 2 weeks before the transportation authorization bill 
expires and student loan rates double. And what are we doing? We are 
spending an entire day on a piece of legislation that has zero chance 
of being enacted into law. It is a package of bad ideas that are 
largely irrelevant to the real issues facing our Nation.
  Title I of this bill would flood part of a Wild and Scenic River. 
Title III is an earmark to an Alaskan Native corporation that will 
facilitate clear-cutting in the Tongass National Forest. Titles IV and 
V appear to create new parks, but include harmful provisions that would 
cripple the management of these parks. Title VII would authorize the 
death penalty for sea lions whose only crime is eating fish. Title X 
would overturn the protections for endangered turtles from being run 
over by off-road vehicles. Title XI would extend the practice of below-
cost grazing on public lands--a bargain-basement discount for cattlemen 
all across this country not paying their fair share. Actually, being a 
type of Federal welfare for cattlemen. And unbelievably, title XIV 
would create a 100-mile ``drone zone'' along our northern and southern 
borders within which the Border Patrol could suspend 36 environmental 
laws and seize control of all public land management.
  Let me spend a moment here talking about what I find to be the most 
offensive part of this legislation: title XIV. This is the national 
map. What the Republicans do here today is they take a 100-mile area 
all along the northern border of the United States and the southern 
border of the United States and they create a new area. And this new 
area is really a drone zone. The reason that it's a drone zone is that 
it allows for 36 health and safety and environmental laws to be 
overridden, and it would expand the area where the Department of 
Homeland Security could use drones for surveillance. It allows the 
Department of Homeland Security to shut down national parks at a 
moment's notice. So all of a sudden the Department of Homeland Security 
can start using drones in this area.
  Now, when you add up all of the space that is now included, it is 
equal to the total area of California, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, 
and Connecticut combined, which will now be in this new special area 
that has the Department of Homeland Security determining where drones 
can be used. And as we know, that won't be just for ensuring 
environmental laws not being violated. They'll be over this whole area.
  Now, if you take a look at this map, I understand why the gentleman 
from Utah introduced this bill. Utah is far away from the Republican 
drone zone. They're not within the hundred miles of the border of the 
Mexican or Canadian people. But what if you live in Maine? Nearly your 
entire State is in this drone zone. Want to go to Acadia National Park? 
Better check with the Department of Homeland Security and the 
Republicans first. Or Minnesota: maybe you want to take a trip up to 
the Boundary Waters. Better check with the Department of Homeland 
Security and the Republicans first. Or Olympia National Park in 
Washington State: better check with the Department of Homeland Security 
or the Republicans first.
  Want clean air in the drone zone? Better make sure the Department of 
Homeland Security and the Republicans haven't exempted the Clean Air 
Act. Want to drink some water after a long hike? Better make sure the 
Department of Homeland Security and the Republicans haven't waived the 
Safe Drinking Water Act.
  Make no mistake, this isn't a bill that actually addresses America's 
immigration issues. Neither the Department of Homeland Security nor its 
Customs and Border Protection division support this bill. They don't 
want this authority, but the Republicans are insisting on giving them 
this authority--100 miles along the Mexican and Canadian borders.
  The GOP's drone zone bill does not increase resources for border 
agents, but instead turns over our natural resources to the Department 
of Homeland Security. Passing this bill does not increase the number of 
Border Patrol agent boots on the ground. It just ignores the 
protections against trampling on sovereign and sacred ground like 
tribal grave sites. It does not look for a path toward citizenship. It 
tells families on vacation or a picnic that the Department of Homeland 
Security can kick you off a path at any moment.
  Under this bill, ranchers and their cattle can be herded away by 
border agents, jeopardizing their entire ranching operation. Families 
and visitors to public parks can have their trips canceled. And the 
water, the air, and the land will be left unprotected.
  Instead of working to pass a DREAM Act to help solve the immigration 
challenge, House Republicans instead want to create a nightmare 
scenario at our borders. That's why more than 50 Hispanic and Latino 
groups have joined with environmental organizations,

[[Page H3757]]

tribal groups, and organizations representing sportsmen and hunters to 
oppose the Republican drone zone bill. Fifty Hispanic and Latino groups 
opposing this bill.
  We might be spending 4 hours here today on the House floor in a 
legislative twilight zone created by the majority considering a bill 
that isn't grounded in reality. But as we do, let us not forget that 
there are millions of Americans outside of this alternative reality who 
are trying to make ends meet, trying to keep their families together 
and safe, and hoping to maintain the environmental protections which 
make our country great.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham), the primary 
sponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. DENHAM. First, let me thank the chairman for not only allowing 
all of these bills to come up, but doing it in a very transparent 
fashion, allowing debate from both sides of the aisle and amendments 
from both sides of the aisle. This truly has been a transparent debate, 
giving the American public a chance to see exactly what we are doing 
here.
  But let me talk about this unimaginable place that some of the 
extremists like to talk about. The unimaginable place I'm talking about 
is California's Central Valley, where you have twice the national 
average of unemployment, where some areas of the district are 30 to 40 
percent unemployment. That's truly un-American, when you have a 
solution for Republicans and Democrats to come together, and yet you 
have some extremists who are willing to ignore putting people back to 
work. It is an unimaginable place, but one that both parties should 
take note of it, one that the President should not only take note of, 
but the President should actually come out and visit. Now the President 
likes to come to L.A. and San Francisco quite frequently. He's been 
there over a dozen times, but yet not once when Republicans and 
Democrats have invited him to come to the Central Valley and see the 
devastation, see the unimaginable place that this high unemployment 
leaves our community in. That's why you've got both Republicans and 
Democrats coming together and supporting this bill in a bipartisan 
fashion.
  When the Merced Wild and Scenic River was designated, it encroached 
nearly half a mile into an Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
operational boundary for New Exchequer Dam. Aligning the Merced Wild 
and Scenic River boundary with the standing FERC project boundary will 
allow FERC to considered MID's proposal to raise their spillway gates 
by just 10 feet. We're talking about 70,000 acre feet of water that'll 
create 840 jobs. Now, this is not the 5 to 6 million acre feet that we 
need, but it's a small step. But if the extremists cannot even support 
this small step where you've got Valley Republicans and Democrats 
coming together, the question is, what really is this unimaginable, un-
American place that they talk about? We need thousands of jobs in the 
Central Valley. We need many more projects like this. We need Los 
Vaqueros, Exchequer. We need Temperance Flat. We need to raise Shasta 
in a fashion that Republicans and Democrats continue to agree on.
  While some say that this will set a precedent for undoing Wild and 
Scenic designations, this area being discussed naturally--naturally--
floods already, and it will impact less than 1 mile of the 122.5 miles 
of the Merced River. Again this is one small project. One desperately 
needed project, but one very small project in this unimaginable place.
  Title I of H.R. 2578 is commonsense legislation that will allow for 
desperately needed storage; again, up to 70,000 acre feet, which has 
the potential for generation of an additional 10,000 megawatt hours of 
clean, renewable electricity. Why wouldn't we want clean, renewable 
electricity? Hydro is not necessarily the clean energy they like to 
talk about.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. DENHAM. This will also create increased recreational activity in 
the area and agricultural benefits.
  Furthermore, if a Wild and Scenic River designation is made by 
congressional or administrative action, we should be able to adjust 
those boundaries, especially if it serves the greater good. Again, this 
is not the greater good that some like to talk about because they're 
not focused on American jobs. They're focused on a small set of 
criteria that they don't understand in our agricultural areas.
  To not adjust the boundary because it has never been done before is 
an inadequate justification. Again, this is a bipartisan bill that has 
support on both sides of the aisle from Members of the Central Valley, 
and one that was open for public debate, was open for amendments. And 
again, I'd like to thank the chairman for having such a transparent 
process. I encourage Member support of H.R. 2578.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Napolitano), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Water and Power.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member on the 
committee for allowing me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to H.R. 2578, the 
Republican lands package. Specifically, I do oppose title XIV, which is 
H.R. 1565 of H.R. 2578, the National Security and Federal Lands 
Protection Act.
  This legislation creates a 100-mile--as explained by Mr. Markey--from 
the north border and 100 miles from the south border inland. You might 
call it operational control, or if you want to call it drone zone, it 
still waives over 36 landmark laws to give Homeland Security complete 
operational control and immediate access to these lands.
  Some of these 36 laws that would be suspended in all or part of the 
18 States affected would include the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean 
Air Act, hazardous waste laws, tribal preservation law, Migratory Bird 
Treaty Act, and the National Park Service Organic Act. This legislation 
overreaches in waiving dozens of environmental laws disguised as a 
solution for immigration reform. Guess again.
  I was born and raised in the border town of Brownsville, Texas. My 
hometown is within this Operational Control Zone, or drone zone, if you 
want to call it that. I am currently the ranking member of the Water 
and Power Subcommittee, with jurisdiction over the Bureau of 
Reclamation, and several of the projects owned and operated by 
Reclamation are in this drone zone. There is concern about how the 
projects could be managed or mismanaged and its impact in this zone.
  Title XIV, which also includes Canada, would disrupt longstanding 
treaty agreements between the United States and Mexico, and again with 
Canada, on how we manage our water and power resources. And, of course, 
the drought planning for the Colorado River.
  The projects are part of the Colorado River basin system, like 
Reclamation's Yuma desalting plant, and are also in the drone zone. One 
thousand miles of canal and related water delivery infrastructure that 
provides for a $5 billion economy--$5 billion for the States of Arizona 
and California--would be compromised as they are in this drone zone.
  The proposed legislation will also impede Reclamation from meeting 
its mission requirements in water delivery obligations pursuant to the 
1944 treaty between the U.S. and Mexico on the use of the Colorado and 
Tijuana rivers, and the Rio Grande. Title XIV also impacts the United 
States' ability to negotiate with Canada regarding the Columbia River. 
In fact, several projects of the Federal Columbia River power system in 
Washington State and Montana are in this operating zone. Water has no 
international boundary. This is a blatant attack on the environment, on 
the lives of American citizens, and it threatens their health and 
safety.
  We strongly believe that compliance with laws and regulations is key 
to ensuring the rights of borderland landowners so rural communities 
are protected. Ensuring the security of America's borders is an 
important goal. This bill will not enhance our Nation's border security 
and will do great harm to our borders and our environment.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 2578. I have a list of 54 
organizations in opposition, and I would like

[[Page H3758]]

just a moment to read some of them--my colleague has already mentioned 
the Latino organization:
  Alaska Wilderness League; American Civil Liberties Union; 
BorderLinks; California Coastal Commission; Center for Biological 
Diversity; Citizens for a Safe and Secure Border; Citizens for Border 
Solution; Coastal States Organization; Cochise County Chapter 
Progressive Democrats of America; Defenders of Wildlife; Earthjustice; 
Equality Alliance of San Diego County; Escondido Human Rights 
Committee; Green Valley Samaritans; Klamath Forest Alliance; Labor 
Council for Latin American Advancement; League of Conservation Voters; 
Hispanic National Bar Association; National Estuarine Research Reserve 
Association; National Parks Conservation Association; National 
Resources Defense Council; No More Deaths Tucson; Northern Alaska 
Environmental Center; San Diego Foundation for Change; Southern Border 
Communities Coalition; and the list goes on.

 Environmental and Latino Organizations Opposing Title XIV, H.R. 1505, 
         the National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act

       1. Alaska Wilderness League
       2. American Civil Liberties Union
       3. BorderLinks
       4. California Coastal Commission
       5. Center for Biological Diversity
       6. Citizens for a Safe and Secure Border
       7. Citizens for Border Solutions
       8. Coastal States Organization
       9. Cochise County Chapter Progressive Democrats of America
       10. Defenders of Wildlife
       11. Earthjustice
       12. Equality Alliance of San Diego County
       13. Escondido Human Rights Committee
       14. Green Valley Samaritans
       15. Hispanic Access Foundation
       16. Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities
       17. Hispanic Federation
       18. Hispanic National Bar Association
       19. Klamath Forest Alliance
       20. Labor Council for Latin American Advancement
       21. Latino and Latina Roundtable of the San Gabriel and 
     Pomona Valley
       22. League of Conservation Voters
       23. League of United Latin American Citizens
       24. National Association of Hispanic Federal Executives
       25. National Association of Hispanic Publications
       26. National Association of Latin American and Caribbean 
     Communities
       27. National Conference of Puerto Rican Women
       28. National Council of La Raza
       29. National Estuarine Research Reserve Association
       30. National Hispanic Association of Colleges and 
     Universities
       31. National Hispanic Coalition on Aging
       32. National Hispanic Environmental Council
       33. National Hispanic Medical Association
       34. National Institute for Latino Policy
       35. National Latino Coalition on Climate Change
       36. National Parks Conservation Association
       37. Natural Resources Defense Council
       38. No More Deaths--Tucson
       39. Northern Alaska Environmental Center
       40. San Diego Foundation for Change
       41. School Sisters of Notre Dame, Douglas, AZ
       42. Southern Border Communities Coalition
       43. Southern Border Communities Coalition, Arizona Chapter
       44. Southwest Voter Registration and Education Project
       45. St. Regis Mohawk Tribe
       46. Texas Border Coalition
       47. The Sierra Club
       48. The Wilderness Society
       49. Tucson Samaritans
       50. U.S. Hispanic Leadership Institute
       51. United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce
       52. Vet Voices
       53. Voces Verdes
       54. Western Environmental Law Center

                              {time}  1440

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, just to correct the record, 
there is nothing in this bill that affects the Bureau of Reclamation or 
the hydro-dams on the Columbia River in my district.
  I'm very pleased right now to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young), who is the author of title III of this bill.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
2578. I'm primarily interested in the Sealaska provision. It's very 
important to understand something: the Alaska Tongass National Forest 
is 17 million acres of land. We're asking for 77,000 acres of land to 
be transferred to the Sealaska Corporation that has already been cut.
  There is no old-growth timber involved in this. It gets Sealaska away 
from sensitive areas, including municipal watersheds, and onto areas 
already zoned for timber management on a road system. The exchange 
lands are near Native villages on Prince of Wales Island where 
unemployment is about 25 percent.
  This bill supports the Forest Service by making Sealaska timberlands 
more accessible to rural and mostly Native communities, where 
unemployment is above 25 percent. Sealaska's land base will then 
support a sustainable timber rotation in perpetuity.
  This bill affects approximately 77,000 acres in the 17 million-acre 
Tongass forest. It's already protected by designation, so it cannot be 
harvested.
  Sealaska and its contractors combined make up the largest for-profit 
sector employer in southeast Alaska, providing over 360 jobs. Including 
direct and indirect payroll, it's almost 500 jobs.
  This bill also finalizes Sealaska's Native land claim rights passed 
in 1971, and it does not entitle the Natives to an acre above what the 
1971 Native Claims Settlement this Congress passed that limits it to 
them.
  H.R. 2578 supports timber jobs while conserving environmentally 
sensitive lands in community watersheds. Failure to pass this bill may 
spell the end of Sealaska's timber program as early as 2012 and the 
loss of timber jobs in an Alaska private industry that's decreased 90 
percent since 1990 because of action of this Congress when they passed 
the Alaska National Lands Act and put most of the land off limits.
  Because the Forest Service is either unwilling or unable to offer an 
adequate timber supply in southeast Alaska, the remaining industry 
relies on Sealaska timber. The Alaska Forest Association testified:
  AFA strongly supports the passage of H.R. 2578 without delay. Passage 
of this bill is critical to the future of our remaining industry.
  Most importantly, the bill finalizes the land claim settlement for 
20,000 Alaska Native jobs in southeast Alaska.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to go to the ``Bull Dip'' awards, the Bull 
Dip awards for information put out on this legislation. We're talking 
about 77,000 acres that have already been cut. The Bull Dip award goes 
to those people who say there's transfer of over 50,000 miles of road. 
There may be 5,000 miles' worth, maybe 500 miles of road, but it's 
already roads that have been built on acreage that has already been 
harvested.
  The other area of the Bull Dip award is the fact that the road will 
not be accessible to public use. It will be used for public use. There 
are no restrictions, not any action that will be taken to prohibit 
anybody from choosing these lands or moving on these lands.
  All I'm asking today is give--an action of this Congress in 1971--the 
right to the Native people to land that's not old-growth timber.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. It's not old-growth timber. This is land that's 
already been cut over, but they want to use it like Silviculture, 
growing timber forever, not like the Forest Service now, keeping old 
timber not cut. This is the right thing to do.
  The idea that we would have people sending out propaganda--I know 
there's an outfit called Red States saying this is going to cost the 
Federal Government money and it's a giveaway. It's strange that that 
same operation doesn't like the Federal Government. I'm asking that 
this Federal land that's already been harvested over be given to the 
Alaska Native people, as they should have it. And they're trying to 
stay away from the old-growth timber. That's what they're trying to do. 
If I was doing it myself, I'd cut the old-growth timber; it's dying 
anyway. But nobody wants to do it; they don't recognize it.

  I sat on this floor and watched the Alaska National Lands Act under 
George Miller, my good friend, say: don't worry, we'll have a timber 
industry. We've lost 15,000 jobs in southeast

[[Page H3759]]

Alaska--high-paying jobs--because of the so-called ``environmental 
movement.'' That does not make sense. That does not make sense for 
America. This is a renewable resource that should be utilized 
correctly. Let's pass this legislation.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from 
the State of Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill, which 
would result in the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, our Nation's 
largest and wildest national forest, being opened to additional 
logging. At 17 million acres--roughly the size of West Virginia--the 
Tongass is the crown jewel of our forest system.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Will the gentlelady yield?
  Ms. DeLAURO. I would love to do that, dear colleague, but I can't. I 
need to be back in Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Seventeen million acres are set aside already.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut controls the time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. If the gentleman would just back off. Okay?
  At 17 million acres--roughly the size of West Virginia--the Tongass 
is the crown jewel of our forest system. Along with the Chugach 
National Forest in Alaska, it boasts the world's most intact temperate 
rainforest, with centuries-old trees providing critical habitat for 
wolves, grizzly bears, wild salmon, bald eagles and other wildlife. The 
Tongass is also a vital piece of the tourism industry in Alaska, 
allowing visitors from around the world to take in a true environmental 
spectacle.
  I have experienced the beauty of the Tongass firsthand when I got to 
travel through the forest on an old Navy minesweeper 10 years ago. It's 
hard to imagine why anyone would want to spoil such a perfect example 
of nature's magnificence, but the bill before us would do exactly that. 
It removes 100,000 acres of some of the most used and visited lands in 
southeast Alaska from public ownership and gives them to the Sealaska 
Corporation, who plans to clear-cut the vast majority of its land 
selections for timber. This is approximately 20,000 acres over 
Sealaska's legal entitlement under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 
of 1971.
  With 290,000 acres of land and an additional 560,000 acres of 
subsurface rights, Sealaska is already the largest private landholder 
in southeast Alaska. And after three decades of extensive and intensive 
logging, they have left a legacy of expansive clear-cuts of the lands 
they already own. If this bill passes, they will do the same to some of 
the most biologically and culturally valuable lands within the Tongass.
  Over the last 50 years, this national forest has already lost 550,000 
acres of old-growth trees and been marked by 5,000 miles of logging 
roads. This bill further threatens what is left of this national 
forest. It also endangers the economy of southeast Alaska by 
privatizing lands and waters that are used by guides and commercial 
fishermen, industries that employ over 17,000 men and women, 20 percent 
of the Alaskans in the region.
  The Forest Service currently manages these lands for multiple uses 
and has announced a transition plan to ensure a sustainable future for 
the Tongass. We should not deliver this national treasure--and one of 
Alaska's most substantial tourism draws--over solely to one private 
corporation for timber rights.
  I urge my colleagues to protect the Tongass for generations of 
Americans to come and to vote against this amendment.


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR. The Chair would remind Members to address their remarks to 
the Chair.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
3 minutes to the author of title XIV, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, the minority insists that we are 
creating some sort of drone zone in title XIV. Now, I understand the 
intent of that is to muddy the waters on what is otherwise a very clear 
issue. Can I tell you, I like that phrase, I'm going to use it in the 
future, but it is also as cute as it is totally inaccurate.
  Members should understand that this title specifically and 
intentionally deals with Federal lands on the northern and southern 
borders. It does not include private property. The use of the size 
characteristics are as cute as they are inaccurate.
  The legislation does not expand the current reach of the Border 
Patrol. The Border Patrol already has enforcement authority out to 100 
miles today. That's why the 100-mile figure is in there.
  The gentleman is also late in his authorization of drones. The use of 
drones is not authorized by this legislation. The fact is the Border 
Patrol already uses drones, regardless of what the Federal or the land 
designation happens to be. With passage of this title and this bill, 
the impact on drone use will be zero. Whether you support drones or are 
concerned with drones, this bill doesn't address it. Once again, it's 
cute as it is inaccurate.
  This legislation does not increase or create new enforcement 
authority. It does not limit constitutional rights. The only source of 
this bill, this title, is to allow the Border Patrol to have on Federal 
property the same rights they exercise on State and private property.

                              {time}  1450

  These lands will still be managed and administered by the Departments 
of Interior and Agriculture, but border security will no longer be a 
second to the whims of Federal land managers. It becomes the priority.
  The idea of rounding up cattle by the Border Patrol is as cute as it 
is inaccurate, but I am going to use it because it's cute.
  This bill specifically protects legal uses, including recreation, and 
specifically prohibits the Border Patrol from limiting public access.
  Now, some people have said on the other side they object to this 
operational control of these areas by the Border Patrol.
  What does ``operational control'' mean? It's in the title. It is to 
prevent all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries 
by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, 
narcotics and other contraband through the international land borders 
with the United States.
  You're actually opposed to that? You're opposed to doing that? You're 
opposed to actually allowing our Border Patrol to make sure that is the 
purpose and that is what is happening?
  This bill is about giving the Border Patrol access to Federal lands 
so they can do their Federal responsibility instead of being prohibited 
from fulfilling their Federal responsibility by certain Federal 
regulations. That's silly. That's wrong. It's cute, but it's also 
inaccurate.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman very much.
  This, as we have heard, is a package of bills dealing with lands, and 
it is as partisan as can be. I wish that we were working in a 
bipartisan way. We could have a real lands package that would go 
somewhere. We could have addressed preservation of open space. This is 
important all across the country.
  I often hear from my colleague from Utah and others that, well, 
people in New Jersey don't have a lot of Federal lands. Let me tell 
you, this is important for people in New Jersey and every one of the 
other 49 States and in the territories of the United States. My 
constituents, who live in the most densely populated State in the 
Union, have demonstrated again and again their support for open space 
preservation, for fighting sprawl, for providing for their kids and 
their kids' kids with safe places to experience the outdoors.
  This legislation does so many bad things I hardly know where to 
begin. It's another attempt to remove most of the protections of 
environmental laws. And as you've heard from the ranking member, Mr. 
Markey, it establishes an intrusive domestic security enforcement zone, 
a drone zone.
  Call it cute if you want, but as the ranking member said, if you're 
going to go to Big Bend or Acadia or any of the other national parks 
that fall in this, you'd better pay attention. It will do nothing to 
make us more secure.
  I could talk all day about the problems in this bill, but let me just 
focus on one. One reason that this bill is not going anywhere 
legislatively, because it is so extreme, is the controversial provision 
it contains on the brazen effort to give away part of the Tongass 
National Forest.

[[Page H3760]]

  The Tongass National Forest is known as a crown jewel of the National 
Forest System. Encompassing 17 million acres in southeast Alaska's 
panhandle, it's the last remaining intact temperate rainforest. It's 
the only remnant of the temperate rainforests that used to stretch from 
Northern California to Prince William Sound. Only half of the very 
large old-growth tree stands that used to cover the Tongass remain, and 
even the second growth land is spectacular. The other side was talking 
about how, well, some of this is not first-growth forest and, 
therefore, it's okay to give away to spoil. Now over a million people 
throughout the country--really, throughout the world--visit the Tongass 
National Forest annually to view the forest virtually unspoiled.
  The bill before us today transfers 100,000 acres of the best of the 
best lands in southeast Alaska to the Sealaska Corporation, including 
the fine salmon streams, the areas most visited, recreational sites and 
tourist sites, as well as subsistence sites. This bill gives public 
lands to a private company, which some might call an earmark. Well, 
whatever you call it, it's an unjustified giveaway.
  And since we're speaking of lands, I'd like to point out that I have 
introduced legislation to help preserve battlefields from the American 
Revolution and the War of 1812, legislation based on and including a 
very successful program to preserve civil war battlefields. This 
legislation, my bill, passed out of committee unanimously. Why was this 
not included in this bill? We could have been more bipartisan.
  My colleague, Mr. Markey, has gone through a long list and others 
have gone through a long list of the problems with this legislation. 
Suffice it to say, this is not about preserving lands for the long-term 
enjoyment and benefit of the American people.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), the author of 
title XIII of this legislation.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, today's a proud moment for Virginia and 
the entire Chesapeake Bay community as the House is poised to pass 
legislation to aid in the cleanup of one of the Nation's most prized 
historic natural resources, the Chesapeake Bay. This body of water 
provides habitat for plants and animals, and it is these resources that 
drive local economies, recreation, and a way of life for so many that 
live on and around its shores.
  I rise in support of H.R. 2578, especially title XIII, the Chesapeake 
Bay Accountability and Recovery Act. I'm proud to author this measure, 
which receives broad support throughout the watershed. In fact, during 
the 111th Congress, the House passed similar legislation by a vote of 
418 1.
  These provisions would implement and strengthen management techniques 
to ensure we get more bang for our buck and are more aggressive in 
pursuing progress in bay restoration efforts. This bill will also 
ensure coordination of how restoration dollars are spent and that 
everyone understands how individual projects fit in the bigger picture 
in eliminating duplication and waste.
  I urge my colleagues to support the health of the Chesapeake Bay, 
this provision, and H.R. 2578.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei), the author of 
title IX of this bill.
  Mr. AMODEI. Thank you to my colleague from the Evergreen State.
  Twilight zone, partisan as can be, package of bad ideas for the 
Nation. Interesting phrases when you look at title IX.
  Title IX is about 10,500 acres adjacent to the city of Yerington. 
This 10,500 acres is a known copper and iron ore deposit since about 
1975. On this 10,000 acres and in title IX, you are seeing nothing that 
waives anything of environmental significance, not NEPA, not the 
National Historic Preservation Act.
  The city's going to pay for the land. We're not giving it away. All 
the costs associated with transferring the land are to be borne, no 
cost to the government.
  The District and State Bureau of Land Management offices were silent 
in terms of this proposal. There are no mining issues, cleanup issues, 
surface water, groundwater, environmental, none of those issues, none 
at all, abandoned mine sites.
  And by the way, in this particular county, which is the leading 
county for unemployment in the State of Nevada, which I am sorry to 
inform you, we still lead the Nation in unemployment, this represents a 
transfer of less than 1 percent of Federal land in Lyon County.

                              {time}  1500

  So, when we talk about open space preservation, guess what? There is 
99 percent left. Don't think you've got that one either.
  Oh, by the way, there were some concerns about 90 days being too soon 
to transfer this, and there were some concerns about whether it was 
mandatory or not. Did you hear the part about 1975 known deposits? So 
you want to change the bill to ``if you feel like doing it, go ahead, 
and by the way, take as much time as you want''? No, thank you. No, 
thank you to ``if you feel like it, and take as much time as you 
want.''
  So, when you hear about bad ideas for the Nation, this is about the 
responsible, multiple use of public resources that gores no one's 
environmental ox.
  Oh, and here is another part that may be of significance: 800 jobs--
no cost to the Federal Government. This is a State where there are loan 
guarantees for renewable energy to the tune of $1.5 billion, and we've 
got 136 jobs to show for it. Eight hundred jobs--no cost to the 
government.
  When the Office of Management and Budget talks about ``they like to 
work through the community,'' I've got news for you: title IX is 
supported by everyone in the State of Nevada who has a voice as a 
shareholder in these. There hasn't been a single voice raised in 
opposition to this. By the way, they've been working on it for 4 years. 
So, if you think there's a problem with the appraisal process, did I 
mention it's going to be appraised for the value? There is nothing more 
transparent, nothing more responsible for land use that can be 800 
jobs--oh, oh, and the average pay is about $75,000-plus per job. Did I 
say ``no cost to the government''? I'll quit saying that.
  If you want to do something for the people of the State of Nevada, 
get behind this bill. I want to thank my Democratic colleagues who 
supported the bill in committee, and I look forward to their being 
advocates on the north side of the building.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I inquire as to the time available.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 23\1/2\ minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from Washington has 24\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the author of title V of this bill, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Flores).
  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2578. Title 
V of this bill incorporates my legislation, H.R. 1545, and would 
recognize and establish the Waco Mammoth Site as a national monument.
  In 1978, Waco residents Paul Barron and Eddie Bufkin were out looking 
for arrowheads and fossils along the Bosque River. During their 
journey, they happened to come across a large bone protruding from the 
Earth. Realizing the possible significance of this discovery, Mr. 
Barron and Mr. Bufkin immediately took the bone to the Strecker Museum 
at Baylor University for further analysis.
  Over a period of nearly 30 years following their discovery, crews of 
paleontological and archaeological experts, scientists, and volunteers 
slowly excavated this lost world, eventually unearthing more than two-
dozen mammoths and other artifacts. In 2006, the Waco Mammoth 
Foundation, a nonprofit organization of local citizens, helped make the 
site a public park. The city of Waco and Baylor University have been 
working together since to protect the site and to develop further 
research and educational opportunities at the site.

[[Page H3761]]

  This legislation will recognize the unique discovery of an extinct 
species while providing education and enjoyment for families and 
students visiting from all over the country and throughout the world 
while benefiting future generations for many years to come.
  A special resource study on the Waco Mammoth Site was conducted by 
the National Park Service and was completed in 2008. This study 
concluded that the site possesses national significant resources, is a 
suitable addition to the system, and would be a feasible addition to 
the system. The study cites an appropriateness to investigate a 
partnership arrangement between the city of Waco, Baylor University, 
and NPS. Given our current fiscal situation, the legislation included 
in this title has been drafted to provide the national recognition that 
the site deserves without its adding additional burdens to the Federal 
budget or to the backlog at NPS.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill, which will establish the 
Waco Mammoth National Monument and give this Central Texas treasure the 
national recognition it deserves, all at no cost to hardworking 
American taxpayers.

                                                     City of Waco,


                                          Office of the Mayor,

                                          Waco, TX, June 12, 2012.
     Re H.R. 1545.

     Congressman Bill Flores,
     Longworth HOB, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Flores: We respectfully request your 
     support on H.R. 1545 designating the Waco Mammoth Site as a 
     National Monument. A special Resource Study was completed on 
     the Waco Mammoth Site in July 2008 which clearly concluded 
     that the site meets all four criteria necessary to be added 
     to the National Park system. To date we have raised more than 
     $4.4 million locally to construct a climate controlled 
     protective structure for the in situ remains along with 
     associated infrastructure to allow for visitation by the 
     public. We also have formed the Waco Mammoth Foundation as 
     formal partnership between the City of Waco and Baylor 
     University along with an active friends group for fund 
     raising activities.
       There will be no cost to the Federal Government for the 
     transfer of this five acre site with its improvements from 
     the City of Waco to the National Park Services (NPS). Support 
     of the Waco Mammoth Site will not be a drain on federal 
     funding. It will provide national attention to a national 
     treasure. If the site receives national recognition, we would 
     desire a management and operations partnership be developed 
     with the NPS, the City, and Baylor. This anticipated 
     partnership would capitalize on the strengths of each of the 
     participating groups and ensure that the Waco Mammoth Site 
     would receive the same protections and operate under the same 
     guidance required of all other units of the NPS.
       Your favorable support on H. R. 1545 will be greatly 
     appreciated.
           Sincerely,
                                              Malcolm Duncan, Jr.,
                                                            Mayor.

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Labrador), who is the author of title XI of 
this bill.
  Mr. LABRADOR. I rise in support of title XI, the Grazing Improvement 
Act of 2012.
  Livestock grazing is an important part of the rich ranching tradition 
in America. One need look no further than at the iconic images of 
cowboys driving huge herds of cattle across open land to realize how 
big a part ranching has played in American history. Today, my home 
state of Idaho produces some of the world's finest-tasting lamb and 
beef, which makes its way to dinner tables across America and as far 
away as Korea. Food production is a major part of Idaho's history and 
is an integral part of our cultural fabric and our economic security. 
These traditions are under attack, and we must preserve them for future 
generations.
  Ranchers are proud stewards of the land. Their reputations and 
financial security depend on this basic fact. Yet, the process to 
review the very permits which allow them to produce food has become 
severely backlogged due to lawsuits aimed at eliminating livestock from 
public lands. The local Federal land managing office, staffed by fine 
men and women, cannot keep up with the pace of litigation and the 
endless environmental analysis. This diverts the already limited 
resources from these offices and leaves ranchers at risk of losing 
their grazing permits and of jeopardizing their livelihoods.
  Agriculture is a difficult way to make a living, but producers choose 
this path because it is their livelihood, their passion, and their way 
of life. When my constituent, Owyhee County rancher Brenda Richards, 
testified in March on behalf of H.R. 4234, she talked not just about 
the efficiencies the bill would bring to the overall system, providing 
cost savings to taxpayers, but she passionately expressed the unstable 
situation facing ranchers like her: 78 percent of Owyhee County is 
public land, making local ranchers and the county economy dependent on 
reliable, yet responsible, access to public land forage.
  According to Richards, ranchers not only face uncertainty each year 
about whether permits will be renewed, but they are also being 
threatened with new bureaucratic red tape when it comes to crossing and 
trailing their animals across public lands. Radical special interest 
litigants have driven the agencies to consider this low-impact activity 
a ``major agency action'' that requires full environmental analysis 
under NEPA.
  The Grazing Improvement Act of 2012 would accomplish three important 
goals. First, it extends livestock grazing permits from 10 to 20 years 
in order to give producers adequate stability. Second, it reduces the 
workload on overburdened Federal land managers at the local level, and 
it allows them to get out into the field, which is where they belong. 
Finally, the legislation includes bipartisan language to encourage land 
managers to use existing tools in order to expedite permit processing.
  We can be good stewards of our land and resources without hurting 
American ranchers. We must alleviate the problems caused by a tedious 
bureaucratic process that was created only to respond to the litigious 
environmental agenda. We can no longer allow the Federal Government to 
maintain an enormous backlog in processing grazing permits. My 
legislation aims to ensure grazing certainty and stability for 
America's livestock producers. Our ranchers depend upon it.
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I wanted to talk, and maybe list, so that the American people and the 
Members of Congress understand the scope and the depth of H.R. 2578, in 
particular, title XIV: National Park Service Units within 100 Miles of 
the U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-Canadian Borders. There are 54 National Park 
Service units and 11 National Park Service wilderness areas:
  Acadia National Park; Amistad National Recreation Area; Apostle 
Islands National Lakeshore-Gaylord Nelson Wilderness; Big Bend National 
Park; Cabrillo National Monument; Carlsbad Caverns National Park-
Carlsbad Caverns Wilderness; Casa Grande Ruins National Monument; 
Chamizal National Memorial; Chiricahua National Monument-Chiricahua 
Wilderness; Coronado National Memorial; Isle Royale National Park-Isle 
Royale Wilderness; James A. Garfield National Historic Site; Joshua 
Tree National Park; Keweenaw National Historical Park; Klondike Gold 
Rush National Historical Park; Lake Chelan National Recreation Area; 
Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area; Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller 
National Historic Park; Nez Perce National Historical Park; North 
Cascades National Park-Stephen Mather Wilderness; Olympic National 
Park-Olympic Wilderness; Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument; Organ 
Pipe Wilderness; Padre Island National Seashore; Palo Alto Battlefield 
National Historical Park; Perry's Victory and International Peace 
Memorial; Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore; River Raisin National 
Battlefield Park; Ross Lake National Recreation Area; Saguaro National 
Park-Saguaro Wilderness; St. Croix Island International Historic Site; 
San Juan Island National Historical Park; Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural 
National Historic Site; Theodore Roosevelt National Park; Tumacacori 
National Historical Park; Voyageurs National Park; White Sands National 
Monument; Women's Rights National Historical Park; Wrangell-St. Elias 
National Park; Wrangell-St. Elias National Preserve; Yukon-Charley 
Rivers National Preserve.

[[Page H3762]]

                              {time}  1510

  I list those because turning these shared treasures of the American 
people from the land managers that provide the access, the 
interpretation, and the multiuse mandate to these areas to an agency 
like Homeland Security with no expertise, no track record, no history, 
and giving them carte blanche, almost czar-like control over these 
valuable legacy parks of our Nation, is one of the reasons that we have 
66 organizations--environmental, Latino, and consumer organizations--
opposed to the legislation and opposed in particular to title XIV.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Canseco), who is the author 
of title IV of this bill.
  Mr. CANSECO. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman, Mr. 
Hastings, the park subcommittee chairman, Mr. Bishop, and the staff of 
the Natural Resources Committee for working with me to move my 
legislation, the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park Boundary 
Expansion Act, through the committee and have it included as part of 
the bill before us.
  Would the chairman enter into a brief colloquy with me?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Yes.
  Mr. CANSECO. Is it the chairman's understanding that, after adoption 
of the manager's amendment, the bill contains reforms that would only 
allow for lands to come into the park via donation or exchange, and 
that these reforms apply only to the land coming into the park boundary 
as a result of the legislation before us?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. The gentleman is correct, with the 
adoption of the manager's amendment.
  Mr. CANSECO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I'm pleased to rise in support of the underlying legislation which 
contains my legislation, the San Antonio Missions National Historical 
Park Boundary Expansion Act, which I introduced with the entire Bexar 
County, Texas delegation.
  In efforts to settle North America, the English founded Jamestown, 
Plymouth Rock, and other colonial settlements that schoolchildren learn 
about in U.S. history classes. The Spanish took a very different 
approach in their efforts to settle their possessions in North America. 
Instead of sending ships full of families to found new towns, the 
Spanish sent Franciscan priests to establish missions. At the missions, 
the Spanish priests would bring local Native Americans to live at the 
mission, teach them farming, educate them, and ultimately convert them 
to Christianity.
  The San Antonio Missions National Historical Park is an important 
asset to the community in San Antonio, Texas, and one of our Nation's 
historic treasures. The San Antonio Missions National Historical Park 
is comprised of four mission churches: Mission Concepcion, Mission San 
Jose, Mission San Juan, and Mission Espada.
  Adjusting the boundaries of the San Antonio Missions National 
Historical Park is absolutely critical to protecting these treasures 
and allowing the park to continue thriving and further enhance the 
visitors' experience. It is also a critical part of the redevelopment 
taking place on the south side of San Antonio.
  A recent study found that the San Antonio Missions National 
Historical Park supported over 1,000 local jobs and almost $100 million 
in economic activity. This boundary adjustment will help reconnect the 
missions to the San Antonio River, where the Mission Reach Project is 
taking place to extend to the south side the economic prosperity and 
job opportunities enjoyed in other parts of San Antonio. Such 
redevelopment will allow for significant job and economic opportunities 
that currently do not exist in parts of San Antonio.
  The San Antonio missions are important to the Nation in that they 
help visitors understand the history of our Nation, its diverse 
origins, as well as the history of San Antonio and the history of 
Texas. I would also add that the four missions that comprise the San 
Antonio Missions National Historical Park are still functioning parish 
churches, continuing to fulfill the role in the San Antonio community 
for which they were founded almost 300 years ago.
  The San Antonio missions are just as important to understanding the 
story and the history of America as other historic places like 
Jamestown, Independence Hall, or Mount Vernon, and this legislation 
will help protect and preserve them for future generations of Americans 
to enjoy, all the while helping to create jobs and economic opportunity 
on the south side of San Antonio.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), who is the author of 
title II of this bill.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I want to thank Chairman Hastings, my colleague, the 
chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Bishop, for his support in this bill 
that we introduced, the section that will be included in this bill 
dealing with the Diamond Fork System.
  In Utah, we're blessed to live in one of the most beautiful parts of 
the word. We're also one of the fastest growing States in the Nation.
  The Diamond Fork System, which is included as part of the Central 
Utah Project, has the capacity to generate up to 50 megawatts of 
hydroelectric power. Currently, thousands of acre-feet of water flow 
through the Diamond Fork System through tunnels, pipes, and canals each 
and every second. This water is necessarily slowed through energy 
dissipaters as they travel from Strawberry Reservoir to the Wasatch 
Front. This bill would allow those dissipaters to be easily converted 
into turbines, thus being able to generate the necessary energy that we 
need along the Wasatch Front.
  The purpose of this bill, which has been included in H.R. 2578, is to 
waive the unrecoverable sunk cost payment requirements that are 
inhibiting development of the hydropower at a Bureau of Reclamation 
facility in Utah. Existing Department of the Interior regulation 
inhibits hydropower development on the Diamond Fork unit. If the sunk 
cost recovery requirement is waived, the project will go forward, thus 
being able to yield the following benefits:
  The Treasury is expected, according to the CBO, to get $2 million in 
revenue over 10 years that it otherwise would not have received. Let me 
repeat this. This is a net increase to the revenues to the Treasury. It 
is not an expense to the United States Treasury. In fact, if we don't 
pass this bill, we won't be able to recover some of those sunk costs. 
So the net increase to the revenue to the Treasury will go up.
  Energy consumers in my district--which this is so desperately 
needed--will get up to 50 megawatts of new power. And the environmental 
benefits of this energy are numerous, given that it's clean and it's 
renewable.
  I would also like to remind my colleagues that this bill passed the 
previous Congress through a voice vote. We introduced this in a 
bipartisan way. We have Democrats who sponsored this bill as well as 
Republicans.
  With that, I encourage its passage.

                              {time}  1520

  Mr. GRIJALVA. I think the purpose of title XIV of H.R. 2578 is not to 
make the border more secure. Rather, the purpose of the bill is to use 
border security as cover to effectively repeal more than a century of 
environmental protections for Americans living and working along our 
borders with Canada and Mexico.
  In April, the Natural Resources Committee held a joint oversight 
hearing with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, 
during which the Government Accountability Office, the Interior 
Department, the Agriculture Department, and the Border Patrol all 
testified under oath that Federal land management laws do not impair 
border security. According to the GAO report, 22 of 26 Border Patrol 
agents-in-charge that were interviewed reported that Federal land 
management laws had no impact on the overall security status of their 
jurisdiction.
  In summary, the number of Border Patrol agents-in-charge who found 
that Federal land management laws were impeding border security but 
were prevented from fixing the problems by the Interior Department was 
exactly zero. The administration concurred with this finding at 
multiple hearings. The

[[Page H3763]]

record is clear. And the problem this bill claims to solve does not 
exist.
  The true purpose of this legislation is also clear. The proponents 
oppose the more-than-30 bedrock environmental protections that will be 
effectively repealed by this legislation, including the Clean Water 
Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Drinking Water Act, everywhere, not 
just within 100 miles of the border. Title XIV employs a manufactured 
conflict with border security to weaken their application.
  The laws to be waived by this act are the work product of dozens of 
administrations and Congresses, developed after thousands of hours of 
negotiation and compromise and, in most cases, were enacted with strong 
bipartisan support. Title XIV hands the Border Patrol a unilateral veto 
over all of these laws, all this work, and all this bipartisan effort.
  Enactment of this legislation and title XIV would not only allow DHS 
to trample the ground near the border. It would also allow the Agency 
to trample the rights of States and Native people. This legislation 
would empower individual patrol agents to enter tribal land without 
notice and conduct any and all activities, including excavation and 
construction, without regard for the presence of tribal sites or tribal 
leadership.
  The real problem of border enforcement is one of manpower, budgets, 
economic incentives, and difficult terrain. This bill addresses none of 
those concerns. We will not secure our borders by allowing our waters 
to be polluted. We will not secure our borders by allowing our air to 
be dirtier, by ignoring the laws that have protected the environment 
and the American people. That will not bring security to the border.
  This legislation and title XIV reduce the number of immigrants coming 
to this country. If it does, it will only be because the water, air, 
and economics of our border communities are so degraded that no one 
wants to come there anymore. This legislation is sweeping. It's 
reactionary. This bill is not what it appears to be. And it should be 
rejected.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) who is the 
author of title X of this bill.
  Mr. JONES. I thank the chairman for his support of this provision in 
this bill.
  The title of my provision is the Preserving Access to Cape Hatteras 
National Seashore Recreational Area Act. The Cape Hatteras act is about 
jobs. Its about taxpayers' rights to access the recreational areas they 
own. It's about restoring balance and common sense to National Park 
Service management.
  This language would overturn a final rule implemented by the Park 
Service earlier this year that excessively restricts taxpayers' access 
to the Cape Hatteras seashore and is unnecessary to protect the 
wildlife. It would reinstitute the Park Service's 2007 interim 
management strategy to govern visitor access and species protection at 
Cape Hatteras. The interim strategy was backed by a 113-page biological 
opinion issued by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, which 
found that it would not jeopardize piping plover, sea turtles, or other 
species of concern.
  In addition to adequately protecting wildlife, this bill would give 
taxpayers more reasonable access to the land they own. It would reopen 
26 miles of beach that are now permanently closed to motorized beach 
access and give seashore managers flexibility to implement more 
balanced measures that maximize both recreational access and species 
protection.
  By doing so, this bill would reverse the significant job loss and 
economic decline that Hatteras Island has experienced. I want to repeat 
that, Mr. Chair: by doing so, the bill would reverse the significant 
job loss and economic decline that Hatteras Island has experienced 
since the Park Service cut off access to the most powerful area of the 
seashore.
  My bill and now this bill has bipartisan support in Dare County. The 
county commissioners in Dare County are predominantly Democrats. They 
support this bill 100 percent. They ask that this bill move through the 
House. I am pleased to say that the North Carolina Senators, Republican 
Senator Richard Burr and Democrat Senator Kay Hagan, have introduced a 
companion bill that says exactly on the Senate side what this bill says 
on the House side. The bill is also supported by a national sportsmen's 
group, including the American Sportfishing Association and the 
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation.
  Mr. Chair, that's why I am honored today to be on the floor with my 
colleagues to support this legislation. It is time for the taxpayers to 
be considered, and it's time that we protect the species that are 
endangered. This is a balanced piece of legislation, not just talking 
about my aspect of it, but the bill itself. So I hope that my 
colleagues will support this legislation in a bipartisan way, and let's 
send this bill to the Senate.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Without a doubt, proponents of H.R. 2578 and, in particular, title 
XIV, the border bill portion, claim this legislation will end the 
horrors of the border, that it will secure the border and, finally, 
Arizona and the rest of the Nation will be ready to sit down, conduct 
real work, and reach comprehensive immigration reform.
  The horrors they will describe--the rape tree, the murders, the abuse 
of people--some are quite real. The violence is conducted by criminal 
organizations that prey on desperate and poor people, fueled by a drug 
trade that produces billions upon billions of dollars for these very 
criminals that create the violence.
  In the last decade, over 4,000 souls have died trying to cross 
through the most desolate parts of the Arizona desert. And this human 
tragedy should not be the excuse to undo environmental and public 
protection laws, which the majority has been attacking on all fronts 
since the beginning of this Congress. This is a dangerous precedent, 
that in order to secure the border we must lose those protections. It's 
an absurd connection, and there is no correlation.
  It is interesting that in the list of laws to be waived, if we are 
truly to make a dent in that violence, we find no mention of suspending 
the unregulated gun shows that happen in border regions. Eighty-five 
percent of the assault rifles used by cartels and organized crime 
syndicates along the border and in Mexico originate in the United 
States from these gun shows. It is interesting that there is no mention 
of suspending Federal support for U.S. financial interests that harbor 
and launder money from Mexican crime syndicates here in the United 
States.
  The environmental laws and protections being eliminated under title 
XIV will not bring long-term solutions to our beleaguered southern 
border. These laws are not the reasons for the stress. The reason for 
the stress is the unwillingness of this Congress to deal with 
immigration reform and the broken immigration system. Enforcement is 
part of the solution; it is not the only part of the solution.

                              {time}  1530

  The stress is caused by politicians who either exploit the issue for 
their own gain or run away from the issue because of their own fear of 
it. To begin to deal with this issue, we need the resolve to work 
toward comprehensive immigration reform. But all the majority wants to 
do is scapegoat its lack of resolve to deal with this real issue in 
order to advance an agenda to hijack the laws that have served our 
public lands and our citizens well for decades.
  This is a terrible precedent. It's backdoor amnesty for polluters, 
developers, and mining industries. And those extremists want all these 
protections and environmental laws eliminated. The border is the 
excuse; the target is the environment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), who is the author of title 
VIII of this bill.
  Mr. HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I rise in support of H.R. 2578, the Conservation and Economic Growth 
Act, which would extend the bipartisan Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library 
Group Recovery Act for 7 more years, ensuring that the Forest Service 
has a stable

[[Page H3764]]

and consistent period to fully implement it. At the discretion of the 
Forest Service, the bill would also allow for its expansion to all 
National Forest system lands within parts of California and Nevada. The 
expansion of the pilot project will enable the Forest Service to use 
the effective QLG approach in additional forest communities.
  The northern California congressional district I represent includes 
all or parts of seven national forests. The rural forest communities 
near to them have been devastated by years of mismanagement of our 
national forests. Nearly 20 years ago, a group of local 
environmentalists and citizens formed the Quincy Library Group to 
develop a collaborative and locally driven solution to bring health and 
stability to our communities and the forests they live in. The QLG's 
efforts brought about the bipartisan Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library 
Group Forest Recovery Act.
  Mr. Chairman, we need commonsense forest management that allows 
communities to utilize their natural resources and create jobs while 
also restoring the health of our forests. The Quincy Library Group 
pilot project can provide a model for achieving these critical goals.
  In 2007, the 64,000-acre Moonlight fire occurred in the Plumas 
National Forest. That fire came to an abrupt halt when it reached 
Antelope, a QLG-constructed defensible fuel profile zone. It saved tens 
of thousands of spotted owl habitat from burning.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the solution to our catastrophic wildfire 
problem that can and should be replicated. I urge my colleagues to 
extend and expand this balanced and collaborative project.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of my friend 
from Arizona, we have no more requests for time, and I'm prepared to 
close, if the gentleman is prepared to close.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes, we are.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  This package of 14 bills is an unwarranted combination of individual 
bills that would do serious and lasting damage to communities and 
people across this country. Many of the individual pieces are 
controversial, but they are overshadowed by title XIV, the drone zone 
title.
  The drone zone created by this bill would trample the environment and 
the personal freedoms of millions of people living within 100 miles of 
the border. At a time when the clock is ticking on the reauthorization 
of the highway trust fund, where real jobs can be created, we are 
wasting time on this misguided package. At a time when the clock is 
ticking on making college loans remain affordable, we are wasting time 
on this package. We should reject H.R. 2578 and get down to the serious 
work, which is to create jobs and help middle class families make ends 
meet.
  Mr. DeFazio and Ranking Member Markey and I will be offering 
amendments to address the absolute worst aspects of this package. I 
urge my colleagues to support the amendments. Unfortunately, even those 
amendments cannot fix all that is wrong with this package, and I ask my 
colleagues to reject H.R. 2578. There is a point in which common sense 
and sanity should prevail in this House. We have a piece of legislation 
that begs the question on both before us, and I would urge its defeat.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire as to how 
much time I have remaining.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, let's go back to the basic issue, really, that's facing 
this country--and I alluded to it in my opening statement. What 
Americans really want is jobs. And while this package of bills is in 
line with that, what it really does is add some certainty to those that 
live in and around Federal lands. Therefore, allowing for at least some 
certainty as it relates to jobs, but probably as important, if not more 
important, is access to our public lands for those that want to utilize 
our public lands.
  There's been much discussion here about how this bill does some 
damage to the environment. Well, let me just touch on a couple of 
issues that were mentioned on the other side and I think it needs to be 
clarified, at least here, before this debate is over.
  First, the reference was made to sea lions that were guilty of one 
thing, and that was eating only fish. Well, I happen to be the author 
of the title of that bill. Let me clarify. There's a rest-of-the-story 
here. We had a hearing in the full committee of the Natural Resources 
Committee today on the Endangered Species Act. I think, frankly, it 
hasn't been reauthorized for 25 years, and I think we need to update 
that act to make sure that we recover species. And my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle said it's a great act. That's good. We at least 
have some establishment of commonality.
  The reason that provision is in the bill regarding sea lions is that 
salmon are listed as threatened on the Columbia River. And as they move 
upstream after coming back from the ocean, they get crowded going up 
Bonneville Dam. Now, there's a nonindigenous animal called the 
California sea lion that comes up there and feasts on these fish as 
they're going through the Bonneville Dam. So it's destroying an 
endangered species. The California sea lion is not listed as 
endangered, and they're not indigenous.
  So that part of the legislation simply allows for lethal taking of 
those sea lions so the fish can pass upstream and spawn. Nothing more 
than that. It's a cute way, to borrow a phrase, to say that they're 
guilty of only eating fish. But there's more to that story.
  This legislation also encourages the development of renewable 
hydropower. What could be cleaner than that? It promotes healthy forest 
and prevents forest fires, as my colleague from northern California 
just said in regard to the title of the act he has in there. It 
restores access to different parks for recreational purposes in the 
North Cascades and at Cape Hatteras on the Atlantic Coast, and it 
preserves old growth in Alaska.
  So, Mr. Chairman, there is a lot to be liked about this bill, but it 
seems most of the discussion is around title XIV.
  Let me read the title of title XIV one more time. It is the National 
Security and Federal Lands Protection Act. Now why do we need that? 
Because, unfortunately, there are those that want to come into our 
country illegally, and they don't have the same feelings as we do about 
our public lands. When they come through illegally, in many cases, they 
trash those lands. We're simply giving the Border Patrol more tools to 
protect those public lands and to provide for our national security. I 
don't know why anybody on the floor of this House should be opposed to 
that aspect. That's all that title XIV does, as was explained very well 
by the author of that provision, Mr. Bishop of Utah.
  So, Mr. Chairman, this bill is worth supporting. It has been 
developed in a bipartisan method. It has been developed in a 
transparent method, having gone through the committee process.
  I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHU. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to the so-
called Conservation and Economic Growth Act, H.R. 2578. On behalf of my 
constituents and millions of other Americans who believe in protecting 
our public lands and natural resources, I am opposed to this bill.
  This bill is yet another in a long string of anti-environmental 
assaults that the Republican majority has put forth relentlessly 
throughout the last two years. Most of its 14 titles do nothing to 
promote conservation or economic growth. Rather, they advance 
ineffective and unnecessary policies that undermine long-standing, 
successful laws like the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the 
Endangered Species Act, the Wilderness Act, the National Environmental 
Policy Act, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 
and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act.
  One of the most concerning provisions of this bill seeks to create a 
100-mile zone along the northern and southern U.S. borders that would 
allow U.S. Customs and Border Protection to circumvent laws protecting 
Native rights, clean water, clean air, wildlife habitat and 
recreational opportunities in areas rich in hunting, fishing and 
outdoor recreation opportunities in National Parks, Forests, refuges 
and recreation areas. This undermines the balance between security and 
preservation of public lands, putting at risk some of America's

[[Page H3765]]

most renowned natural treasures such as Joshua Tree National Park in my 
home state of California. And the Department of Homeland Security 
doesn't even want it, calling this provision ``unnecessary and bad 
policy.''
  Another provision would reverse, for the first time in Congressional 
history, the National Wild and Scenic River designation for part of the 
Lower Merced River in California. The Merced River was given this 
designation in 1992, under the administration of George H.W. Bush, and 
Wild and Scenic River protections have successfully preserved miles of 
pristine U.S. waters, enjoyed by a vast outdoor tourism, sporting and 
recreation industry. The Merced River runs through Yosemite Valley, one 
of America's most popular natural wonders, and is a tributary to the 
San Joaquin River that provides most of the water supply for 
California's agricultural industry. This provision would remove vital 
protections for one of California's most important water life-lines in 
a never-before-seen manner, and undermine valuable economic activity 
among some of the most hard-hit California communities.
  The bill would allow the clear-cutting of America's largest remaining 
old-growth temperate rainforest in the Tsongas National Forest of 
Alaska; reverse the prohibition of vehicle use on the fragile habitats 
of Cape Hatteras National Seashore; and mandate the killing of sea 
lions in the Pacific Northwest in order to protect endangered fish 
species. . . . This is the Republicans' conservation and jobs bill: 
killing sea lions and destroying landscapes and habitat across the 
nation.
  As a leading member on the House Small Business Committee and a firm 
defender of environmental protection, I believe striking the right 
balance of policy has always been key to our economic growth and our 
strength as a nation. H.R. 2578 does not accomplish that goal. In fact 
it does much to undermine it. H.R. 2578 is wrong for America.
  I strongly encourage my colleagues to oppose this bill, and any 
measure introduced that undermines the conservation of America's 
treasured public lands and natural resources.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, Americans have a penchant for believing that 
more is always better.
  That unfettered and unabridged access will solve problems.
  H.R. 2578, the Conservation and Economic Growth Act, purports to 
create jobs by violating or eliminating over 35 laws that currently 
govern our land, air, water, and importantly, our Nation's borders.
  The idea follows that in giving the Department of Homeland Security 
free rein to traverse the roughshod lands around our borders, we'll be 
safer.
  But, the Department of Homeland Security didn't ask for this access, 
nor do they believe it's warranted.
  Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told a Senate 
subcommittee in March that unrestricted authority over public lands was 
unnecessary for the Border Patrol to do its job and was ``bad policy.''
  And, we're not just talking the lands on the collar of America's 
borders.
  No, this bill would disrupt your vacation in Cape Hatteras by lifting 
necessary current restrictions regarding the use of off-road vehicles.
  The bill would allow corporations to dip right into Alaska's Tongass 
National Forest, allowing for trees that started growing before the 
Revolutionary War to be felled.
  And, if someone decided that development of surveillance equipment in 
a national park was a good idea--say on Chief Mountain in Glacier 
National Park--it could be installed without any public comment or even 
internal review process.
  This last point was made by two farmers and ranchers from the Mexico 
and Canadian borders, with more than a century of land-use between the 
two.
  These folks who work the land, who have toiled to create and produce 
what the land will provide to them and their families for years, those 
who know it best--oppose this bill.
  ``In Arizona,'' the gentlemen write, ``we are concerned that poorly 
designed roads and fences will damage ongoing range land restoration 
work.
  Private landowners have spent thousands of dollars and manpower hours 
restoring these lands to their original state, which could all be 
compromised by these bills.''
  Another veteran publically denounced the bill in an op-ed, stating, 
``As a veteran, a patriot of this nation and a Californian, I can't 
stand by while these lands are threatened. I'm proud to have worn this 
country's uniform and I want to continue serving. That's why I've 
chosen to follow in the path of the great Teddy Roosevelt--a man who 
was both a soldier and a conservationist--and stand up for our public 
lands.''
  That's right.
  A veteran, a rancher, a farmer, the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
are NOT extolling the virtues of a true wild, wild west.
  The stewards of the land know that in order for crops to flourish;
  In order to protect the Sweet Grass Hills, in Montana, a sacred 
location for many tribal ceremonies--and a vital source of water for 
surrounding communities that it is protected from mining and most 
motorized travel;
  In order to preserve the incredible natural beauty and uniqueness 
that makes this land great;
  We must protect it.
  Over 100 years ago, Teddy Roosevelt addressed a crowd in Kansas, a 
state that knows its lands.
  ``I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and 
use the natural resources of our land,'' he said, ``but I do not 
recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the 
generations that come after us . . .''
  ``Of all the questions which can come before this nation, short of 
the actual preservation of its existence in a great war--
  There is none which compares in importance with the great central 
task of leaving this land even a better land for our descendants than 
it is for us.
  I fear we miss the mark on today's legislation, and I urge my 
colleagues to join me in my opposition.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, today's Conservation and Economic Growth 
Act is an amalgam of 14 separate public lands bills that have little to 
do with conservation or economic growth.
  Indeed, while a few of the provisions--like Rep. Wittman's proposal 
to create an interagency cross-cut budget for Chesapeake Bay 
restoration efforts--have merit, many more run directly counter to 
sound natural resource management.
  For example, under the guise of border control, Title 14 of today's 
bill would create a 100 mile zone along our borders with Canada and 
Mexico where over thirty of environmental laws--including the Clean Air 
Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the National Environmental 
Protection Act--would not apply. There is no evidence that any of these 
laws are hindering border enforcement, and the Department of Homeland 
Security is firmly opposed to this measure. Title 11 of this 
legislation would similarly undermine the National Environmental 
Protection Act while providing a windfall to those who graze livestock 
on federal lands by doubling the current term limits for grazing 
permits. And Title 3 of H.R. 2578 is essentially an earmark for a 
single corporation in the state of Alaska, which threatens both the 
local economy as well as the largest tracts of remaining old growth 
forest in the United States.
  Mr. Chair, I support environmental conservation and meaningful steps 
to accelerate economic growth--which is why I will be opposing today's 
legislation.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
Committee Print 112 25. That amendment in the nature of a substitute 
shall be considered as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 2578

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Conservation and Economic 
     Growth Act''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.

                      TITLE I--LOWER MERCED RIVER

Sec. 101. Lower Merced River.

      TITLE II--BONNEVILLE UNIT CLEAN HYDROPOWER FACILITATION ACT

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Diamond Fork System defined.
Sec. 203. Cost allocations.
Sec. 204. No purchase or market obligation; no costs assigned to power.
Sec. 205. Prohibition on tax-exempt financing.
Sec. 206. Reporting requirement.
Sec. 207. PayGo.
Sec. 208. Limitation on the use of funds.

 TITLE III--SOUTHEAST ALASKA NATIVE LAND ENTITLEMENT FINALIZATION AND 
                          JOBS PROTECTION ACT

Sec. 301. Short title.
Sec. 302. Definitions.
Sec. 303. Findings; purpose.
Sec. 304. Selections in southeast Alaska.
Sec. 305. Conveyances to Sealaska.
Sec. 306. Miscellaneous.
Sec. 307. Maps.

   TITLE IV--SAN ANTONIO MISSIONS NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK BOUNDARY 
                             EXPANSION ACT

Sec. 401. Short title.
Sec. 402. Findings.
Sec. 403. Boundary expansion.

   TITLE V--WACO MAMMOTH NATIONAL MONUMENT ESTABLISHMENT ACT OF 2012

Sec. 501. Short title.

[[Page H3766]]

Sec. 502. Findings.
Sec. 503. Definitions.
Sec. 504. Waco Mammoth National Monument, Texas.
Sec. 505. Administration of monument.
Sec. 506. No buffer zones.

             TITLE VI--NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK ACCESS

Sec. 601. Findings.
Sec. 602. Authorization for boundary adjustments.

  TITLE VII--ENDANGERED SALMON AND FISHERIES PREDATION PREVENTION ACT

Sec. 701. Short title.
Sec. 702. Findings.
Sec. 703. Taking of sea lions on the Columbia River and its tributaries 
              to protect endangered and threatened species of salmon 
              and other nonlisted fish species.
Sec. 704. Sense of Congress.
Sec. 705. Treaty rights of federally recognized Indian tribes.

 TITLE VIII--REAUTHORIZATION OF HERGER-FEINSTEIN QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP 
                          FOREST RECOVERY ACT

Sec. 801. Reauthorization of Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group 
              Forest Recovery Act.

  TITLE IX--YERINGTON LAND CONVEYANCE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ACT

Sec. 901. Short title.
Sec. 902. Findings.
Sec. 903. Definitions.
Sec. 904. Conveyances of land to City of Yerington, Nevada.
Sec. 905. Release of the United States.

     TITLE X--PRESERVING ACCESS TO CAPE HATTERAS NATIONAL SEASHORE 
                         RECREATIONAL AREA ACT

Sec. 1001. Short title.
Sec. 1002. Reinstatement of Interim Management Strategy.
Sec. 1003. Additional restrictions on access to Cape Hatteras National 
              Seashore Recreational Area for species protection.
Sec. 1004. Inapplicability of final rule and consent degree.

               TITLE XI--GRAZING IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2012

Sec. 1101. Short title.
Sec. 1102. Terms of grazing permits and leases.
Sec. 1103. Renewal, transfer, and reissuance of grazing permits and 
              leases.

    TITLE XII--TARGET PRACTICE AND MARKSMANSHIP TRAINING SUPPORT ACT

Sec. 1201. Short title.
Sec. 1202. Findings; purpose.
Sec. 1203. Definition of public target range.
Sec. 1204. Amendments to Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act.
Sec. 1205. Limits on liability.
Sec. 1206. Sense of Congress regarding cooperation.

   TITLE XIII--CHESAPEAKE BAY ACCOUNTABILITY AND RECOVERY ACT OF 2012

Sec. 1301. Short title.
Sec. 1302. Chesapeake Bay Crosscut Budget.
Sec. 1303. Adaptive Management Plan.
Sec. 1304. Independent Evaluator for the Chesapeake Bay Program.
Sec. 1305. Definitions.

     TITLE XIV--NATIONAL SECURITY AND FEDERAL LANDS PROTECTION ACT

Sec. 1401. Short title.
Sec. 1402. Prohibition on impeding certain activities of U.S. Customs 
              and Border Protection related to border security.
Sec. 1403. Sunset.

                      TITLE I--LOWER MERCED RIVER

     SEC. 101. LOWER MERCED RIVER.

       (a) Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.--Section 3(a)(62)(B)(i) of 
     the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274(a)(62)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``the normal maximum'' the first place that 
     it appears and all that follows through ``April, 1990.'' and 
     inserting the following: ``the boundary of FERC Project No. 
     2179 as it existed on July 18, 2011, consisting of a point 
     approximately 2,480 feet downstream of the confluence with 
     the North Fork of the Merced River, consisting of 
     approximately 7.4 miles.''; and
       (2) by striking ``the normal maximum operating pool water 
     surface level of Lake McClure'' the second time that it 
     occurs and inserting ``the boundary of FERC Project No. 2179 
     as it existed on July 18, 2011, consisting of a point 
     approximately 2,480 feet downstream of the confluence with 
     the North Fork of the Merced River''.
       (b) Exchequer Project.--Section 3 of Public Law 102 432 is 
     amended by striking ``Act:'' and all that follows through the 
     period and inserting ``Act.''.

      TITLE II--BONNEVILLE UNIT CLEAN HYDROPOWER FACILITATION ACT

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Bonneville Unit Clean 
     Hydropower Facilitation Act''.

     SEC. 202. DIAMOND FORK SYSTEM DEFINED.

       For the purposes of this title, the term ``Diamond Fork 
     System'' means the facilities described in chapter 4 of the 
     October 2004 Supplement to the 1988 Definite Plan Report for 
     the Bonneville Unit.

     SEC. 203. COST ALLOCATIONS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in order to 
     facilitate hydropower development on the Diamond Fork System, 
     the amount of reimbursable costs allocated to project power 
     in Chapter 6 of the Power Appendix in the October 2004 
     Supplement to the 1988 Bonneville Unit Definite Plan Report, 
     with regard to power development upstream of the Diamond Fork 
     System, shall be considered final costs as well as costs in 
     excess of the total maximum repayment obligation as defined 
     in section 211 of the Central Utah Project Completion Act of 
     1992 (Public Law 102 575), and shall be subject to the same 
     terms and conditions.

     SEC. 204. NO PURCHASE OR MARKET OBLIGATION; NO COSTS ASSIGNED 
                   TO POWER.

       Nothing in this title shall obligate the Western Area Power 
     Administration to purchase or market any of the power 
     produced by the Diamond Fork power plant and none of the 
     costs associated with development of transmission facilities 
     to transmit power from the Diamond Fork power plant shall be 
     assigned to power for the purpose of Colorado River Storage 
     Project ratemaking.

     SEC. 205. PROHIBITION ON TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING.

       No facility for the generation or transmission of 
     hydroelectric power on the Diamond Fork System may be 
     financed or refinanced, in whole or in part, with proceeds of 
     any obligation--
       (1) the interest on which is exempt from the tax imposed 
     under chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or
       (2) with respect to which credit is allowable under subpart 
     I or J of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code.

     SEC. 206. REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

       If, 24 months after the date of the enactment of this 
     title, hydropower production on the Diamond Fork System has 
     not commenced, the Secretary of the Interior shall submit a 
     report to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate stating this fact, the reasons such 
     production has not yet commenced, and a detailed timeline for 
     future hydropower production.

     SEC. 207. PAYGO.

       The budgetary effects of this title, for the purpose of 
     complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall 
     be determined by reference to the latest statement titled 
     ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this title, 
     submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the 
     Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that such 
     statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

     SEC. 208. LIMITATION ON THE USE OF FUNDS.

       The authority under the provisions of section 301 of the 
     Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984 (Public Law 98 381; 42 U.S.C. 
     16421a) shall not be used to fund any study or construction 
     of transmission facilities developed as a result of this 
     title.

 TITLE III--SOUTHEAST ALASKA NATIVE LAND ENTITLEMENT FINALIZATION AND 
                          JOBS PROTECTION ACT

     SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Southeast Alaska Native 
     Land Entitlement Finalization and Jobs Protection Act''.

     SEC. 302. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Conservation system unit.--The term ``conservation 
     system unit'' has the meaning given the term in section 102 
     of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 
     U.S.C. 3102).
       (2) Sealaska.--The term ``Sealaska'' means the Sealaska 
     Corporation, a Regional Native Corporation created under the 
     Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.).
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 303. FINDINGS; PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1)(A) in 1971, Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims 
     Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) to recognize and 
     settle the aboriginal claims of Alaska Natives to land 
     historically used by Alaska Natives for traditional, 
     cultural, and spiritual purposes; and
       (B) that Act declared that the land settlement ``should be 
     accomplished rapidly, with certainty, in conformity with the 
     real economic and social needs of Natives'';
       (2) the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 
     et seq.)--
       (A) authorized the distribution of approximately 
     $1,000,000,000 and 44,000,000 acres of land to Alaska 
     Natives; and
       (B) provided for the establishment of Native Corporations 
     to receive and manage the funds and that land to meet the 
     cultural, social, and economic needs of Native shareholders;
       (3) under section 12 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 
     Act (43 U.S.C. 1611), each Regional Corporation, other than 
     Sealaska (the Regional Corporation for southeast Alaska), was 
     authorized to receive a share of land based on the proportion 
     that the number of Alaska Native shareholders residing in the 
     region of the Regional Corporation bore to the total number 
     of Alaska Native shareholders, or the relative size of the 
     area to which the Regional Corporation had an aboriginal land 
     claim bore to the size of the area to which all Regional 
     Corporations had aboriginal land claims;
       (4)(A) Sealaska, the Regional Corporation for southeast 
     Alaska, 1 of the Regional Corporations with the largest 
     number of Alaska Native shareholders, with more than 21 
     percent of all original Alaska Native shareholders, received 
     less than 1 percent of the lands set aside for Alaska 
     Natives, and received no land under section 12 of the Alaska 
     Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1611);
       (B) the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska was 1 of 
     the entities representing the Alaska Natives of southeast 
     Alaska before the date of enactment of the Alaska Native 
     Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.); and
       (C) Sealaska did not receive land in proportion to the 
     number of Alaska Native shareholders, or in proportion to the 
     size of the area to which Sealaska had an aboriginal land 
     claim, in part because of a United States Court of Claims 
     cash settlement to the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of 
     Alaska in 1968 for land previously taken to create the 
     Tongass National Forest and Glacier Bay National Monument;

[[Page H3767]]

       (5) the 1968 Court of Claims cash settlement of $7,500,000 
     did not--
       (A) adequately compensate the Alaska Natives of southeast 
     Alaska for the significant quantity of land and resources 
     lost as a result of the creation of the Tongass National 
     Forest and Glacier Bay National Monument or other losses of 
     land and resources; or
       (B) justify the significant disparate treatment of Sealaska 
     under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 
     1611) in 1971;
       (6)(A) while each other Regional Corporation received a 
     significant quantity of land under sections 12 and 14 of the 
     Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1611, 1613), 
     Sealaska only received land under section 14(h) of that Act 
     (43 U.S.C. 1613(h));
       (B) section 14(h) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 
     Act (43 U.S.C. 1613(h)) authorized the Secretary to withdraw 
     and convey 2,000,000-acres of ``unreserved and 
     unappropriated'' public lands in Alaska from which Alaska 
     Native selections could be made for historic sites, cemetery 
     sites, Urban Corporation land, Native group land, and Native 
     Allotments;
       (C) under section 14(h)(8) of the Alaska Native Claims 
     Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1613(h)(8)), after selections are 
     made under paragraphs (1) through (7) of that section, the 
     land remaining in the 2,000,000-acre land pool is allocated 
     based on the proportion that the original Alaska Native 
     shareholder population of a Regional Corporation bore to the 
     original Alaska Native shareholder population of all Regional 
     Corporations;
       (D) the only Native land entitlement of Sealaska derives 
     from a proportion of leftover land remaining from the 
     2,000,000-acre land pool, estimated as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act at approximately 1,700,000 acres;
       (E) because at the time of enactment of the Alaska Native 
     Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) all public 
     land in the Tongass National Forest had been reserved for 
     purposes of creating the national forest, the Secretary was 
     not able to withdraw any public land in the Tongass National 
     Forest for selection by and conveyance to Sealaska;
       (F) at the time of enactment of the Alaska Native Claims 
     Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) other public lands in 
     southeast Alaska not located in the Tongass National Forest 
     were not suitable for selection by and conveyance to Sealaska 
     because such lands were located in Glacier Bay National 
     Monument, were included in a withdrawal effected pursuant to 
     section 17(d)(2) of that Act (43 U.S.C. 1616(d)(2)) and 
     slated to become part of the Wrangell-St. Elias National 
     Park, or essentially consisted of mountain tops;
       (G) Sealaska in 1975 requested that Congress amend the 
     Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) 
     to permit the Regional Corporation to select lands inside of 
     the withdrawal areas established for southeast Alaska Native 
     villages under section 16 of that Act (43 U.S.C. 1615); and
       (H) in 1976, Congress amended section 16 of the Alaska 
     Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1615) to allow 
     Sealaska to select lands under section 14(h)(8) of that Act 
     (43 U.S.C. 1613(h)(8)) from land located inside, rather than 
     outside, the withdrawal areas established for southeast 
     Alaska Native villages;
       (7) the 10 Alaska Native village withdrawal areas in 
     southeast Alaska surround the Alaska Native communities of 
     Yakutat, Hoonah, Angoon, Kake, Kasaan, Klawock, Craig, 
     Hydaburg, Klukwan, and Saxman;
       (8)(A) the existing conveyance requirements of the Alaska 
     Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) for 
     southeast Alaska limit the land eligible for conveyance to 
     Sealaska to the original withdrawal areas surrounding 10 
     Alaska Native villages in southeast Alaska, which precludes 
     Sealaska from selecting land located--
       (i) in any withdrawal area established for the Urban 
     Corporations for Sitka and Juneau, Alaska; or
       (ii) outside the 10 Alaska Native village withdrawal areas; 
     and
       (B) unlike other Regional Corporations, Sealaska is not 
     authorized to request land located outside the withdrawal 
     areas described in subparagraph (A) if the withdrawal areas 
     are insufficient to complete the land entitlement of Sealaska 
     under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 
     et seq.);
       (9)(A) the deadline for applications for selection of 
     cemetery sites and historic places on land outside withdrawal 
     areas established under section 14 of the Alaska Native 
     Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1613) was July 1, 1976;
       (B)(i) as of that date, the Bureau of Land Management 
     notified Sealaska that the total entitlement of Sealaska 
     would be approximately 200,000 acres; and
       (ii) Sealaska made entitlement allocation decisions for 
     cultural sites and economic development sites based on that 
     original estimate; and
       (C) as a result of the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration 
     Act (Public Law 108 452; 118 Stat. 3575) and subsequent 
     related determinations and actions of the Bureau of Land 
     Management, it became clear within the last decade that 
     Sealaska will receive significantly more than 200,000 acres 
     pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1601 et seq.);
       (10) in light of the revised Bureau of Land Management 
     estimate of the total number of acres that Sealaska will 
     receive pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 
     (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), and in consultation with Members of 
     Alaska's congressional delegation, Sealaska and its 
     shareholders believe that it is appropriate to allocate more 
     of the entitlement of Sealaska to--
       (A) the acquisition of places of sacred, cultural, 
     traditional, and historical significance;
       (B) the acquisition of sites with traditional and 
     recreational use value and sites suitable for renewable 
     energy development; and
       (C) the acquisition of lands that are not within the 
     watersheds of Native and non-Native communities and are 
     suitable economically and environmentally for natural 
     resource development;
       (11)(A) pursuant to section 11(a)(1) of the Alaska Native 
     Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1610(a)(1)), Sealaska was 
     not authorized to select under section 14(h)(1) of that Act 
     (43 U.S.C. 1613(h)(1)) any site within Glacier Bay National 
     Park, despite the abundance of cultural sites within that 
     Park;
       (B) Sealaska seeks cooperative agreements to ensure that 
     cultural sites within Glacier Bay National Park are subject 
     to cooperative management by Sealaska, Village and Urban 
     Corporations, and federally recognized tribes with ties to 
     the cultural sites and history of the Park; and
       (C) Congress recognizes that there is an existing 
     Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Park Service 
     and the Hoonah Indian Association, and does not intend to 
     circumvent the MOU; rather the intent is to ensure that this 
     and similar mechanisms for cooperative management in Glacier 
     Bay are required by law;
       (12)(A) the cemetery sites and historic places conveyed to 
     Sealaska pursuant to section 14(h)(1) of the Alaska Native 
     Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1613(h)(1)) are subject to a 
     restrictive covenant not required by the Alaska Native Claims 
     Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) that hinders the 
     ability of Sealaska to use the sites for cultural, 
     educational, or research purposes for Alaska Natives and 
     others;
       (B) historic sites managed by the Forest Service are not 
     subject to the limitations referred to in subparagraph (A); 
     and
       (C) Alaska Natives of southeast Alaska should be permitted 
     to use cemetery sites and historic places in a manner that 
     is--
       (i) consistent with the sacred, cultural, traditional, or 
     historic nature of the site; and
       (ii) not inconsistent with the management plans for 
     adjacent public land;
       (13) 44 percent (820,000 acres) of the 10 Alaska Native 
     village withdrawal areas established under the Alaska Native 
     Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) described in 
     paragraphs (7) and (8) are composed of salt water and not 
     available for selection;
       (14) of land subject to the selection rights of Sealaska, 
     110,000 acres are encumbered by gubernatorial consent 
     requirements under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 
     (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.);
       (15) in each withdrawal area, there exist factors that 
     limit the ability of Sealaska to select sufficient land, and, 
     in particular, economically viable land, to fulfill the land 
     entitlement of Sealaska, including factors such as--
       (A) with respect to the Yakutat withdrawal area--
       (i) 46 percent of the area is salt water;
       (ii) 10 sections (6,400 acres) around the Situk Lake were 
     restricted from selection, with no consideration provided for 
     the restriction; and
       (iii)(I) 70,000 acres are subject to a gubernatorial 
     consent requirement before selection; and
       (II) Sealaska received no consideration with respect to the 
     consent restriction;
       (B) with respect to the Hoonah withdrawal area, 51 percent 
     of the area is salt water;
       (C) with respect to the Angoon withdrawal area--
       (i) 120,000 acres of the area is salt water;
       (ii) Sealaska received no consideration regarding the 
     prohibition on selecting land from the 80,000 acres located 
     within the Admiralty Island National Monument; and
       (iii)(I) the Village Corporation for Angoon was allowed to 
     select land located outside the withdrawal area on Prince of 
     Wales Island, subject to the condition that the Village 
     Corporation shall not select land located on Admiralty 
     Island; but
       (II) no alternative land adjacent to the out-of-withdrawal 
     land of the Village Corporation was made available for 
     selection by Sealaska;
       (D) with respect to the Kake withdrawal area--
       (i) 64 percent of the area is salt water; and
       (ii) extensive timber harvesting by the Forest Service 
     occurred in the area before 1971 that significantly reduced 
     the value of land available for selection by, and conveyance 
     to, Sealaska;
       (E) with respect to the Kasaan withdrawal area--
       (i) 54 percent of the area is salt water; and
       (ii) the Forest Service previously harvested in the area;
       (F) with respect to the Klawock withdrawal area--
       (i) the area consists of only 5 townships, as compared to 
     the usual withdrawal area of 9 townships, because of the 
     proximity of the Klawock withdrawal area to the Village of 
     Craig, which reduces the selection area by 92,160 acres; and
       (ii) the Klawock and Craig withdrawal areas are 35 percent 
     salt water;
       (G) with respect to the Craig withdrawal area, the 
     withdrawal area consists of only 6 townships, as compared to 
     the usual withdrawal area of 9 townships, because of the 
     proximity of the Craig withdrawal area to the Village of 
     Klawock, which reduces the selection area by 69,120 acres;
       (H) with respect to the Hydaburg withdrawal area--
       (i) 36 percent of the area is salt water; and
       (ii) Sealaska received no consideration under the Haida 
     Land Exchange Act of 1986 (Public Law No. 99 664; 100 Stat. 
     4303) for relinquishing selection rights to land within the 
     withdrawal area that the Haida Corporation exchanged to the 
     Forest Service;
       (I) with respect to the Klukwan withdrawal area--
       (i) 27 percent of the area is salt water; and

[[Page H3768]]

       (ii) the withdrawal area is only 70,000 acres, as compared 
     to the usual withdrawal area of 207,360 acres, which reduces 
     the selection area by 137,360 acres; and
       (J) with respect to the Saxman withdrawal area--
       (i) 29 percent of the area is salt water;
       (ii) Sealaska received no consideration for the 50,576 
     acres within the withdrawal area adjacent to the first-class 
     city of Ketchikan that were excluded from selection;
       (iii) Sealaska received no consideration with respect to 
     the 1977 amendment to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 
     (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) requiring gubernatorial consent for 
     selection of 58,000 acres in that area; and
       (iv) 23,888 acres are located within the Annette Island 
     Indian Reservation for the Metlakatla Indian Tribe and are 
     not available for selection;
       (16) the selection limitations and guidelines applicable to 
     Sealaska under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)--
       (A) are inequitable and inconsistent with the purposes of 
     that Act because there is insufficient land remaining in the 
     withdrawal areas to meet the traditional, cultural, and 
     socioeconomic needs of the shareholders of Sealaska; and
       (B) make it difficult for Sealaska to select--
       (i) places of sacred, cultural, traditional, and historical 
     significance;
       (ii) sites with traditional and recreation use value and 
     sites suitable for renewable energy development; and
       (iii) lands that meet the real economic needs of the 
     shareholders of Sealaska;
       (17) unless Sealaska is allowed to select land outside 
     designated withdrawal areas in southeast Alaska, Sealaska 
     will not be able to--
       (A) complete the land entitlement selections of Sealaska 
     under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 
     et seq.) in a manner that meets the cultural, social, and 
     economic needs of Native shareholders;
       (B) avoid land selections in watersheds that are the 
     exclusive drinking water supply for regional communities, 
     support world class salmon streams, have been identified as 
     important habitat, or would otherwise be managed by the 
     Forest Service as roadless and old growth forest reserves;
       (C) secure ownership of places of sacred, cultural, 
     traditional, and historical importance to the Alaska Natives 
     of southeast Alaska; and
       (D) continue to support forestry jobs and economic 
     opportunities for Alaska Natives and other residents of rural 
     southeast Alaska;
       (18)(A) the rate of unemployment in southeast Alaska 
     exceeds the statewide rate of unemployment on a non-
     seasonally adjusted basis;
       (B) in January 2011, the Alaska Department of Labor and 
     Workforce Development reported the unemployment rate for the 
     Prince of Wales--Outer Ketchikan census area at approximately 
     16.2 percent;
       (C) in October 2007, the Alaska Department of Labor and 
     Workforce Development projected population losses between 
     1996 and 2030 for the Prince of Wales--Outer Ketchikan census 
     area at 56.6 percent;
       (D) official unemployment rates severely underreport the 
     actual level of regional unemployment, particularly in Native 
     villages; and
       (E) additional job losses will exacerbate outmigration from 
     Native and non-Native communities in southeast Alaska;
       (19) Sealaska has played, and is expected to continue to 
     play, a significant role in the health of the southeast 
     Alaska economy;
       (20) despite the small land base of Sealaska as compared to 
     other Regional Corporations (less than 1 percent of the total 
     quantity of land allocated pursuant to the Alaska Native 
     Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)), Sealaska 
     has--
       (A) provided considerable benefits to Alaska Native 
     shareholders;
       (B) supported hundreds of jobs for Alaska Native 
     shareholders and non-shareholders in southeast Alaska for 
     more than 30 years; and
       (C) been a significant economic force in southeast Alaska;
       (21) pursuant to the revenue sharing provisions of section 
     7(i) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 
     1606(i)), Sealaska has distributed more than $300,000,000 
     during the period beginning on January 1, 1971, and ending on 
     December 31, 2005, to Native Corporations throughout the 
     State of Alaska from the development of natural resources, 
     which accounts for 42 percent of the total revenues shared 
     under that section during that period;
       (22) resource development operations maintained by 
     Sealaska--
       (A) support hundreds of jobs in the southeast Alaska 
     region;
       (B) make timber available to local and domestic sawmills 
     and other wood products businesses such as guitar 
     manufacturers;
       (C) support firewood programs for local communities;
       (D) support maintenance of roads utilized by local 
     communities for subsistence and recreation uses;
       (E) support development of new biomass energy opportunities 
     in southeast Alaska, reducing dependence on high-cost diesel 
     fuel for the generation of energy;
       (F) provide start-up capital for innovative business models 
     in southeast Alaska that create new opportunities for non-
     timber economic development in the region, including support 
     for renewable biomass initiatives, Alaska Native artisans, 
     and rural mariculture farming; and
       (G) support Native education and cultural and language 
     preservation activities;
       (23) if the resource development operations of Sealaska 
     cease on land appropriate for those operations, there will be 
     a significant negative impact on--
       (A) southeast Alaska Native shareholders;
       (B) the cultural preservation activities of Sealaska;
       (C) the economy of southeast Alaska; and
       (D) the Alaska Native community that benefits from the 
     revenue-sharing requirements under the Alaska Native claims 
     Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.);
       (24) it is critical that the remaining land entitlement 
     conveyances to Sealaska under the Alaska Native Claims 
     Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) are fulfilled to 
     continue to meet the economic, social, and cultural needs of 
     the Alaska Native shareholders of southeast Alaska and the 
     Alaska Native community throughout Alaska;
       (25) in order to realize cultural preservation goals while 
     also diversifying economic opportunities, Sealaska should be 
     authorized to select and receive conveyance of--
       (A) sacred, cultural, traditional, and historic sites and 
     other places of traditional cultural significance, including 
     traditional and customary trade and migration routes, to 
     facilitate the perpetuation and preservation of Alaska Native 
     culture and history;
       (B) other sites with traditional and recreation use value 
     and sites suitable for renewable energy development to 
     facilitate appropriate tourism and outdoor recreation 
     enterprises and renewable energy development for rural 
     southeast Alaska communities; and
       (C) lands that are suitable economically and 
     environmentally for natural resource development;
       (26) on completion of the conveyances of land of Sealaska 
     to fulfill the full land entitlement of Sealaska under the 
     Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), 
     the encumbrances on 327,000 acres of Federal land created by 
     the withdrawal of land for selection by Native Corporations 
     in southeast Alaska should be removed, which will facilitate 
     thorough and complete planning and efficient management 
     relating to national forest land in southeast Alaska by the 
     Forest Service;
       (27) although the Tribal Forest Protection Act (25 U.S.C. 
     3101 note; Public Law 108 278) defines the term ``Indian 
     tribe'' to include Indian tribes under section 4 of the 
     Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 
     U.S.C. 450b), a term which includes ``any Alaska Native 
     village or regional or village corporation as defined in or 
     established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 
     Act . . .'', the Tribal Forest Protection Act does not define 
     the term ``Indian forest land or rangeland'' to include lands 
     owned by Alaska Native Corporations, including Sealaska, 
     which are the primary Indian forest land owners in Alaska, 
     and therefore, the Tribal Forest Protection Act should be 
     amended in a manner that will--
       (A) permit Native Corporations, including Sealaska, as 
     Indian forest land owners in Alaska, to work with the 
     Secretary of Agriculture under the Tribal Forest Protection 
     Act to address forest fire and insect infestation issues, 
     including the spread of the spruce bark beetle in southeast 
     and southcentral Alaska, which threaten the health of the 
     Native forestlands; and
       (B) ensure that Native Corporations, including Sealaska, 
     can participate in programs administered by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture under the Tribal Forest Protection Act without 
     including Native Corporations under the definition in that 
     Act of ``Indian forest land or rangeland'' or otherwise 
     amending that Act in a manner that validates, invalidates, or 
     otherwise affects any claim regarding the existence of Indian 
     country in the State of Alaska; and
       (28) the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 
     et seq.) defines the term ``Indian tribe'' to include any 
     ``Native village, Regional Corporation or Village 
     Corporation, as those terms are defined in section 3 of the 
     Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act'' but does not define the 
     term ``Tribal lands'' to include lands owned by Alaska Native 
     Corporations, thereby excluding from the National Historic 
     Preservation Act cemetery sites and historical places 
     transferred to Native Corporations, including Sealaska, 
     pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and 
     therefore, the National Historic Preservation Act should be 
     amended in a manner that will--
       (A) permit Native Corporations, including Sealaska, as 
     owners of Indian cemetery sites and historical places in 
     Alaska, to work with the Secretary of the Interior under the 
     National Historic Preservation Act to secure grants and other 
     support to manage their own historic sites and programs 
     pursuant to that Act; and
       (B) ensure that Native Corporations, including Sealaska, 
     can participate in programs administered by the Secretary of 
     the Interior under the National Historic Preservation Act 
     without including Native Corporations under the definition in 
     that Act of ``Tribal lands'' or otherwise amending that Act 
     in a manner that validates, invalidates, or otherwise affects 
     any claim regarding the existence of Indian country in the 
     State of Alaska.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to address the 
     inequitable treatment of Sealaska by allowing Sealaska to 
     select the remaining land entitlement of Sealaska under 
     section 14 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1613) from designated Federal land in southeast Alaska 
     located outside the 10 southeast Alaska Native village 
     withdrawal areas in a manner that meets the cultural, social, 
     and economic needs of Native shareholders, including the need 
     to maintain jobs supported by Sealaska in rural southeast 
     Alaska communities.

     SEC. 304. SELECTIONS IN SOUTHEAST ALASKA.

       (a) Selection by Sealaska.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 14(h)(8) of the 
     Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1613(h)(8)), 
     Sealaska is authorized to select and receive conveyance of 
     the remaining land entitlement of Sealaska under that Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) from Federal

[[Page H3769]]

     land located in southeast Alaska from each category described 
     in subsections (b) and (c).
       (2) Treatment of land conveyed.--Land conveyed pursuant to 
     this title are to be treated as land conveyed pursuant to the 
     Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) 
     subject to, but not limited to--
       (A) reservation of public easements across land pursuant to 
     section 17(b) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1616(b));
       (B) valid existing rights pursuant to section 14(g) of the 
     Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1613(g)); and
       (C) the land bank protections of section 907(d) of the 
     Alaska National Interest and Lands Conservation Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1636(d)).
       (b) Withdrawal of Land.--The following public land is 
     withdrawn, subject to valid existing rights, from all forms 
     of appropriation under public land laws, including the mining 
     and mineral leasing laws, and from selection under the Act of 
     July 7, 1958 (commonly known as the ``Alaska Statehood Act'') 
     (48 U.S.C. note prec. 21; Public Law 85 508), and shall be 
     available for selection by and conveyance to Sealaska to 
     complete the remaining land entitlement of Sealaska under 
     section 14(h)(8) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 
     (43 U.S.C. 1613(h)(8)):
       (1) Land identified on the maps dated February 1, 2011, and 
     labeled ``Attachment A (Maps 1 through 8)''.
       (2) Sites with traditional, recreational, and renewable 
     energy use value, as identified on the map entitled ``Sites 
     with Traditional, Recreational, and Renewable Energy Use 
     Value'', dated February 1, 2011, and labeled ``Attachment 
     D'', subject to the condition that not more than 5,000 acres 
     shall be selected for those purposes.
       (3) Sites identified on the map entitled ``Traditional and 
     Customary Trade and Migration Routes'', dated February 1, 
     2011, and labeled ``Attachment C'', which includes an 
     identification of--
       (A) a conveyance of land 25 feet in width, together with 1-
     acre sites at each terminus and at 8 locations along the 
     route, with the route, location, and boundaries of the 
     conveyance described on the map inset entitled ``Yakutat to 
     Dry Bay Trade and Migration Route'' on the map entitled 
     ``Traditional and Customary Trade and Migration Routes'', 
     dated February 1, 2011, and labeled ``Attachment C'';
       (B) a conveyance of land 25 feet in width, together with 1-
     acre sites at each terminus, with the route, location, and 
     boundaries of the conveyance described on the map inset 
     entitled ``Bay of Pillars to Port Camden Trade and Migration 
     Route'' on the map entitled ``Traditional and Customary Trade 
     and Migration Routes'', dated February 1, 2011, and labeled 
     ``Attachment C''; and
       (C) a conveyance of land 25 feet in width, together with 1-
     acre sites at each terminus, with the route, location, and 
     boundaries of the conveyance described on the map inset 
     entitled ``Portage Bay to Duncan Canal Trade and Migration 
     Route'' on the map entitled ``Traditional and Customary Trade 
     and Migration Routes'', dated February 1, 2011, and labeled 
     ``Attachment C''.
       (c) Sites With Sacred, Cultural, Traditional, or Historic 
     Significance.--Subject to the criteria and procedures 
     applicable to land selected pursuant to section 14(h)(1) of 
     the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 
     1613(h)(1)) and set forth in the regulations promulgated at 
     section 2653.5 of title 43, Code of Federal Regulations (as 
     in effect on the date of enactment of this Act), except as 
     otherwise provided in this title--
       (1) Sealaska shall have a right to identify up to 3,600 
     acres of sites with sacred, cultural, traditional, or 
     historic significance, including archeological sites, 
     cultural landscapes, and natural features having cultural 
     significance; and
       (2) on identification of the land by Sealaska under 
     paragraph (1), the identified land shall be--
       (A) withdrawn, subject to valid existing rights, from all 
     forms of appropriation under public land laws, including the 
     mining and mineral leasing laws, and from selection under the 
     Act of July 7, 1958 (commonly known as the ``Alaska Statehood 
     Act'') (48 U.S.C. note prec. 21; Public Law 85 508); and
       (B) available for selection by and conveyance to Sealaska 
     to complete the remaining land entitlement of Sealaska under 
     section 14(h)(8) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 
     (43 U.S.C. 1613(h)(8)) subject to the conditions that--
       (i) no sites with sacred, cultural, traditional, or 
     historic significance may be selected from within a unit of 
     the National Park System; and
       (ii) beginning on the date that is 15 years after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, Sealaska shall be limited to 
     identifying not more than 360 acres of sites with sacred, 
     cultural, traditional, or historic significance under this 
     subsection.
       (d) Forest Development Roads.--Sealaska shall receive from 
     the United States, subject to all necessary State and Federal 
     permits, nonexclusive easements to Sealaska to allow--
       (1) access on the forest development road and use of the 
     log transfer site identified in paragraphs (3)(b), (3)(c) and 
     (3)(d) of the patent numbered 50 85 0112 and dated January 4, 
     1985;
       (2) access on the forest development road identified in 
     paragraphs (2)(a) and (2)(b) of the patent numbered 50 92 
     0203 and dated February 24, 1992;
       (3) access on the forest development road identified in 
     paragraph (2)(a) of the patent numbered 50 94 0046 and dated 
     December 17, 1993;
       (4) access on the forest development roads and use of the 
     log transfer facilities identified on the maps dated February 
     1, 2011, and labeled ``Attachment A (Maps 1 through 8)'';
       (5) a reservation of a right to construct a new road to 
     connect to existing forest development roads as generally 
     identified on the maps identified in paragraph (4); and
       (6) access to and reservation of a right to construct a new 
     log transfer facility and log storage area at the location 
     identified on the maps identified in paragraph (4).

     SEC. 305. CONVEYANCES TO SEALASKA.

       (a) Timeline for Conveyance.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), 
     the Secretary shall work with Sealaska to develop a mutually 
     agreeable schedule to complete the conveyance of land to 
     Sealaska under this title.
       (2) Final priorities.--Consistent with the provisions of 
     section 403 of the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1611 note; Public Law 108 452), not later than 18 
     months after the date of enactment of this Act, Sealaska 
     shall submit to the Secretary the final, irrevocable 
     priorities for selection of land withdrawn under section 
     304(b)(1).
       (3) Substantial completion required.--Not later than two 
     years after the date of selection by Sealaska of land 
     withdrawn under section 304(b)(1), the Secretary shall 
     substantially complete the conveyance of the land to Sealaska 
     under this title.
       (4) Effect.--Nothing in this title shall interfere with or 
     cause any delay in the duty of the Secretary to convey land 
     to the State of Alaska under section 6 of the Act of July 7, 
     1958 (commonly known as the ``Alaska Statehood Act'') (48 
     U.S.C. note prec. 21; Public Law 85 508).
       (b) Expiration of Withdrawals.--On completion of the 
     selection by Sealaska and the conveyances to Sealaska of land 
     under subsection (a) in a manner that is sufficient to 
     fulfill the land entitlement of Sealaska under section 
     14(h)(8) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1613(h)(8))--
       (1) the right of Sealaska to receive any land under that 
     Act from within a withdrawal area established under 
     subsections (a) and (d) of section 16 of that Act shall be 
     terminated;
       (2) the withdrawal areas set aside for selection by Native 
     Corporations in southeast Alaska under subsections (a) and 
     (d) of section 16 of that Act shall be rescinded; and
       (3) land located within a withdrawal area that is not 
     conveyed to Sealaska or to a southeast Alaska Village 
     Corporation or Urban Corporation shall be returned to the 
     unencumbered management of the Forest Service as part of the 
     Tongass National Forest.
       (c) Limitation.--Sealaska shall not select or receive under 
     this title any conveyance of land pursuant to paragraphs (1) 
     or (2) of section 304(b) located within any conservation 
     system unit.
       (d) Applicable Easements and Public Access.--
       (1) In general.--In addition to the reservation of public 
     easements under section 304(a)(2)(A), the conveyance to 
     Sealaska of land withdrawn pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (3) 
     of section 304(b) that are located outside a withdrawal area 
     designated under section 16(a) of the Alaska Native Claims 
     Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1615(a)) shall be subject to--
       (A) a reservation for easements for public access on the 
     public roads depicted on the maps dated February 1, 2011, and 
     labeled ``Attachment A (Maps 1 through 8)'';
       (B) a reservation for easements for public access on the 
     temporary roads designated by the Forest Service as of the 
     date of the enactment of this Act for the public access 
     trails depicted on the maps described in subparagraph (A); 
     and
       (C) the right of noncommercial public access for 
     subsistence uses, consistent with title VIII of the Alaska 
     National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3111 et 
     seq.), and recreational access, without liability to 
     Sealaska, subject to--
       (i) the right of Sealaska to regulate access to ensure 
     public safety, to protect cultural or scientific resources, 
     and to provide environmental protection; and
       (ii) the condition that Sealaska shall post on any 
     applicable property, in accordance with State law, notices of 
     the conditions on use.
       (2) Sacred, cultural, traditional and historic sites.--The 
     conveyance to Sealaska of land withdrawn pursuant to section 
     304(c) that is located outside of a withdrawal area 
     designated under section 16(a) of the Alaska Native Claims 
     Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1615(a)) shall be subject to--
       (A) the right of public access across the conveyances where 
     no reasonable alternative access around the land is available 
     without liability to Sealaska; and
       (B) the right of Sealaska to regulate access across the 
     conveyances to ensure public safety, to protect cultural or 
     scientific resources, to provide environmental protection, or 
     to prohibit activities incompatible with the use and 
     enjoyment of the land by Sealaska, subject to the condition 
     that Sealaska shall post on any applicable property, in 
     accordance with State law, notices of any such condition.
       (3) Traditional and customary trade and migration routes.--
     The conveyance to Sealaska of land withdrawn pursuant to 
     section 304(b)(3) that is located outside of a withdrawal 
     area designated under section 16(a) of the Alaska Native 
     Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1615(a)) shall be subject to 
     a requirement that Sealaska provide public access across such 
     linear conveyances if an adjacent landowner or the public has 
     a legal right to use the adjacent private or public land.
       (4) Sites with traditional, recreational, and renewable 
     energy use value.--The conveyance to Sealaska of land 
     withdrawn pursuant to section 304(b)(2) that is located 
     outside of a withdrawal area designated under section 16(a) 
     of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 
     1615(a)) shall be subject to--
       (A) the right of public access across the land without 
     liability to Sealaska; and

[[Page H3770]]

       (B) the condition that public access across the land would 
     not be unreasonably restricted or impaired.
       (5) Effect.--No right of access provided to any individual 
     or entity (other than Sealaska) by this subsection--
       (A) creates any interest, other than an interest retained 
     by the United States, of such an individual or entity in the 
     land conveyed to Sealaska in excess of that right of access; 
     or
       (B) provides standing in any review of, or challenge to, 
     any determination by Sealaska with respect to the management 
     or development of the applicable land.
       (e) Conditions on Sacred, Cultural, and Historic Sites and 
     Traditional and Customary Trade and Migration Routes.--The 
     conveyance to Sealaska of land withdrawn pursuant to sections 
     304(b)(3) and 304(c)--
       (1) shall be subject to a covenant prohibiting any 
     commercial timber harvest or mineral development on the land;
       (2) shall allow use of the land as described in subsection 
     (f); and
       (3) shall not be subject to any additional restrictive 
     covenant based on cultural or historic values, or any other 
     restriction, encumbrance, or easement, except as provided in 
     sections 14(g) and 17(b) of the Alaska Native Claims 
     Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1613(g), 1616(b)).
       (f) Uses of Sacred, Cultural, Traditional, and Historic 
     Sites and Traditional and Customary Trade and Migration 
     Routes.--Any land conveyed to Sealaska from land withdrawn 
     pursuant to sections 304(b)(3) and 304(c) may be used for--
       (1) preservation of cultural knowledge and traditions 
     associated with the site;
       (2) historical, cultural, and scientific research and 
     education;
       (3) public interpretation and education regarding the 
     cultural significance of the site to Alaska Natives;
       (4) protection and management of the site to preserve the 
     natural and cultural features of the site, including cultural 
     traditions, values, songs, stories, names, crests, and clan 
     usage, for the benefit of future generations; and
       (5) site improvement activities for any purpose described 
     in paragraphs (1) through (4), subject to the condition that 
     the activities--
       (A) are consistent with the sacred, cultural, traditional, 
     or historic nature of the site; and
       (B) are not inconsistent with the management plans for 
     adjacent public land.
       (g) Termination of Restrictive Covenants.--
       (1) In general.--Each restrictive covenant regarding 
     cultural or historical values with respect to any interim 
     conveyance or patent for a historic or cemetery site issued 
     to Sealaska pursuant to the Federal regulations contained in 
     sections 2653.5(a) and 2653.11 of title 43, Code of Federal 
     Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this 
     Act), in accordance with section 14(h)(1) of the Alaska 
     Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1613(h)(1)), 
     terminates as a matter of law on the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (2) Remaining conditions.--Land subject to a covenant 
     described in paragraph (1) on the day before the date of 
     enactment of this Act shall be subject to the conditions 
     described in subsection (e).
       (3) Records.--Sealaska shall be responsible for recording 
     with the land title recorders office of the State of Alaska 
     any modification to an existing conveyance of land under 
     section 14(h)(1) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 
     (43 U.S.C. 1613(h)(1)) as a result of this title.
       (h) Conditions on Sites With Traditional, Recreational, and 
     Renewable Energy Use Value.--Each conveyance of land to 
     Sealaska from land withdrawn pursuant to section 304(b)(2) 
     shall be subject to a covenant prohibiting any commercial 
     timber harvest or mineral development.
       (i) Escrow Funds for Withdrawn Land.--On the withdrawal by 
     this title of land identified for selection by Sealaska, the 
     escrow requirements of section 2 of Public Law 94 204 (43 
     U.S.C. 1613 note), shall thereafter apply to the withdrawn 
     land.
       (j) Guiding and Outfitting Special Use Permits or 
     Authorizations.--
       (1) In general.--Consistent with the provisions of section 
     14(g) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 
     1613(g)), except as modified herein, on land conveyed to 
     Sealaska from land withdrawn pursuant to sections 304(b)(1) 
     and 304(b)(2), an existing holder of a guiding or outfitting 
     special use permit or authorization issued by the Forest 
     Service shall be entitled to its rights and privileges on the 
     land for the remaining term of the permit, as of the date of 
     conveyance to Sealaska, and for 1 subsequent 10-year renewal 
     of the permit, subject to the condition that the rights shall 
     be considered a valid existing right reserved pursuant to 
     section 14(g) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1613(g)), and shall be managed accordingly.
       (2) Notice of commercial activities.--Sealaska, with 
     respect to the holder of a guiding or outfitting special use 
     permit or authorization under this subsection, and a permit 
     holder referenced in this subsection, with respect to 
     Sealaska, shall have an obligation to inform the other party 
     of their respective commercial activities before engaging in 
     the activities on land, which has been conveyed to Sealaska 
     under this title, subject to the permit or authorization.
       (3) Negotiation of new terms.--Nothing in this subsection 
     precludes Sealaska and a permit holder under this subsection 
     from negotiating new mutually agreeable permit terms that 
     supersede the requirements of--
       (A) this subsection;
       (B) section 14(g) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 
     Act (43 U.S.C. 1613(g)); or
       (C) any deed covenant.
       (4) Liability.--Sealaska shall bear no liability regarding 
     use and occupancy pursuant to special use permits or 
     authorizations on land selected or conveyed pursuant to this 
     title.

     SEC. 306. MISCELLANEOUS.

       (a) Status of Conveyed Land.--Each conveyance of Federal 
     land to Sealaska pursuant to this title, and each Federal 
     action carried out to achieve the purpose of this title, 
     shall be considered to be conveyed or acted on, as 
     applicable, pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 
     Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.).
       (b) Environmental Mitigation and Incentives.--
     Notwithstanding subsection (e) and (h) of section 305, all 
     land conveyed to Sealaska pursuant to the Alaska Native 
     Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) and this title 
     shall be considered to be qualified to receive or participate 
     in, as applicable--
       (1) any federally authorized carbon sequestration program, 
     ecological services program, or environmental mitigation 
     credit; and
       (2) any other federally authorized environmental incentive 
     credit or program.
       (c) No Material Effect on Forest Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Except as required by paragraph (2), 
     implementation of this title, including the conveyance of 
     land to Sealaska, alone or in combination with any other 
     factor, shall not require an amendment of, or revision to, 
     the Tongass National Forest Land and Resources Management 
     Plan before the first revision of that Plan scheduled to 
     occur after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Boundary adjustments.--The Secretary of Agriculture 
     shall implement any land ownership boundary adjustments to 
     the Tongass National Forest Land and Resources Management 
     Plan resulting from the implementation of this title through 
     a technical amendment to that Plan.
       (d) Technical Corrections.--
       (1) Tribal forest protection.--Section 2 of the Tribal 
     Forest Protection Act of 2004 (25 U.S.C. 3115a) is amended by 
     adding at the end a new subsection (h):
       ``(h)(1) Land owned by an Alaska Native Corporation 
     pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) that is forest land or formerly had a 
     forest cover or vegetative cover that is capable of 
     restoration shall be eligible for agreements and contracts 
     authorized under this Act and administered by the Secretary.
       ``(2) Nothing in this subsection validates, invalidates, or 
     otherwise affects any claim regarding the existence of Indian 
     country (as defined in section 1151 of title 18, United 
     States Code) in the State of Alaska.''.
       (2) National historic preservation.--Section 101(d) of the 
     National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470a(d)), is 
     amended by adding at the end a new paragraph (7):
       ``(7)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an 
     Alaska Native tribe, band, nation or other organized group or 
     community, including a Native village, Regional Corporation, 
     or Village Corporation, shall be eligible to participate in 
     all programs administered by the Secretary under this Act on 
     behalf of Indian tribes, including, but not limited to, 
     securing grants and other support to manage their own 
     historic preservation sites and programs on lands held by the 
     Alaska Native tribe, band, nation or other organized group or 
     community, including a Native village, Regional Corporation, 
     or Village Corporation.
       ``(B) Nothing in this paragraph validates, invalidates, or 
     otherwise affects any claim regarding the existence of Indian 
     country (as defined in section 1151 of title 18, United 
     States Code) in the State of Alaska.''.
       (e) Effect on Entitlement.--Nothing in this title shall 
     have any effect upon the entitlement due to any Native 
     Corporation, other than Sealaska, under--
       (1) the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 
     et seq.); or
       (2) the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 
     U.S.C. 3101 et seq.).

     SEC. 307. MAPS.

       (a) Availability.--Each map referred to in this title shall 
     be maintained on file in--
       (1) the office of the Chief of the Forest Service; and
       (2) the office of the Secretary.
       (b) Corrections.--The Secretary or the Chief of the Forest 
     Service may make any necessary correction to a clerical or 
     typographical error in a map referred to in this title.
       (c) Treatment.--No map referred to in this title shall be 
     considered to be an attempt by the Federal Government to 
     convey any State or private land.

   TITLE IV--SAN ANTONIO MISSIONS NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK BOUNDARY 
                             EXPANSION ACT

     SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``San Antonio Missions 
     National Historical Park Boundary Expansion Act''.

     SEC. 402. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park is 
     important to understanding the history and development of the 
     City of San Antonio, Bexar County, the State of Texas, and 
     the United States;
       (2) understanding the connection between the San Antonio 
     River and the San Antonio Missions is critical to 
     understanding mission life in colonial Texas; and
       (3) the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park 
     enjoys the strong support of the City of San Antonio, Bexar 
     County, and their citizens and businesses.

     SEC. 403. BOUNDARY EXPANSION.

       Section 201(a) of Public Law 95 629 (16 U.S.C. 410ee(a)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``In order'' and inserting ``(1) In 
     order'';
       (2) by striking ``The park shall also'' and inserting ``(2) 
     The park shall also'';

[[Page H3771]]

       (3) by striking ``After advising the'' and inserting ``(5) 
     After advising the'';
       (4) by inserting after paragraph (2) (as so designated by 
     paragraph (2) above) the following:
       ``(3) The boundary of the park is further modified to 
     include approximately 151 acres, as depicted on the map 
     titled `San Antonio Missions National Historical Park 
     Proposed Boundary Addition 2009', numbered 472/468,027, and 
     dated November 2009. The map shall be on file and available 
     for inspection in the appropriate offices of the National 
     Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.
       ``(4) The Secretary may not acquire by condemnation any 
     land or interest in land within the boundaries of the park. 
     The Secretary is authorized to acquire land and interests in 
     land that are within the boundaries of the park pursuant to 
     paragraph (3) by donation only. No private property or non-
     Federal public property shall be included within the 
     boundaries of the park without the written consent of the 
     owner of such property. Nothing in this Act, the 
     establishment of park, or the management plan of the park 
     shall be construed create buffer zones outside of the park. 
     That an activity or use can be seen or heard from within the 
     park shall not preclude the conduct of that activity or use 
     outside the park.''.

   TITLE V--WACO MAMMOTH NATIONAL MONUMENT ESTABLISHMENT ACT OF 2012

     SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Waco Mammoth National 
     Monument Establishment Act of 2012''.

     SEC. 502. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the Waco Mammoth Site area is located near the 
     confluence of the Brazos River and the Bosque River in 
     central Texas, near the city of Waco;
       (2) after the discovery of bones emerging from eroding 
     creek banks leading to the uncovering of portions of 5 
     mammoths, Baylor University began investigating the site in 
     1978;
       (3) several additional mammoth remains have been uncovered 
     making the site the largest known concentration of mammoths 
     dying from the same event;
       (4) the mammoth discoveries have received international 
     attention; and
       (5) Baylor University and the city of Waco, Texas, have 
     been working together--
       (A) to protect the site; and
       (B) to develop further research and educational 
     opportunities at the site.

     SEC. 503. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) City.--The term ``City'' means the city of Waco, Texas.
       (2) Management plan.--The term ``management plan'' means 
     the management plan for the Monument prepared under section 
     505(c)(1).
       (3) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled 
     ``Proposed Boundary Waco-Mammoth National Monument'', 
     numbered T21/80,000, and dated April 2009.
       (4) Monument.--The term ``Monument'' means the Waco Mammoth 
     National Monument established by section 504(a).
       (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (6) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Texas.
       (7) University.--The term ``University'' means Baylor 
     University in the State.

     SEC. 504. WACO MAMMOTH NATIONAL MONUMENT, TEXAS.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the State, as a 
     unit of the National Park System, the Waco Mammoth National 
     Monument, as generally depicted on the map.
       (b) Availability of Map.--The map shall be on file and 
     available for public inspection in the appropriate offices of 
     the National Park Service.

     SEC. 505. ADMINISTRATION OF MONUMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall administer the 
     Monument in accordance with--
       (1) this title; and
       (2) any cooperative agreements entered into under 
     subsection (b)(1).
       (b) Authorities of Secretary.--
       (1) Cooperative agreements.--The Secretary may enter into 
     cooperative management agreements with the University and the 
     City, in accordance with section 3(l) of Public Law 91 383 
     (16 U.S.C. 1a 2(l)).
       (2) Acquisition of land.--The Secretary may acquire by 
     donation only from the City any land or interest in land 
     owned by the City within the proposed boundary of the 
     Monument.
       (c) General Management Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with 
     the University and the City, shall complete a general 
     management plan for the Monument.
       (2) Inclusions.--The management plan shall include, at a 
     minimum--
       (A) measures for the preservation of the resources of the 
     Monument;
       (B) requirements for the type and extent of development and 
     use of the Monument;
       (C) identification of the capacity of the Monument for 
     accommodating visitors; and
       (D) opportunities for involvement by the University, City, 
     State, and other local and national entities in--
       (i) developing educational programs for the Monument; and
       (ii) developing and supporting the Monument.
       (d) Prohibition of Use of Federal Funds.--No Federal funds 
     may be used to pay the costs of--
       (1) carrying out a cooperative agreement under subsection 
     (b)(1);
       (2) acquiring land for inclusion in the Monument under 
     subsection (b)(2);
       (3) developing a visitor center for the Monument;
       (4) operating or maintaining the Monument;
       (5) constructing exhibits for the Monument; or
       (6) developing the general management plan under subsection 
     (c).
       (e) Use of Non-Federal Funds.--Non-Federal funds may be 
     used to pay any costs that may be incurred by the Secretary 
     or the National Park Service in carrying out this section.
       (f) Effect on Eligibility for Financial Assistance.--
     Nothing in this title affects the eligibility of the Monument 
     for Federal grants or other forms of financial assistance 
     that the Monument would have been eligible to apply for had 
     National Park System status not been conferred to the 
     Monument under this title.
       (g) Termination of National Park System Status.--
       (1) In general.--Designation of the Monument as a unit of 
     the National Park System shall terminate if the Secretary 
     determines that Federal funds are required to operate and 
     maintain the Monument.
       (2) Reversion.--If the designation of the Monument as a 
     unit of the National Park System is terminated under 
     paragraph (1), any land acquired by the Secretary from the 
     City under subsection (b)(2) shall revert to the City.
       (h) Private Property Protection.--No private property may 
     be made part of the Monument without the written consent of 
     the owner of that private property.

     SEC. 506. NO BUFFER ZONES.

       Nothing in this title, the establishment of national 
     monument, or the management plan shall be construed create 
     buffer zones outside of the national monument. That an 
     activity or use can be seen or heard from within the Monument 
     shall not preclude the conduct of that activity or use 
     outside the Monument.

             TITLE VI--NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK ACCESS

     SEC. 601. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds as follows:
       (1) In 1988, 93 percent of the North Cascades National Park 
     Complex was designated the Stephen Mather Wilderness.
       (2) A road corridor was deliberately excluded from the 
     wilderness designation to provide for the continued use and 
     maintenance of the upper Stehekin Valley Road.
       (3) The upper Stehekin Valley Road provides access to 
     Stephen Mather Wilderness trailheads and North Cascades 
     National Park from the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area.
       (4) Record flooding in 1995 and again in 2003 caused severe 
     damage to the upper Stehekin Valley Road and led to the 
     closure of a 9.9-mile section of the road between Car Wash 
     Falls and Cottonwood Camp.
       (5) The National Park Service currently does not have the 
     flexibility to rebuild the upper Stehekin Valley Road away 
     from the Stehekin River due to the current location of the 
     non-wilderness road corridor provided by Congress in 1988.
       (6) It is a high priority that the people of the United 
     States, including families, the disabled, and the elderly, 
     have reasonable access to the National Parks system and their 
     public lands.
       (7) The 1995 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area General 
     Management Plan calls for retaining vehicle access to 
     Cottonwood Camp.
       (8) Tourism associated with the North Cascades National 
     Park Complex is an important part of the economy for rural 
     communities in the area.
       (9) Additional management flexibility would allow the 
     National Park Service to consider retention of the upper 
     Stehekin Valley Road in a manner that provides for no net 
     loss of wilderness.

     SEC. 602. AUTHORIZATION FOR BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS.

       The Washington Park Wilderness Act of 1988 (Public Law 100 
     668) is amended by inserting after section 206 the following:

     ``SEC. 207. BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS FOR ROAD.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may adjust the boundaries 
     of the North Cascades National Park and the Stephen Mather 
     Wilderness in order to provide a 100-foot-wide corridor along 
     which the Stehekin Valley Road may be rebuilt--
       ``(1) outside of the floodplain between milepost 12.9 and 
     milepost 22.8;
       ``(2) within the boundaries of the North Cascades National 
     Park; and
       ``(3) outside of the boundaries of the Stephen Mather 
     Wilderness.
       ``(b) No Net Loss of Lands.--The boundary adjustments made 
     under this section shall be such that equal acreage amounts 
     are exchanged between the Stephen Mather Wilderness and the 
     North Cascades National Park, resulting in no net loss of 
     acreage to either the Stephen Mather Wilderness or the North 
     Cascades National Park.''.

  TITLE VII--ENDANGERED SALMON AND FISHERIES PREDATION PREVENTION ACT

     SEC. 701. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Endangered Salmon and 
     Fisheries Predation Prevention Act''.

     SEC. 702. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) There are 13 groups of salmon and steelhead that are 
     listed as threatened species or endangered species under the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 that migrate through the lower 
     Columbia River.
       (2) The people of the Northwest United States are united in 
     their desire to restore healthy salmon and steelhead runs, as 
     they are integral to the region's culture and economy.
       (3) The Columbia River treaty tribes retain important 
     rights with respect to salmon and steelhead.
       (4) Federal, State, and tribal governments have spent 
     billions of dollars to assist the recovery of Columbia River 
     salmon and steelhead populations.
       (5) One of the factors impacting salmonid populations is 
     increased predation by marine mammals, including California 
     sea lions.

[[Page H3772]]

       (6) The population of California sea lions has increased 6-
     fold over the last 3 decades, and is currently greater than 
     250,000 animals.
       (7) In recent years, more than 1,000 California sea lions 
     have been foraging in the lower 145 miles of the Columbia 
     River up to Bonneville Dam during the peak spring salmonid 
     run before returning to the California coast to mate.
       (8) The percentage of the spring salmonid run that has been 
     eaten or killed by California sea lions at Bonneville Dam has 
     increased 7-fold since 2002.
       (9) In recent years, California sea lions have with greater 
     frequency congregated near Bonneville Dam and have entered 
     the fish ladders.
       (10) These California sea lions have not been responsive to 
     extensive hazing methods employed near Bonneville Dam to 
     discourage this behavior.
       (11) The process established under the 1994 amendment to 
     the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to address 
     aggressive sea lion behavior is protracted and will not work 
     in a timely enough manner to protect threatened and 
     endangered salmonids in the near term.
       (12) In the interest of protecting Columbia River 
     threatened and endangered salmonids, a temporary expedited 
     procedure is urgently needed to allow removal of the minimum 
     number of California sea lions as is necessary to protect the 
     passage of threatened and endangered salmonids in the 
     Columbia River and its tributaries.
       (13) On December 21, 2010, the independent Pinniped-Fishery 
     Interaction Task Force recommended lethally removing more of 
     the California sea lions in 2011.
       (14) On August 18, 2011, the States of Washington, Oregon, 
     and Idaho applied to the National Marine Fisheries Service, 
     under section 120(b)(1)(A) of the Marine Mammal Protection 
     Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1389(b)(1)(A)), for the lethal removal 
     of sea lions that the States determined are having a 
     ``significant negative impact'' on the recovery of Columbia 
     River and Snake River salmon and steelhead.
       (15) On September 12, 2011, the National Marine Fisheries 
     Service announced it was accepting the States' application 
     for lethal removal of sea lions and that it would reconvene 
     the Pinniped-Fishery Interaction Task Force to consider the 
     States' application. This title will ensure the necessary 
     authority for permits under the Marine Mammal Protection Act 
     of 1972 to be issued in a timely fashion.
       (16) During a June 14, 2011, hearing, the Committee on 
     Natural Resources of the House of Representatives received 
     testimony from State and tribal witnesses expressing concern 
     that significant pinniped predation of important Northwest 
     fish resources other than salmonids is severely impacting 
     fish stocks determined by both Federal and State fishery 
     management agencies to be at low levels of abundance, and 
     that this cannot be addressed by section 120 of the Marine 
     Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1389), which as in 
     effect before the enactment of this Act restricted control of 
     predatory pinnipeds' impact only with respect to endangered 
     salmonids.

     SEC. 703. TAKING OF SEA LIONS ON THE COLUMBIA RIVER AND ITS 
                   TRIBUTARIES TO PROTECT ENDANGERED AND 
                   THREATENED SPECIES OF SALMON AND OTHER 
                   NONLISTED FISH SPECIES.

       Section 120 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 
     U.S.C. 1389) is amended by striking subsection (f) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(f) Temporary Marine Mammal Removal Authority on the 
     Waters of the Columbia River or Its Tributaries.--
       ``(1) Removal authority.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this Act, the Secretary may issue a permit to an 
     eligible entity authorizing the intentional lethal taking on 
     the waters of the Columbia River and its tributaries of sea 
     lions that are part of a healthy population that is not 
     listed as an endangered species or threatened species under 
     the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 
     to protect endangered and threatened species of salmon and 
     other nonlisted fish species.
       ``(2) Permit process.--
       ``(A) In general.--An eligible entity may apply to the 
     Secretary for a permit under this subsection.
       ``(B) Deadline for consideration of application.--The 
     Secretary shall approve or deny an application for a permit 
     under this subsection by not later than 30 days after 
     receiving the application.
       ``(C) Duration of permit.--A permit under this subsection 
     shall be effective for no more than one year after the date 
     it is issued, but may be renewed by the Secretary.
       ``(3) Limitations.--
       ``(A) Limitation on permit authority.--Subject to 
     subparagraph (B), a permit issued under this subsection shall 
     not authorize the lethal taking of more than 10 sea lions 
     during the duration of the permit.
       ``(B) Limitation on annual takings.--The cumulative number 
     of sea lions authorized to be taken each year under all 
     permits in effect under this subsection shall not exceed one 
     percent of the annual potential biological removal level.
       ``(4) Delegation of permit authority.--Any eligible entity 
     may delegate to any other eligible entity the authority to 
     administer its permit authority under this subsection.
       ``(5) NEPA.--Section 102(2)(C) of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) shall 
     not apply with respect to this subsection and the issuance of 
     any permit under this subsection during the 5-year period 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of this subsection.
       ``(6) Suspension of permitting authority.--If, 5 years 
     after enactment, the Secretary, after consulting with State 
     and tribal fishery managers, determines that lethal removal 
     authority is no longer necessary to protect salmonid and 
     other fish species from sea lion predation, may suspend the 
     issuance of permits under this subsection.
       ``(7) Eligible entity defined.--In this subsection, the 
     term `eligible entity' means each of the State of Washington, 
     the State of Oregon, the State of Idaho, the Nez Perce Tribe, 
     the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, 
     the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of 
     Oregon, the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama 
     Nation, and the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish 
     Commission.''.

     SEC. 704. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) preventing predation by sea lions, recovery of listed 
     salmonid stocks, and preventing future listings of fish 
     stocks in the Columbia River is a vital priority;
       (2) permit holders exercising lethal removal authority 
     pursuant to the amendment made by this title should be 
     trained in wildlife management; and
       (3) the Federal Government should continue to fund lethal 
     and nonlethal removal measures for preventing such predation.

     SEC. 705. TREATY RIGHTS OF FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED INDIAN 
                   TRIBES.

       Nothing in this title or the amendment made by this title 
     shall be construed to affect or modify any treaty or other 
     right of any federally recognized Indian tribe.

 TITLE VIII--REAUTHORIZATION OF HERGER-FEINSTEIN QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP 
                          FOREST RECOVERY ACT

     SEC. 801. REAUTHORIZATION OF HERGER-FEINSTEIN QUINCY LIBRARY 
                   GROUP FOREST RECOVERY ACT.

       (a) Extension.--Subsection (g) of the Herger-Feinstein 
     Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act (title IV of the 
     Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1999, as contained in section 101(e) of 
     division A of Public Law 105 277; 16 U.S.C. 2104 note) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(g) Term of Pilot Project.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct the pilot 
     project until the earlier of the following:
       ``(A) September 30, 2022.
       ``(B) The date on which the Secretary completes amendment 
     or revision of the land and resource management plans for the 
     National Forest System lands included in the pilot project 
     area.
       ``(2) Forest plan amendments.--When the Regional Forester 
     for Region 5 initiates the process to amend or revise the 
     land and resource management plans for the pilot project 
     area, the process shall include preparation of at least one 
     alternative that incorporates the pilot project and area 
     designations under subsection (b), the resource management 
     activities described in subsection (d), and other aspects of 
     the Quincy Library Group Community Stability Proposal.''.
       (b) Expansion of Pilot Project Area.--Subsection (b) of the 
     Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Expansion of pilot project area.--The Secretary may 
     expand the pilot project area to include all National Forest 
     System lands within California or Nevada that lie within the 
     Sierra Nevada and Cascade Province, Lake Tahoe Basin 
     Management Unit, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, and Inyo 
     National Forest. These lands may be managed using the same 
     strategy, guidelines and resource management activities 
     outlined in this section or developed to meet local forest 
     and community needs and conditions.''.
       (c) Roadless Area Protection.--Subsection (c)(4) of the 
     Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``However, those areas designated as `Deferred' on the map, 
     but located in Tehama County, south and west of Lassen Peak, 
     are deemed to be designated as `Available for Group 
     Selection' and shall be managed accordingly under subsection 
     (d).''.
       (d) Group Selection Requirement.--Subparagraph (A) of 
     subsection (d)(2) of the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library 
     Group Forest Recovery Act is amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) Group selection.--After September 30, 2012, group 
     selection on an average acreage of .57 percent of the pilot 
     project area land shall occur each year of the pilot 
     project.''.

  TITLE IX--YERINGTON LAND CONVEYANCE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ACT

     SEC. 901. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Yerington Land Conveyance 
     and Sustainable Development Act''.

     SEC. 902. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the city of Yerington, Nevada, which has an 
     unemployment rate of 16 percent, has the highest unemployment 
     rate in the State of Nevada;
       (2) for over 4 years, the city of Yerington and Lyon 
     County, Nevada, have been working with private business 
     partners to develop a sustainable development plan that would 
     enable all parties to benefit from the use of private land 
     adjacent to the city of Yerington for potential commercial 
     and industrial development, mining activities, recreation 
     opportunities, and the expansion of community and cultural 
     events;
       (3) the sustainable development plan referred to in 
     paragraph (2) requires the conveyance of certain Federal land 
     administered by the Bureau of Land Management to the City for 
     consideration in an amount equal to the fair market value of 
     the Federal land;
       (4) the Federal land to be conveyed to the City under the 
     sustainable development plan has

[[Page H3773]]

     very few environmental, historical, wildlife, or cultural 
     resources of value to the public, but is appropriate for 
     responsible development;
       (5) the Federal land that would be conveyed to the City 
     under the sustainable development plan--
       (A) is adjacent to the boundaries of the City; and
       (B) would be used--
       (i) to enhance recreational, cultural, commercial, and 
     industrial development opportunities in the City;
       (ii) for future economic development, regional use, and as 
     an open space buffer to the City; and
       (iii) to allow the City to provide critical infrastructure 
     services;
       (6) commercial and industrial development of the Federal 
     land would enable the community to benefit from the 
     transportation, power, and water infrastructure that would be 
     put in place with the concurrent development of commercial 
     and industrial operations;
       (7) the conveyance of the Federal land would--
       (A) help the City and County to grow; and
       (B) provide additional tax revenue to the City and County;
       (8) industrial and commercial development of the Federal 
     land would create thousands of long-term, high-paying jobs 
     for the City and County; and
       (9) the Lyon County Commission and the City unanimously 
     approved resolutions in support of the conveyance of the 
     Federal land because the conveyance would facilitate a 
     sustainable model for long-term economic and industrial 
     development.

     SEC. 903. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) City.--The term ``City'' means the city of Yerington, 
     Nevada.
       (2) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means the land 
     located in Lyon County and Mineral County, Nevada, that is 
     identified on the map as ``City of Yerington Sustainable 
     Development Conveyance Lands''.
       (3) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled 
     ``Yerington Land Conveyance and Sustainable Development Act'' 
     and dated May 31, 2012.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 904. CONVEYANCES OF LAND TO CITY OF YERINGTON, NEVADA.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this title, subject to valid existing rights, 
     and notwithstanding the land use planning requirements of 
     sections 202 and 203 of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712, 1713), the Secretary 
     shall convey to the City, subject to the City's agreement and 
     in exchange for consideration in an amount equal to the fair 
     market value of the Federal land, all right, title, and 
     interest of the United States in and to the Federal land 
     identified on the map.
       (b) Appraisal To Determine of Fair Market Value.--The 
     Secretary shall determine the fair market value of the 
     Federal land to be conveyed--
       (1) in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); and
       (2) based on an appraisal that is conducted in accordance 
     with nationally recognized appraisal standards, including--
       (A) the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land 
     Acquisition; and
       (B) the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal 
     Practice.
       (c) Availability of Map.--The map shall be on file and 
     available for public inspection in the appropriate offices of 
     the Bureau of Land Management.
       (d) Applicable Law.--Beginning on the date on which the 
     Federal land is conveyed to the City, the development of and 
     conduct of activities on the Federal land shall be subject to 
     all applicable Federal laws (including regulations).
       (e) Administrative Costs.--The City shall be responsible 
     for all survey, appraisal, and other administrative costs 
     associated with the conveyance of the Federal land to the 
     City under this title.

     SEC. 905. RELEASE OF THE UNITED STATES.

       Upon making the conveyance under section 904, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the United States 
     is released from any and all liabilities or claims of any 
     kind or nature arising from the presence, release, or threat 
     of release of any hazardous substance, pollutant, 
     contaminant, petroleum product (or derivative of a petroleum 
     product of any kind), solid waste, mine materials or mining 
     related features (including tailings, overburden, waste rock, 
     mill remnants, pits, or other hazards resulting from the 
     presence of mining related features) on the Federal Land in 
     existence on or before the date of the conveyance.

     TITLE X--PRESERVING ACCESS TO CAPE HATTERAS NATIONAL SEASHORE 
                         RECREATIONAL AREA ACT

     SEC. 1001. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Preserving Access to Cape 
     Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area Act''.

     SEC. 1002. REINSTATEMENT OF INTERIM MANAGEMENT STRATEGY.

       (a) Management.--After the date of the enactment of this 
     title, Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area 
     shall be managed in accordance with the Interim Protected 
     Species Management Strategy/Environmental Assessment issued 
     by the National Park Service on June 13, 2007, for the Cape 
     Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area, North Carolina, 
     unless the Secretary of the Interior (hereafter in this title 
     referred to as the ``Secretary'') issues a new final rule 
     that meets the requirements set forth in section 1003.
       (b) Restrictions.--The Secretary shall not impose any 
     additional restrictions on pedestrian or motorized vehicular 
     access to any portion of Cape Hatteras National Seashore 
     Recreational Area for species protection beyond those in the 
     Interim Management Strategy, other than as specifically 
     authorized pursuant to section 1003 of this title.

     SEC. 1003. ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON ACCESS TO CAPE HATTERAS 
                   NATIONAL SEASHORE RECREATIONAL AREA FOR SPECIES 
                   PROTECTION.

       (a) In General.--If, based on peer-reviewed science and 
     after public comment, the Secretary determines that 
     additional restrictions on access to a portion of the Cape 
     Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area are necessary to 
     protect species listed as endangered under the Endangered 
     Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the Secretary 
     may only restrict, by limitation, closure, buffer, or 
     otherwise, pedestrian and motorized vehicular access for 
     recreational activities for the shortest possible time and on 
     the smallest possible portions of the Cape Hatteras National 
     Seashore Recreational Area.
       (b) Limitation on Restrictions.--Restrictions imposed under 
     this section for protection of species listed as endangered 
     under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
     seq.) shall not be greater than the restrictions in effect 
     for that species at any other National Seashore.
       (c) Corridors Around Closures.--To the maximum extent 
     possible, the Secretary shall designate pedestrian and 
     vehicular corridors of minimal distance on the beach or 
     interdunal area around closures implemented under this 
     section to allow access to areas not closed.

     SEC. 1004. INAPPLICABILITY OF FINAL RULE AND CONSENT DEGREE.

       (a) Final Rule.--The final rule titled ``Special 
     Regulations, Areas of the National Park System, Cape Hatteras 
     National Seashore--Off-Road Vehicle Management'' (77 Fed. 
     Reg. 3123 3144) shall have no force or effect after the date 
     of the enactment of this title.
       (b) Consent Decree.--The April 30, 2008, consent decree 
     filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern 
     District of North Carolina regarding off-road vehicle use at 
     Cape Hatteras National Seashore in North Carolina shall not 
     apply after the date of the enactment of this title.

               TITLE XI--GRAZING IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2012

     SEC. 1101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Grazing Improvement Act of 
     2012''.

     SEC. 1102. TERMS OF GRAZING PERMITS AND LEASES.

       Section 402 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
     of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1752) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``ten years'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``20 years''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of each of paragraphs (1) 
     and (2);
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) the initial environmental analysis under National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 
     regarding a grazing allotment, permit, or lease has not been 
     completed.''.

     SEC. 1103. RENEWAL, TRANSFER, AND REISSUANCE OF GRAZING 
                   PERMITS AND LEASES.

       Title IV of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 
     1976 (43 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 405. RENEWAL, TRANSFER, AND REISSUANCE OF GRAZING 
                   PERMITS AND LEASES.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Current grazing management.--The term `current 
     grazing management' means grazing in accordance with the 
     terms and conditions of an existing permit or lease and 
     includes any modifications that are consistent with an 
     applicable Department of Interior resource management plan or 
     Department of Agriculture land use plan.
       ``(2) Secretary concerned.--The term `Secretary concerned' 
     means--
       ``(A) the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to 
     National Forest System land; and
       ``(B) the Secretary of the Interior, with respect to land 
     under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior.
       ``(b) Renewal, Transfer, Reissuance, and Pending 
     Processing.--A grazing permit or lease issued by the 
     Secretary of the Interior, or a grazing permit issued by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture regarding National Forest System 
     land, that expires, is transferred, or is waived shall be 
     renewed or reissued under, as appropriate--
       ``(1) section 402;
       ``(2) section 19 of the Act of April 24, 1950 (commonly 
     known as the `Granger-Thye Act'; 16 U.S.C. 580l);
       ``(3) title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1010 et seq.); or
       ``(4) section 510 the California Desert Protection Act of 
     1994 (16 U.S.C. 410aaa 50).
       ``(c) Terms; Conditions.--The terms and conditions (except 
     the termination date) contained in an expired, transferred, 
     or waived permit or lease described in subsection (b) shall 
     continue in effect under a renewed or reissued permit or 
     lease until the date on which the Secretary concerned 
     completes the processing of the renewed or reissued permit or 
     lease that is the subject of the expired, transferred, or 
     waived permit or lease, in compliance with each applicable 
     law.
       ``(d) Cancellation; Suspension; Modification.--
     Notwithstanding subsection (c), a permit or lease described 
     in subsection (b) may be cancelled, suspended, or modified in 
     accordance with applicable law.

[[Page H3774]]

       ``(e) Renewal Transfer Reissuance After Processing.--When 
     the Secretary concerned has completed the processing of the 
     renewed or reissued permit or lease that is the subject of 
     the expired, transferred, or waived permit or lease, the 
     Secretary concerned may renew or reissue the permit or lease 
     for a term of 20 years after completion of processing.
       ``(f) Compliance With National Environmental Policy Act of 
     1969.--The renewal, reissuance, or transfer of a grazing 
     permit or lease by the Secretary concerned may, at their sole 
     discretion, be categorically excluded from the requirement to 
     prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental 
     impact statement if--
       ``(1) the decision to renew, reissue, or transfer continues 
     the current grazing management of the allotment;
       ``(2) monitoring of the allotment has indicated that the 
     current grazing management has met, or has satisfactorily 
     progressed towards meeting, objectives contained in the land 
     use and resource management plan of the allotment, as 
     determined by the Secretary concerned; or
       ``(3) the decision is consistent with the policy of the 
     Department of the Interior or the Department of Agriculture, 
     as appropriate, regarding extraordinary circumstances.
       ``(g) Priority and Timing for Completing Environmental 
     Analyses.--The Secretary concerned, in the sole discretion of 
     the Secretary concerned, shall determine the priority and 
     timing for completing each required environmental analysis 
     regarding any grazing allotment, permit, or lease based on 
     the environmental significance of the allotment, permit, or 
     lease and available funding for that purpose.
       ``(h) NEPA Exemptions.--The National Environmental Policy 
     Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) shall not apply to the 
     following:
       ``(1) Crossing and trailing authorizations of domestic 
     livestock.
       ``(2) Transfer of grazing preference.''.

    TITLE XII--TARGET PRACTICE AND MARKSMANSHIP TRAINING SUPPORT ACT

     SEC. 1201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Target Practice and 
     Marksmanship Training Support Act''.

     SEC. 1202. FINDINGS; PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the use of firearms and archery equipment for target 
     practice and marksmanship training activities on Federal land 
     is allowed, except to the extent specific portions of that 
     land have been closed to those activities;
       (2) in recent years preceding the date of enactment of this 
     title, portions of Federal land have been closed to target 
     practice and marksmanship training for many reasons;
       (3) the availability of public target ranges on non-Federal 
     land has been declining for a variety of reasons, including 
     continued population growth and development near former 
     ranges;
       (4) providing opportunities for target practice and 
     marksmanship training at public target ranges on Federal and 
     non-Federal land can help--
       (A) to promote enjoyment of shooting, recreational, and 
     hunting activities; and
       (B) to ensure safe and convenient locations for those 
     activities;
       (5) Federal law in effect on the date of enactment of this 
     title, including the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 669 et seq.), provides Federal support for 
     construction and expansion of public target ranges by making 
     available to States amounts that may be used for 
     construction, operation, and maintenance of public target 
     ranges; and
       (6) it is in the public interest to provide increased 
     Federal support to facilitate the construction or expansion 
     of public target ranges.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to facilitate 
     the construction and expansion of public target ranges, 
     including ranges on Federal land managed by the Forest 
     Service and the Bureau of Land Management.

     SEC. 1203. DEFINITION OF PUBLIC TARGET RANGE.

       In this title, the term ``public target range'' means a 
     specific location that--
       (1) is identified by a governmental agency for recreational 
     shooting;
       (2) is open to the public;
       (3) may be supervised; and
       (4) may accommodate archery or rifle, pistol, or shotgun 
     shooting.

     SEC. 1204. AMENDMENTS TO PITTMAN-ROBERTSON WILDLIFE 
                   RESTORATION ACT.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 2 of the Pittman-Robertson 
     Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669a) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (8) as 
     paragraphs (3) through (9), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) the term `public target range' means a specific 
     location that--
       ``(A) is identified by a governmental agency for 
     recreational shooting;
       ``(B) is open to the public;
       ``(C) may be supervised; and
       ``(D) may accommodate archery or rifle, pistol, or shotgun 
     shooting;''.
       (b) Expenditures for Management of Wildlife Areas and 
     Resources.--Section 8(b) of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife 
     Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669g(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(b) Each State'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Expenditures for Management of Wildlife Areas and 
     Resources.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     each State'';
       (2) in paragraph (1) (as so designated), by striking 
     ``construction, operation,'' and inserting ``operation'';
       (3) in the second sentence, by striking ``The non-Federal 
     share'' and inserting the following:
       ``(3) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share'';
       (4) in the third sentence, by striking ``The Secretary'' 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(4) Regulations.--The Secretary''; and
       (5) by inserting after paragraph (1) (as designated by 
     paragraph (1) of this subsection) the following:
       ``(2) Exception.--Notwithstanding the limitation described 
     in paragraph (1), a State may pay up to 90 percent of the 
     cost of acquiring land for, expanding, or constructing a 
     public target range.''.
       (c) Firearm and Bow Hunter Education and Safety Program 
     Grants.--Section 10 of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife 
     Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669h 1) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Allocation of additional amounts.--Of the amount 
     apportioned to a State for any fiscal year under section 
     4(b), the State may elect to allocate not more than 10 
     percent, to be combined with the amount apportioned to the 
     State under paragraph (1) for that fiscal year, for acquiring 
     land for, expanding, or constructing a public target 
     range.'';
       (2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Cost Sharing.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     Federal share of the cost of any activity carried out using a 
     grant under this section shall not exceed 75 percent of the 
     total cost of the activity.
       ``(2) Public target range construction or expansion.--The 
     Federal share of the cost of acquiring land for, expanding, 
     or constructing a public target range in a State on Federal 
     or non-Federal land pursuant to this section or section 8(b) 
     shall not exceed 90 percent of the cost of the activity.''; 
     and
       (3) in subsection (c)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``Amounts made'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     amounts made''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Exception.--Amounts provided for acquiring land for, 
     constructing, or expanding a public target range shall remain 
     available for expenditure and obligation during the 5-fiscal-
     year period beginning on October 1 of the first fiscal year 
     for which the amounts are made available.''.

     SEC. 1205. LIMITS ON LIABILITY.

       (a) Discretionary Function.--For purposes of chapter 171 of 
     title 28, United States Code (commonly referred to as the 
     ``Federal Tort Claims Act''), any action by an agent or 
     employee of the United States to manage or allow the use of 
     Federal land for purposes of target practice or marksmanship 
     training by a member of the public shall be considered to be 
     the exercise or performance of a discretionary function.
       (b) Civil Action or Claims.--Except to the extent provided 
     in chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, the United 
     States shall not be subject to any civil action or claim for 
     money damages for any injury to or loss of property, personal 
     injury, or death caused by an activity occurring at a public 
     target range that is--
       (1) funded in whole or in part by the Federal Government 
     pursuant to the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 669 et seq.); or
       (2) located on Federal land.

     SEC. 1206. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING COOPERATION.

       It is the sense of Congress that, consistent with 
     applicable laws and regulations, the Chief of the Forest 
     Service and the Director of the Bureau of Land Management 
     should cooperate with State and local authorities and other 
     entities to carry out waste removal and other activities on 
     any Federal land used as a public target range to encourage 
     continued use of that land for target practice or 
     marksmanship training.

   TITLE XIII--CHESAPEAKE BAY ACCOUNTABILITY AND RECOVERY ACT OF 2012

     SEC. 1301. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Chesapeake Bay 
     Accountability and Recovery Act of 2012''.

     SEC. 1302. CHESAPEAKE BAY CROSSCUT BUDGET.

       (a) Crosscut Budget.--The Director, in consultation with 
     the Chesapeake Executive Council, the chief executive of each 
     Chesapeake Bay State, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission, 
     shall submit to Congress a financial report containing--
       (1) an interagency crosscut budget that displays--
       (A) the proposed funding for any Federal restoration 
     activity to be carried out in the succeeding fiscal year, 
     including any planned interagency or intra-agency transfer, 
     for each of the Federal agencies that carry out restoration 
     activities;
       (B) to the extent that information is available, the 
     estimated funding for any State restoration activity to be 
     carried out in the succeeding fiscal year;
       (C) all expenditures for Federal restoration activities 
     from the preceding 2 fiscal years, the current fiscal year, 
     and the succeeding fiscal year; and
       (D) all expenditures, to the extent that information is 
     available, for State restoration activities during the 
     equivalent time period described in subparagraph (C);
       (2) a detailed accounting of all funds received and 
     obligated by all Federal agencies for restoration activities 
     during the current and preceding fiscal years, including the 
     identification of funds which were transferred to a 
     Chesapeake Bay State for restoration activities;
       (3) to the extent that information is available, a detailed 
     accounting from each State of all funds received and 
     obligated from a Federal agency for restoration activities 
     during the current and preceding fiscal years; and

[[Page H3775]]

       (4) a description of each of the proposed Federal and State 
     restoration activities to be carried out in the succeeding 
     fiscal year (corresponding to those activities listed in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1)), including the--
       (A) project description;
       (B) current status of the project;
       (C) Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority, 
     programs, or responsible agencies;
       (D) authorization level for appropriations;
       (E) project timeline, including benchmarks;
       (F) references to project documents;
       (G) descriptions of risks and uncertainties of project 
     implementation;
       (H) adaptive management actions or framework;
       (I) coordinating entities;
       (J) funding history;
       (K) cost-sharing; and
       (L) alignment with existing Chesapeake Bay Agreement and 
     Chesapeake Executive Council goals and priorities.
       (b) Minimum Funding Levels.--The Director shall only 
     describe restoration activities in the report required under 
     subsection (a) that--
       (1) for Federal restoration activities, have funding 
     amounts greater than or equal to $100,000; and
       (2) for State restoration activities, have funding amounts 
     greater than or equal to $50,000.
       (c) Deadline.--The Director shall submit to Congress the 
     report required by subsection (a) not later than 30 days 
     after the submission by the President of the President's 
     annual budget to Congress.
       (d) Report.--Copies of the financial report required by 
     subsection (a) shall be submitted to the Committees on 
     Appropriations, Natural Resources, Energy and Commerce, and 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committees on Appropriations, 
     Environment and Public Works, and Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate.
       (e) Effective Date.--This section shall apply beginning 
     with the first fiscal year after the date of enactment of 
     this title for which the President submits a budget to 
     Congress.

     SEC. 1303. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this title, the Administrator, in consultation 
     with other Federal and State agencies, shall develop an 
     adaptive management plan for restoration activities in the 
     Chesapeake Bay watershed that includes--
       (1) definition of specific and measurable objectives to 
     improve water quality, habitat, and fisheries;
       (2) a process for stakeholder participation;
       (3) monitoring, modeling, experimentation, and other 
     research and evaluation practices;
       (4) a process for modification of restoration activities 
     that have not attained or will not attain the specific and 
     measurable objectives set forth under paragraph (1); and
       (5) a process for prioritizing restoration activities and 
     programs to which adaptive management shall be applied.
       (b) Implementation.--The Administrator shall implement the 
     adaptive management plan developed under subsection (a).
       (c) Updates.--The Administrator shall update the adaptive 
     management plan developed under subsection (a) every 2 years.
       (d) Report to Congress.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the end of a 
     fiscal year, the Administrator shall transmit to Congress an 
     annual report on the implementation of the adaptive 
     management plan required under this section for such fiscal 
     year.
       (2) Contents.--The report required under paragraph (1) 
     shall contain information about the application of adaptive 
     management to restoration activities and programs, including 
     programmatic and project level changes implemented through 
     the process of adaptive management.
       (3) Effective date.--Paragraph (1) shall apply to the first 
     fiscal year that begins after the date of enactment of this 
     title.
       (e) Inclusion of Plan in Annual Action Plan and Annual 
     Progress Report.--The Administrator shall ensure that the 
     Annual Action Plan and Annual Progress Report required by 
     section 205 of Executive Order 13508 includes the adaptive 
     management plan outlined in subsection (a).

     SEC. 1304. INDEPENDENT EVALUATOR FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--There shall be an Independent Evaluator 
     for restoration activities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, 
     who shall review and report on restoration activities and the 
     use of adaptive management in restoration activities, 
     including on such related topics as are suggested by the 
     Chesapeake Executive Council.
       (b) Appointment.--
       (1) In general.--The Independent Evaluator shall be 
     appointed by the Administrator from among nominees submitted 
     by the Chesapeake Executive Council.
       (2) Nominations.--The Chesapeake Executive Council may 
     submit to the Administrator 4 nominees for appointment to any 
     vacancy in the office of the Independent Evaluator.
       (c) Reports.--The Independent Evaluator shall submit a 
     report to the Congress every 2 years in the findings and 
     recommendations of reviews under this section.
       (d) Chesapeake Executive Council.--In this section, the 
     term ``Chesapeake Executive Council'' has the meaning given 
     that term by section 307 of the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration Authorization Act of 1992 (Public 
     Law 102 567; 15 U.S.C. 1511d).

     SEC. 1305. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title, the following definitions apply:
       (1) Adaptive management.--The term ``adaptive management'' 
     means a type of natural resource management in which project 
     and program decisions are made as part of an ongoing science-
     based process. Adaptive management involves testing, 
     monitoring, and evaluating applied strategies and 
     incorporating new knowledge into programs and restoration 
     activities that are based on scientific findings and the 
     needs of society. Results are used to modify management 
     policy, strategies, practices, programs, and restoration 
     activities.
       (2) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (3) Chesapeake bay state.--The term ``Chesapeake Bay 
     State'' or ``State'' means the States of Maryland, West 
     Virginia, Delaware, and New York, the Commonwealths of 
     Virginia and Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia.
       (4) Chesapeake bay watershed.--The term ``Chesapeake Bay 
     watershed'' means the Chesapeake Bay and the geographic area, 
     as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, consisting of 
     36 tributary basins, within the Chesapeake Bay States, 
     through which precipitation drains into the Chesapeake Bay.
       (5) Chief executive.--The term ``chief executive'' means, 
     in the case of a State or Commonwealth, the Governor of each 
     such State or Commonwealth and, in the case of the District 
     of Columbia, the Mayor of the District of Columbia.
       (6) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget.
       (7) Restoration activities.--The term ``restoration 
     activities'' means any Federal or State programs or projects 
     that directly or indirectly protect, conserve, or restore 
     living resources, habitat, water resources, or water quality 
     in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, including programs or 
     projects that promote responsible land use, stewardship, and 
     community engagement in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 
     Restoration activities may be categorized as follows:
       (A) Physical restoration.
       (B) Planning.
       (C) Feasibility studies.
       (D) Scientific research.
       (E) Monitoring.
       (F) Education.
       (G) Infrastructure Development.

     TITLE XIV--NATIONAL SECURITY AND FEDERAL LANDS PROTECTION ACT

     SEC. 1401. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``National Security and 
     Federal Lands Protection Act''.

     SEC. 1402. PROHIBITION ON IMPEDING CERTAIN ACTIVITIES OF U.S. 
                   CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION RELATED TO BORDER 
                   SECURITY.

       (a) Prohibition on Secretaries of the Interior and 
     Agriculture.--The Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary 
     of Agriculture shall not impede, prohibit, or restrict 
     activities of U.S. Customs and Border Protection on land 
     under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior or 
     the Secretary of Agriculture to achieve operational control 
     (as defined in section 2(b) of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 
     (8 U.S.C. 1701 note; Public Law 109 367)) over the 
     international land borders of the United States.
       (b) Authorized Activities of U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection.--
       (1) Authorization.--U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
     shall have immediate access to land under the jurisdiction of 
     the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture 
     for purposes of conducting the following activities on such 
     land that assist in securing the international land borders 
     of the United States:
       (A) Construction and maintenance of roads.
       (B) Construction and maintenance of fences.
       (C) Use vehicles to patrol.
       (D) Installation, maintenance, and operation of 
     surveillance equipment and sensors.
       (E) Use of aircraft.
       (F) Deployment of temporary tactical infrastructure, 
     including forward operating bases.
       (c) Clarification Relating to Waiver Authority.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     (including any termination date relating to the waiver 
     referred to in this subsection), the waiver by the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security on April 1, 2008, under section 
     102(c)(1) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
     Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note; Public Law 
     104 208) of the laws described in paragraph (2) with respect 
     to certain sections of the international border between the 
     United States and Mexico and between the United States and 
     Canada shall be considered to apply to all land under the 
     jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior or the 
     Secretary of Agriculture within 100 miles of the 
     international land borders of the United States for the 
     activities of U.S. Customs and Border Protection described in 
     subsection (b).
       (2) Description of laws waived.--The laws referred to in 
     paragraph (1) are the National Environmental Policy Act of 
     1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Endangered Species Act of 
     1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the National Historic 
     Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), the Migratory Bird 
     Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), the Clean Air Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), the Archaeological Resources Protection 
     Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470aa et seq.), the Safe Drinking 
     Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.), the Noise Control Act of 
     1972 (42 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.), the Solid Waste Disposal Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9601 et seq.), Public Law 86 523 (16 U.S.C. 469 et seq.), the 
     Act of June 8, 1906 (commonly known as the ``Antiquities Act 
     of 1906'') (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), the Act of August 21, 
     1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.), the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.), the Farmland Protection Policy Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.), the

[[Page H3776]]

     Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), 
     the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the Federal Land 
     Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), 
     the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 
     1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.), the Fish and Wildlife Act of 
     1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a et seq.), the Fish and Wildlife 
     Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), subchapter II of 
     chapter 5, and chapter 7, of title 5, United States Code 
     (commonly known as the ``Administrative Procedure Act''), the 
     Otay Mountain Wilderness Act of 1999 (Public Law 106 145, 113 
     Stat. 1711), sections 102(29) and 103 of California Desert 
     Protection Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 410aaa et seq.), the 
     National Park Service Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), 
     Public Law 91 383 (16 U.S.C. 1a 1 et seq.), sections 401(7), 
     403, and 404 of the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 
     (Public Law 95 625, 92 Stat. 3467), the Arizona Desert 
     Wilderness Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 1132 note; Public Law 101 
     628), section 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403), 
     the Act of June 8, 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), (25 U.S.C. 
     3001 et seq.), Public Law 95 341 (42 U.S.C. 1996), Public Law 
     103 141 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.), the Forest and Rangeland 
     Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et 
     seq.), the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 
     U.S.C. 528 et seq.), the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181, 
     et seq.), the Materials Act of 1947 (30 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 
     and the General Mining Act of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 22 note).
       (d) Protection of Legal Uses.--This section shall not be 
     construed to provide--
       (1) authority to restrict legal uses, such as grazing, 
     hunting, or mining, on land under the jurisdiction of the 
     Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture; or
       (2) any additional authority to restrict legal access to 
     such land.

     SEC. 1403. SUNSET.

       This title shall have no force or effect after the end of 
     the 5-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 112 
539. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered 
read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
of the question.

                              {time}  1540


         Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
House Report 112 539.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 52, line 13, strike ``151'' and insert ``137''.
       Page 52, line 15, strike ``2009''.
       Page 52, strike line 16 and insert ``numbered 472/113,006A, 
     and dated June 2012.''.
       Page 52, strike line 25, and insert ``(3) by donation or 
     exchange only (and in the case of an exchange, no payment may 
     be made by the Secretary to any landowner). No private 
     property or non-''.
       Page 53, line 4, insert ``to'' after ``construed''.
       Page 60, beginning on line 22, strike ``100-foot-wide 
     corridor'' and insert ``corridor of not more than 100 feet in 
     width''.
       Page 61, after line 2, insert the following (and 
     redesignate the subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
       ``(2) within one mile of the route, on the date of the 
     enactment of this section, of the Stehekin Valley Road;''.
       Page 61, strike lines 7 through 13 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(b) No Net Loss of Lands.--
       ``(1) In general.--The boundary adjustments made under this 
     section shall be such that equal amounts of federally owned 
     acreage are exchanged between the Stephen Mather Wilderness 
     and the North Cascades National Park, resulting in no net 
     loss of acreage to either the Stephen Mather Wilderness or 
     the North Cascades National Park.
       ``(2) Stehekin valley road lands.--The newly designated 
     wilderness shall include the lands along the route of the 
     Stehekin Valley Road that are replaced by the reconstruction.
       ``(3) Equalization of land.--If the lands described in 
     paragraph (2) contain fewer acres than the corridor described 
     in subsection (a), the Secretary may designate additional 
     Federal lands in the North Cascades National Park as 
     wilderness, but such designation may not exceed the amount 
     needed to equalize the exchange and these additional lands 
     must be selected from lands that qualify as wilderness under 
     section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131(c)).
       ``(c) No Sale or Acquisition Authorized.--Nothing in this 
     title authorizes the sale or acquisition of any land or 
     interest in land.
       ``(d) No Priority Required.--Nothing in this title shall be 
     construed as requiring the Secretary to give this project 
     precedence over the construction or repair of other similarly 
     damaged roads in units of the National Park System.''.
       Page 69, line 17, strike ``2022'' and insert ``2019''.
       Page 71, after line 13, insert the following:
       (e) Funding.--Subsection (f) of the Herger-Feinstein Quincy 
     Library Group Forest Recovery Act is amended by striking 
     paragraph (6) and redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph 
     (6).
       Page 87, strike lines 22 and 23 and insert ``to 90 percent 
     of the funds apportioned to it under section 669c(c) of this 
     title to acquire land for, expand, or construct a public 
     target range.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 688, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  This amendment makes some technical, clarifying, and conforming 
changes to the underlying bill. It amends title IV to delete a portion 
of the land that the National Park Service does not want to acquire for 
the San Antonio missions and which would expose it to liability for 
cleanup costs.
  It conforms the text of title VI to match what the House passed in 
the 111th Congress in H.R. 2806.
  And it conforms title VIII with the leadership protocols regarding 
length and amount of authorizations.
  And, finally, it clarifies what funds States may use to increase 
access to target ranges under title XII.
  With that, I urge adoption and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the manager's 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Arizona is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. On the manager's amendment, we have no problem with the 
technical changes to the legislation. The content remains the same and 
the opposition remains the same.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I urge adoption of the amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
House Report 112 539.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 47, after line 16, insert the following new 
     subsection:

       (k) Condition on Sealaska Export of Unprocessed Timber.--
     The conveyance to Sealaska of Federal land under this title 
     shall be subject to an additional covenant that Sealaska 
     comply with the export restrictions on unprocessed timber 
     contained in the Forest Resources Conservation and Shortage 
     Relief Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 620 et seq.) regarding any 
     timber removed from the conveyed land notwithstanding the 
     geographical limitation on the applicability of such Act only 
     to timber originating from lands west of the 100th meridian 
     in the contiguous 48 States.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 688, the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. What it says is 
that should this legislation pass and the 100,000 acres of forest pass 
over to the Sealaska Native corporation, a for-profit corporation, that 
we would ban the export of unprocessed logs from those lands. This 
would be consistent with the law that applies to the lower 48 west of 
the Mississippi River.
  In 1990, I partnered with Senator Bob Packwood from Oregon to make 
permanent what had then been an appropriations rider ban since the era 
of Wayne Morris, and the rationale for that was that we should not be a 
tree farm for other nations. We want to be an industrial Nation. We 
want to get value added. We want to export finished products overseas.
  We've seen in the last couple of years a flood of private-lands 
exports from Oregon and Washington, which is timber actually being 
wasted. Until very recently, the Chinese were paying above-market 
prices for raw logs,

[[Page H3777]]

Douglas fir logs, which they were using, prime timber, one time in 
construction forms, and then discarding, an incredible waste of a 
resource and also an economic loss to the Pacific Northwest.
  Despite the fact that Washington State exported $1 billion worth of 
non-Federal raw logs last year, which is twice the amount that they 
exported just 2 years before, the number of logging jobs did not 
increase despite this export, and the number of sawmill jobs dropped by 
a third in Washington State. We're exporting a limited natural resource 
to which we could add value through what we have, the most productive 
mills in the world in the United States of America. And instead, those 
logs are going overseas, and we're actually losing jobs.
  Yes, it is profitable for the private landowners, and we don't have 
restrictions on the export of private logs. But this is public forest 
lands today which would be converted to private forest lands, and we 
believe that the potential benefits should be maximized should this 
happen and that these logs should be manufactured before being 
exported. If they were exported, I would say in fact there would be a 
substantial raw-log market in my State because my mills are importing 
timber from around the world, actually, and from other States in the 
U.S. to keep their mills running.
  In Oregon, non-Federal raw-log exports, again private-land exports, 
have doubled over the last 3 years to $2.3 billion in value while my 
sawmills and logging industry reached new lows. This harvesting for 
export of raw logs is not benefiting the local economies or the United 
States of America. And in Alaska, raw-log exports from Alaska to China 
have increased 16-fold over the last decade. Yet the economic benefits 
of running those logs or potentially running those logs through 
sawmills was not realized, benefiting rural communities.
  I have many depressed rural areas that I represent. We're fighting 
over how we can get some more logs off Federal lands, logs which can't 
be exported. These logs could not only benefit Alaskans who could use 
the manufacturing jobs, and perhaps would see some new investment in 
sawmill capacity should this amount of timber come onto the market, but 
also potentially other west coast States, including Oregon and 
Washington, where our sawmills are struggling to find adequate supply.
  So I believe this would be a beneficial, commonsense amendment. It 
would bring Federal logs, Federal trees, Federal forests, and would 
make the use of those logs, should they be harvested, consistent with 
the rest of the Federal lands in the western United States.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in 
opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young).
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I strongly oppose this amendment. I know this 
amendment may have good intentions, but it is misguided. It will hurt 
the employment in the Native villages of Alaska. We have studies that 
show that the employment would not increase if we cannot export some of 
our logs.
  By the way, this amendment was in the Natural Resources Committee, 
and it was defeated 30 13.
  Last night, the Alaska Forest Association wrote in strong opposition 
to the amendment. And, very frankly, it is not right for the government 
to tell somebody on private land where they can sell their product. The 
only person who should be able to do this is the owner of a product. We 
don't tell where the Californians can sell their rice. We don't tell 
Weyerhaeuser where they should sell their timber. And so we shouldn't 
be telling a private landowner where to sell their timber.
  In fact, if we had the Tongass National Forest, what little land we 
have left of less than a million and a half acres that is federally 
owned as far as harvesting capability, if the Forest Service would do 
their job, we'd have some timber to harvest, but they're not doing it. 
But what timber they do harvest on Federal land, they allow 50 percent 
of old-growth timber sales and 100 percent of new growth, 100 percent 
to be sold. So this is a little bit, I say, not sincere in the sense 
that this is not going to create jobs, and the Federal Government is 
already allowing timber to be sold wherever they wish to.
  I would suggest respectfully that the amendment is not placed 
correctly. I would like to keep the timber in the United States, but if 
the market's not there, or if the bid is not as high as overseas people 
who bid on it, then you have to let the private person, in fact, sell 
his timber.
  I would suggest respectfully that the thing that concerns me the most 
in this whole argument is some of the arguments against this 
legislation. This is about a Native group. It's a corporation, but it's 
a Native group of villages put together that have a high unemployment. 
We're getting all kinds of bull dip all across the Internet now saying 
that this, in fact, is going to give away. It's talk about roads being 
given away. This is timber area that has already been cut, and they do 
not want to cut the old timber area.

                              {time}  1550

  They're trying to have a good industry built by silviculture, and 
this is what's so important here. But for some reason, like I say, 
they're winning the ``bull dip'' awards of the whole year on this 
legislation.
  Now, I understand what the gentleman is trying to do, but it's not 
right to have a private entity be told by the Federal Government where 
they can sell their product. We don't tell rice growers or tell anybody 
else where to sell their product. They sell it to the best market, and 
this is about the best market.
  This would be wrong because they will have timber in a few years. I'd 
say maybe 50 years they'll have the best timber stand in the whole 
State of Alaska because this area has already been cut. They'll take 
them thin, and they'll be able to sell this timber at a high price, 
probably to the United States by then because we'll all be long gone.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I certainly respect the gentleman from Alaska, and I know that it's 
his intention to benefit the people of Alaska. I've been involved in 
this issue now for almost--well, for 22 years on the issue of exporting 
raw logs. In fact, I did try and restrict the export of private logs 
back there in 1990 and couldn't get that, but at least we got the 
Federal and at least we've kept the State, and we do get value added. 
And for every 1,000 board feet of timber harvested, we get more jobs 
than just a logging job, a trucking job, and a loading it on the ship 
job. We get the jobs in the mills. I would argue that the same would 
flow to Alaska should this amendment pass.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time and urge my colleagues 
to support the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, obviously, to this amendment 
because this amendment would single out one particular group of Native 
Alaskans for restrictions that currently only apply to timber harvested 
from certain Federal lands in the lower 48.
  Now, the irony here, as was pointed out by the gentleman from Alaska, 
is that the Forest Service in the Tongass allows for 100 percent export 
of red cedar harvested in the Tongass and 50 percent of old growth 
harvested in the Tongass. So I think it is, in all honesty, Mr. 
Chairman, a bit hypocritical to impose the domestic limitations on 
Natives while the Forest Service is doing just exactly the opposite.
  Now, I'll also add that this amendment does not affect other 
landowners on the Tongass; it only affects the Natives of Sealaska. 
Now, I don't think that's really what we should be doing here on the 
floor of the House is singling out one group for a penalty, and that's 
precisely what this amendment does.
  So I urge rejection of this amendment, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.

[[Page H3778]]

  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Markey

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
House Report 112 539.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 83, after line 21, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 1104. GRAZING FEE PILOT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to conduct a 
     pilot program in fiscal years 2013 through 2016 to collect an 
     administrative fee to offset the increased cost of 
     administering the livestock grazing program on public lands 
     managed by the Bureau of Land Management.
       (b) Fee Amount and Collection.--
       (1) Amount.--The fee authorized by this section shall be in 
     the amount of $1 per Animal Unit Month, and shall be billed, 
     collected, and subject to the penalties using the same 
     process as the annual grazing fee under section 4130.8 1 of 
     title 43, Code of Federal Regulations.
       (2) Deposit of penalties.--Penalties assessed under this 
     subsection shall be deposited in the general fund of the 
     Treasury.
       (3) Applicability.--Nothing in this section affects the 
     calculation, collection, distribution, or use of the grazing 
     fee under 43 U.S.C. 315 et seq., section 205(b) of Public Law 
     94 579 (43 U.S.C. 1751(b)), section 6(a) of Public Law 95 514 
     (43 U.S.C. 1905), Executive Order 12548, or any 
     administrative regulation.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 688, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, we're about to talk about grazing fees. For 
people in many parts of the country, they may not know what that is. 
That is that, on Federal lands across the country, cattlemen can bring 
their cattle onto Federal lands--that is, the public lands of the 
United States--and graze. And what are they charged? Well, they're 
charged $1.35. That's exactly what they were charged in 1986.
  Now, right next to this Federal land, in many States, there is State 
land. That State land in Colorado is very valuable; but they ensure, 
the Governor of Colorado, that the cattlemen there in that State pay 
$10 to graze, not 1.35. In Montana, cattlemen have to pay $7.90. In 
Utah, they have to pay $7.30. But on the public lands in each of those 
States--that is, the Federal lands--it's 1.35, just hasn't increased. 
And who pays the price? Well, the Federal taxpayer pays the price 
because the cattlemen get to basically have this incredible subsidy.
  So, just to use the analogy, when I started working, I got paid $1.35 
when I was a kid. I'm sure there are many people who would still like 
to just pay $1.35 for a kid to work in the supermarket, but they can't 
do it because time moves on--unless you're a cattleman, where they have 
locked that minimum price into a hermetically sealed, cryogenically 
frozen price, $1.35. That's great, except for the Federal taxpayer who 
cannot collect all of the money they need.
  Or should we just say, for the sake of discussion, that you happen to 
have a rent-controlled apartment in New York City. The rent was set 
back in 1986 or 1976, and now the markets have raised that price up to 
perhaps $4,000. The Republicans would say, well, rent control, that's 
good; we like keeping the price that way because it benefits a certain 
class of people. And I understand the Republican philosophy of freezing 
in prices that way--keeping the minimum wage as low as possible, 
keeping the rent control price for an apartment as low as possible. I 
understand the government intervention role of the Federal Government 
not allowing the free market to determine the price of something. But 
here what happens is that it balloons the Federal deficit because 
people aren't able to collect what we absolutely know to be the price 
to graze for a cow per day. We know what the price is because, in the 
adjoining land in Colorado or Utah or in Montana or in Washington 
State, we know what the State is charging on State public lands.
  So this is just an attempt to give the Department of the Interior the 
ability to raise by $1--not all the way up to $10, not all the way up 
to $7, but just $1 from $1.35 up to $2.35--just as a little experiment 
just to see what happens out there in the market when people actually 
have to pay something that even remotely approximates what the price to 
graze would be.
  At this point, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Idaho (Mr. Labrador), the author of the title of this bill.
  Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment, and let's talk about some facts and some figures and some 
numbers.
  The good gentleman from Massachusetts continues to say that we need 
to treat this land the same as private land. The thing that's really 
fascinating to me is that we have in Colorado and Utah and Idaho many 
people who would like to actually do their grazing on State lands or 
private lands, but the difference is that in Massachusetts only 1.6 
percent of the land is actually Federal land. In fact, if you look at 
the acreage, 81,000 acres in Massachusetts are Federal lands. That's 
why they can actually rely on many other things for their grazing and 
many other things that they do.
  In Idaho, 68 percent of the land is Federal land. In fact, we're 
talking about 32.5 million acres in Idaho that are actually having to 
be managed by the Federal Government and that we have to deal with on a 
daily basis in the State of Idaho.
  I think most grazers, most producers would actually like to be doing 
it on State lands where they actually will be paying more, but they 
actually receive more benefit for being on the State-owned lands than 
the State-managed lands. My question to the gentleman is: Why doesn't 
he allow Idaho and other States in the West to do what we want to do, 
which what we want to do is we actually want to manage our own lands. 
We have been asking that for a long time.
  But it's interesting to me that the States that only have 1.4 percent 
of Federal lands continue to tell the States that have 68 percent of 
Federal lands that they cannot manage their own land. If we were 
allowed to manage our own lands, we would actually be able to charge a 
little bit more, but we would do away with all the NEPA requirements 
and all the other requirements that we have to deal with right now when 
we're on Federal lands.
  So I think it's a little bit hypocritical for somebody to come here 
to the House floor and object to something that they don't even have to 
deal with in their own State.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. MARKEY. Would the Chair please inform us as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Washington has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. MARKEY. I will, at this point, continue to reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washngton. Mr. Chairman, I would advise my friend 
from Massachusetts that I am the last speaker on this amendment, so if 
he's prepared to close, I'll close.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  So this argument that's being made by the Republicans is nonsensical. 
What you're saying is, that in your home State, on State land, you 
charge 10 bucks or 7 bucks to the cattlemen to graze. But on Federal 
land it's only a buck 35 in your State. And your answer to raising the 
price for cattlemen is that we should be having a debate over whether 
or not the State of Colorado or Montana controls all of the Federal 
land in your State. Then you'll begin to debate whether or not 
cattlemen should get away with only a buck 35?
  You know, you're giving new definition to the term ``free range 
beef.''

[[Page H3779]]

You're allowing for the cattlemen in these States to get away with 
murder, and you're not even debating the issue of how they get away 
with this.
  That's all we want from you. Tell us why you think they deserve a 
buck 35. You don't even want to reach that issue. You want to go off on 
the secondary issue of how much land in each State is controlled by the 
Federal Government, which is not what we are debating. We're debating 
how cattlemen get away with this bargain basement price that then comes 
to every other State to make up the difference in the Federal deficit 
because you're unwilling to collect it.
  Meanwhile, you say to Grandma, higher rates for Medicare. You say to 
kids in school, higher payback for the loans that you take out. But for 
the cattlemen in your home State, somehow or other you don't understand 
that this is a debate that goes to the heart of why it is the people 
are very unhappy with the way the Federal Government operates.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR. The Chair would remind Members to address their remarks to 
the Chair.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washngton. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very interesting debate. But let's just put 
some facts as to what this amendment would do. It would amount to a 
nearly 75 percent increase on the fees for public land grazers. Now, 
let me emphasize the word ``public land,'' because we hear this all the 
time, and the idea is that public land is owned by all Americans, even 
people that live in States where there's not any Federal lands.
  But I would just, Mr. Chairman, advise my colleagues that people that 
live on public lands own the public lands too. If the first argument is 
correct, then the second argument is also correct.
  What is interesting about this grazing fee debate is, if this gazing 
fee is raised, it could potentially put livestock producers out of 
business. Now, maybe that is what the goal is of my good friend from 
Massachusetts, because that is certainly the stated goal of some 
environmental extremist groups.
  What is also interesting and, as was pointed out by my colleague from 
Idaho, when you operate on Federal lands you are subjected to endless 
litigation and review stemming from NEPA and outside attacks by 
environmental groups.
  But probably more important, and this is the distinguishing part on 
this whole debate: some people claim that these ranchers are 
subsidized. But the fact is, when the West was settled, we were never 
given an opportunity to buy these lands for State purposes, and they 
remained in Federal control. And so as a result, everybody has a say in 
public lands.
  What my colleague from Idaho is simply saying is, if we had control 
of our public lands, whether it's State land or private or county, we 
would probably manage it better. But we don't have that opportunity 
because we were never given the opportunity. And so, as a result, we 
have to fight off these huge increases that come from people that 
probably have a different notion, different idea of what it's like.
  So I think this is an ill-advised amendment, and I urge its 
rejection.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts will be 
postponed.


             Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in 
House Report 112 539.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike sections 1401, 1402, and 1403, and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 1401. WAIVER OF FEDERAL LAWS WITH RESPECT TO BORDER 
                   SECURITY ACTIONS ON DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
                   AND DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE LANDS.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act''.
       (b) Prohibition on Secretaries of the Interior and 
     Agriculture.--The Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary 
     of Agriculture shall not impede, prohibit, or restrict 
     activities of U.S. Customs and Border Protection on Federal 
     land located within 100 miles of an international land 
     border, that is under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of 
     the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture to prevent all 
     unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by 
     terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, 
     narcotics, and other contraband through the international 
     land borders of the United States.
       (c) Authorized Activities of U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection.--U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall have 
     access to Federal land under the jurisdiction of the 
     Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture for 
     purposes of conducting the following activities on such land 
     that assist in securing the international land borders of the 
     United States:
       (1) Construction and maintenance of roads.
       (2) Construction and maintenance of fences.
       (3) Use of vehicles to patrol.
       (4) Installation, maintenance, and operation of 
     surveillance equipment and sensors.
       (5) Use of aircraft.
       (6) Deployment of temporary tactical infrastructure, 
     including forward operating bases.
       (d) Clarification Relating to Waiver Authority.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     (including any termination date relating to the waiver 
     referred to in this subsection), the waiver by the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security on April 1, 2008, under section 
     102(c)(1) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
     Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note; Public Law 
     104 208) of the laws described in paragraph (2) with respect 
     to certain sections of the international border between the 
     United States and Mexico and between the United States and 
     Canada shall be considered to apply to all Federal land under 
     the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior or the 
     Secretary of Agriculture within 100 miles of the 
     international land borders of the United States for the 
     activities of U.S. Customs and Border Protection described in 
     subsection (c).
       (2) Description of laws waived.--The laws referred to in 
     paragraph (1) are limited to the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1131 et seq.), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
     (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the National Historic Preservation 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Public Law 86 523 (16 U.S.C. 469 
     et seq.), the Act of June 8, 1906 (commonly known as the 
     ``Antiquities Act of 1906''; 16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), the Wild 
     and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.), the Federal 
     Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et 
     seq.), the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 
     of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.), the Fish and Wildlife Act 
     of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a et seq.), the Fish and Wildlife 
     Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), subchapter II of 
     chapter 5, and chapter 7, of title 5, United States Code 
     (commonly known as the ``Administrative Procedure Act''), the 
     National Park Service Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), the 
     General Authorities Act of 1970 (Public Law 91 383) (16 
     U.S.C. 1a-1 et seq.), sections 401(7), 403, and 404 of the 
     National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (Public Law 95 625, 
     92 Stat. 3467), and the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 
     (16 U.S.C. 1132 note; Public Law 101 628).
       (e) Protection of Legal Uses.--This section shall not be 
     construed to provide--
       (1) authority to restrict legal uses, such as grazing, 
     hunting, mining, or public-use recreational and backcountry 
     airstrips on land under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of 
     the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture;
       (2) any additional authority to restrict legal access to 
     such land; or
       (3) any additional authority or access to private or State 
     land.
       (f) Tribal Sovereignty.--Nothing in this section 
     supersedes, replaces, negates, or diminishes treaties or 
     other agreements between the United States and Indian tribes
       (g) Sunset.--This section shall have no force or effect 
     after the end of the 5-year period beginning on the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 688, the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, there are basically four elements 
that are involved in the amendment that I am proposing. The first one 
is to narrow the list of laws that can be waived by the Border Patrol 
on these areas to maintain operational control of the land. Presently, 
it lists 36 bills that could be waived.
  Now I want you to know that that number was not irrational. It was 
not picked out of the air. Thirty-six bills have precedence of what 
this House has already done.

[[Page H3780]]

  When the government was trying to finish the fence in California, 
there were litigations and environmental laws that were prohibiting 
them from doing that, so the Department of Homeland Security 
recommended the 36 laws that they thought did or could impede the 
building of that particular wall along our border. Congress agreed with 
them and, for the purpose of concluding that wall, we allowed them to 
waive those 36 rules, regulations, or laws.
  Those are the same 36 in this bill. It's nothing additional to it. 
Well, I take that back. Democrats add one bill in committee that was 
not part of the original list, and that was fine as well.
  What we are now trying to do is admit that about 20 of those really 
are not going to be a problem, but 16 still could be. So it limits it 
from 36 to 16, as those that can be waived for the purpose of allowing 
Border Patrol and Homeland Security to do the job for which they are 
paid to do.
  The second thing, it specifically prohibits any additional access to 
private property. It eliminates the possibility of Border Patrol 
reducing public access to any Federal lands, and that includes for 
purposes of hunting or fishing or off-road vehicles.
  It adds a provision to ensure that we are to protect tribal 
sovereignty, that nothing in this bill may supersede, replace, negate, 
or diminish treaty obligations or agreements with Indian tribes. 
Existing practices and negotiation cooperation between the Border 
Patrol and the tribes will continue.
  It also clarifies what is the purpose of operation control, which is 
to prevent all unlawful entry into the United States, including entry 
by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, 
narcotics, and other contraband through the international land borders 
of the United States.
  There are three reasons why this amendment, indeed, the underlying 
bill is important. Number 1, a sovereign country controls its own 
borders. We are not doing that here. We need to.
  Number 2, we will never solve our overall immigration issue until we 
can guarantee that we can, in some way, lower the anger and the rage 
and the anxiety that is out there. If indeed we can look at our fellow 
citizens and, with a straight face, say we have control of the border, 
all of a sudden the ability of solving other problems, some of which 
are easy and some of which are complex, the ability to do that 
increases.
  And third, and most importantly, the violence against women--the 
women who are raped along these trails, whose garments are left on 
these trees as a trophy to the coyote who raped these women, these 
woman who have absolutely no other source to go, they have no one to 
complain to, they have no one to ask for protection. This must stop.
  The Border Patrol can't stop this practice. Right now, what we're 
doing is simply putting up signs saying areas are off limits to 
Americans, but that does not stop this practice. And unless we can give 
the Border Patrol access to this territory so they can stop this 
practice, we're not doing anything about it. We are not solving this 
particular issue.
  I'll add one more time. We have talked about the ``drone zone'' in 
here, which is something, once again, it's cute and inaccurate. This 
amendment has nothing do with the ``drone zone.'' It does not 
authorize, nor does it stop drones. It doesn't authorize black 
helicopters or stop them, or red-headed stepchildren, or illegal Druids 
coming to this country as well.
  But what it does do is allow our professional Border Patrol to have 
the same rights of access to Federal land that they have on private 
property and State land. And it says that we will control our border, 
we will solve our immigration problem, and we will stop the rape trees. 
We will stop this heinous practice from going forward, and we will do 
it positively. That's the purpose of this amendment to this title of 
the bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1610

  Mr. MARKEY. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Yoder). The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. This amendment is just further evidence that the problem 
this drone zone bill claims to be solving does not exist and that the 
underlying bill is a dangerous overreach.
  When this legislation was first introduced, we were told that it was 
necessary to establish this 100-mile drone zone around the entire 
United States--east coast, west coast, Hawaii, and Alaska. That version 
of the drone zone looked like a giant red belt surrounding the entire 
country. Then supporters of the bill decided that they'd gone too far. 
The bill was altered to say the drone zone would only cover a 100-mile 
stretch along our northern and southern borders and along the eastern 
border of Alaska. Even with that change, we were still assured that a 
blanket waiver of the full list of 36 bedrock environmental laws was 
absolutely necessary for our border security.
  Now we have a further change.
  This amendment will reduce the list of laws weighed by the drone zone 
from 36 environmental laws down to 16 environmental laws. This is the 
ever-shrinking bill. It gets smaller and smaller as people realize that 
environmental laws are not the problem when it comes to border security 
and that the zone created by this bill would harm the environment and 
individual freedoms for millions of Americans.
  The Bishop amendment proves that the underlying bill has always been 
an extreme and extremely harmful solution to a problem that does not 
exist. Perhaps if we give supporters enough time, they can shrink this 
idea down to waiving parking enforcement in a small area around Tucson. 
This amendment reduces the damage this bill would do, but it does not 
begin to prevent that damage. Waiving 36 laws was an unnecessary 
overreach, and waiving 16 laws would be as well.
  Limiting the scope of this terrible bill is a small step in the right 
direction, so there is no reason to oppose this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Would the Chair please inform the Members as to the time 
remaining on both sides.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 3 minutes. The 
gentleman from Utah has 30 seconds.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Filner).
  Mr. FILNER. I thank you, Mr. Markey.
  I rise in opposition to the bill, especially to the border provisions 
of the bill, and I rise in support of the Grijalva amendment that is 
going to be coming.
  I represent the entire California-Mexico border. I know how harmful 
this bill can be. As I read the exemptions from laws, I can see--I 
don't know--undocumented child labor filling in wetlands.
  I mean, come on.
  Our natural beauty depends on these protections. These laws protect 
us, and the Department of Homeland Security, as I understand it, is not 
in support of these provisions. They testified in July of 2011:

       The U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency enjoys a 
     close working relationship with the Department of the 
     Interior and with the Department of Agriculture that allows 
     us to fulfill our border enforcement responsibilities while 
     respecting and enhancing the environment.

  This excessive exemption from a century's worth of environmental 
protection laws would affect public lands and national parks all across 
the country.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. FILNER. This would put in danger important parks and monuments, 
not only in my area, but those such as the Statue of Liberty National 
Monument, Cape Cod in Massachusetts, Point Reyes in California, Cape 
Hatteras National Seashore in North Carolina, and scores of others. We 
must protect these important national parks, recreation areas, and 
wilderness lands for future generations.
  Mr. Chairman, I also invited the gentleman, Mr. Denham, whose bill 
this is, to join me at the border to see what we would be protecting. I 
don't think he ever answered my letter.
  Mr. MARKEY. I am the final speaker on our side if the gentleman from 
Utah is ready to conclude debate.

[[Page H3781]]

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am prepared to close when you are ready to 
close.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. The 36 laws that were originally placed were 
there when Homeland Security asked for those and when Congress agreed 
to it. It is the precedent. I am lowering it to 16 out of benefit to 
you.
  I have been on the border. I have been on the border, and I have seen 
the rape trees. This must stop. I have also been on the border to see 
there are 48 different organizations that have endorsed the underlying 
bill, including the National Association of Former Border Patrol 
Officers, the National Border Patrol Council, the local Border Patrol 
Council in Arizona, and the National Association of Police 
Organizations. Those who work this realize the importance of this, and 
that's why they are supporting it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Grijalva

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 112 539.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike title XIV.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 688, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Out of all the titles cobbled together under this one 
piece of legislation, title XIV is the most alarming, so I have 
introduced this amendment to strike it all from the bill.
  Not only is it the text of one of the most controversial bills 
introduced in this Congress, its intent is to expand the scope and the 
authority of one government agency to achieve a loosely defined 
objective, an agency that has not even asked for this expanded 
authority. Title XIV of this legislation would supersize Customs and 
Border Protection so they could seize control of Federal lands within 
100 miles of the northern and southern borders. It would be at their 
discretion and without any recourse by the public to be able to counter 
that.
  If this bill were to become law, families who use our parks, forests, 
and wildlife areas in all of these States could be subject to increased 
surveillance without any notification. We already know what happens to 
the economic welfare of families and what has happened to the economies 
of the States of Alabama and Arizona when States pass hostile anti-
immigrant laws. This takes the same concept and spreads it across our 
northern and southern borders.
  Right now, Customs and Border Protection isn't suffering from a lack 
of authority. If anything, it is suffering from a lack of focus. The 
ability to access Federal lands isn't causing Border Patrol problems. 
In the most recent GAO report, radios that don't work and the lack of 
infrastructure and personnel are what they have cited as being 
barriers.
  Yesterday, during the debate over the rule for the bill, the sponsor 
of the legislation that has become title XIV claimed that we can't deal 
with the issue of immigration reform before securing our land borders. 
He went on to say that people are angry about the situation at the 
border and that, before this anger is addressed, we can't do anything 
about our broken immigration system, so we are going to pay some lip 
service to border security to advance what is essentially an anti-
environment and anti-immigrant agenda.
  That should make many of us angry because it adds to the division in 
our Nation and to the sense of millions of families in the border 
region and across this country who feel they are political pawns in a 
system--in a game--that is never ending. Millions of people live along 
these 100 miles, and they deserve the same protection from 
environmental pollution or government overreach that the rest of us in 
the country enjoy.
  The original bill granted DHS a waiver of 36 laws. The recently 
introduced amendment would allow that list to be 16. The fact that we 
were able to concede half of the original list proves that the bill is, 
from the outset, an unnecessary overreach. The 16 laws left in the 
legislation are not minor statutes. They include the National Historic 
Preservation Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Antiquities Act, the 
Wilderness Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
  The solution to a broken system along the border is comprehensive 
immigration reform. If you took that 100-mile zone along the southern 
border and made it into a State, it would lead the Nation in poverty, 
unemployment, educational attainment, the lowest wages, the most 
uninsured, and the lowest economic growth. Yet this legislation and 
title XIV, once again, take this region, and instead of providing 
support and comprehensive attention to it, we further marginalize and 
isolate it.

                              {time}  1620

  All the laws that are being waived and eliminated are all landmark 
pieces of legislation that guide and manage our Federal lands, 
resources that belong to every single American taxpayer. Throwing away 
decades of law that help protect and preserve our Federal lands makes 
no sense. The supporters of this legislation will say it is necessary 
to address the horrors and violence that occur on the border. That's 
not true. It's back-door amnesty for extremist anti-environmental 
groups, industries, and developers who lust after our public resources 
for private profit at taxpayers' expense.
  That is why I've introduced my amendment to strike the title from the 
bill. I encourage its support and reserve my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I hope I will not take the 5 
minutes of this time.
  With all due respect for my good friend from Arizona, for whom I have 
a great deal of admiration, I would emphasize again that the title of 
this section is National Security and Federal Lands Protection. It does 
not extend to any other property except those that belong to the 
Federal Government on our borders. It has a 5-year limitation on it. 
There is a sunset provision so it can be reviewed. But more 
importantly, the elements that are in this particular title are there 
for a reason, there is precedent for them. One hundred miles is what 
the legal definition of border land actually is. The 36 laws--I'm ready 
to go back to those. The 36 laws were the laws that were presented by 
the Department of Homeland Security as those potential laws that could 
cause them damage, and this Congress agreed to that precedent. Congress 
established that they could be waived for that specific purpose.
  I want to once again tell you what Secretary Napolitano said about 
this particular issue of border security when she first came into 
office: The removal of cross-border violators from public lands is a 
value to the environment.
  You want to protect the environment, get the drug cartels and the 
human traffickers off of that particular area. It is the removal of 
those violators from public lands that is a value to the environment, 
as well as to the mission of the land managers, which is once again the 
48 groups that talk about and support this. They come from conservation 
groups, they come from agriculture groups, but more importantly, they 
come from the Border Patrol agents themselves. Those are the ones who 
have come forth and testified that they need special ability of having 
access to this land if we're going to control the border, which is what 
a sovereign country does.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the word of what their responsibilities are. 
This is what we have told the Border Patrol they have to do: Prevent 
all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by 
terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, 
and other contraband through the international land borders

[[Page H3782]]

of the United States. That's in this title. That's their job. That's 
what the Border Patrol has requested to do.
  All we need to do is give them the tools they need to be able to 
accomplish that, tools on Federal land that will mirror the tools they 
have on private and State lands. Let them do their job. They need 
access to this area to patrol it and to apprehend the bad guys. Give 
them that opportunity.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, if I may inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the 
gentleman from North Carolina, the ranking member of DHS 
appropriations, Mr. Price.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support 
of the Grijalva amendment, which would restore proper environmental 
oversight and protections to construction performed by the Border 
Patrol.
  Even with the Bishop amendment just adopted, the bill waives 16 
different environmental laws--for example, the National Environmental 
Policy Act and wildlife refuge laws--to give DHS operational control 
over these lands.
  Mr. Chairman, that would mean that on our northwest border, the 
Border Patrol would have largely unfettered access, and environmental 
protections would be waived, within 10 miles of Seattle. In Arizona, 
this would encompass all of Tucson. In New York, land in Buffalo and 
Syracuse could come under control. These are sweeping and unnecessary 
provisions, and the Department of Homeland Security has said it does 
not want them.
  Having worked on this issue for years as chairman and ranking member 
of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, I urge my 
colleagues to adopt the amendment.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, can I just inquire if there is any 
time left from either side?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah has 2\1/4\ minutes 
remaining. The time of the gentleman from Arizona has expired.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Let me just say once again, I appreciate the 
arguments that are given.
  When I have been on the border and have been able to talk to the 
people who work on the border about what they need to protect the 
border, once again they're telling us that they need the access. The 
ability to waive these law, these rules, these regulations is what we 
have done in the past. Congress already did it once before. There is 
precedent. This is not something that is new, but this is what is 
definitely needed. This is the right thing to do.
  I urge you to reject this particular amendment.
  And in all fairness, Mr. Chair, I would like to yield 30 seconds to 
the gentleman from Arizona so he has a chance to close on his 
particular amendment.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your courtesy.
  I would at this point say that I appreciate the time, and I'll wait 
to call for a vote. Thank you very much.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.


                Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Hanabusa

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in House Report 112 539.
  Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 104, after line 8, insert the following new 
     subsection:
       (e) Limitation on Application With Respect to Hawaii.--
     Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply with respect to 
     activities by U.S. Customs and Border Protection on land 
     under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior or 
     the Secretary of Agriculture in Hawaii.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 688, the gentlewoman 
from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chair, first I would like to begin by saying that 
we've had my amendment before the committee and the representations 
that were made with it were that it did not cover Hawaii. I'm here to 
basically reaffirm that on the floor of the House.
  This all started because when I was home, I was the speaker at the 
50th anniversary of the USS Arizona Memorial. As I sat there, I began 
to understand that, in fact, the National Park Service has jurisdiction 
over the Arizona and all of its facilities in Pearl Harbor. So it 
caused me to go back and check exactly how many lands are under the 
jurisdiction of the National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife, which 
would fall within this law.
  There are 357,772 acres in the National Park Service and 298,980 
acres under the Fish and Wildlife Service. As you all know, with 100 
miles from any border, it would cover the whole State of Hawaii. But, 
Mr. Chair, I believe with the representation from the gentleman from 
Utah, I would be willing to withdraw my amendment if I'm again assured 
that this is not intended to cover Hawaii.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Will the gentlelady yield?
  Ms. HANABUSA. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Yes, Hawaii was taken out in committee. It is not 
put in with the amendment that was just passed.
  Ms. HANABUSA. With that, Mr. Chair, I respectfully ask unanimous 
consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 7 will not 
be offered.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 112 539 on 
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. DeFazio of Oregon.
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Markey of Massachusetts.
  Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Grijalva of Arizona.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. DeFazio) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184, 
noes 236, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 383]

                               AYES--184

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Barber
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind

[[Page H3783]]


     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--236

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hirono
     Honda
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Altmire
     Davis (KY)
     Dingell
     Hayworth
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hurt
     Jackson (IL)
     Lewis (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1655

  Messrs. SMITH of Texas, BARTON of Texas, and TIPTON changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. PETRI, McDERMOTT, COSTA, and BARTLETT changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  (By unanimous consent, Mrs. Emerson was allowed to speak out of 
order.)


                     Women's Congressional Softball

  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, my softball co-captain, my colleague from 
Florida, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and I would like to remind all of 
you, all of our colleagues, that tomorrow night, once again the 
bicameral, bipartisan softball team plans to beat the Washington news 
media in a softball game; and we want to make sure that all of you know 
the details so you can join us in the very oppressive heat that we will 
be playing in.
  I yield to my co-captain.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. We are 
really excited. This is the fourth annual congressional women's 
softball game. We are the defending champions. We beat the Bad News 
Babes last year. We have expanded our team. We have the gentlelady from 
Alabama who's a ringer this year, Mrs. Roby. You should come out and 
see her play; she's got some skills.
  So even though the press corps has been talking some good trash, and 
they're even apparently practicing on the beach while at the G 20, we 
have jelled as a team, come together in a bipartisan, bicameral way. 
And between our superior fielding, hitting, and strategic approach to 
the game, we look forward to continuing as the champions of the Annual 
Congressional Women's Softball Game. It's 7 p.m. tomorrow night, 
Watkins Recreation Center. Come on out, encourage your staff. This year 
it is a $10 entry fee, but all for a good cause, to raise money for the 
Young Survival Coalition, which is an organization that raises 
awareness and supports young survivors of breast cancer.
  And I would just conclude by thanking all Members and staff, as a 
breast cancer survivor myself, and a young one at that, it is so 
personally and deeply meaningful to me that the congressional family is 
always so supportive of the women Members. Thank you to my 
congressional sisters. You guys are awesome.
  Mrs. EMERSON. And I want to just thank Martha Roby for helping our 
average age go way, way, way down.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Markey

  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, 2-minute voting will continue.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 156, 
noes 268, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 384]

                               AYES--156

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

[[Page H3784]]



                               NOES--268

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hochul
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Altmire
     Dingell
     Huizenga (MI)
     Jackson (IL)
     Lewis (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Young (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1702

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Grijalva

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Grijalva) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177, 
noes 247, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 385]

                               AYES--177

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--247

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hochul
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Altmire
     Dingell
     Huizenga (MI)
     Jackson (IL)
     Lewis (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Young (FL)
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''

                              {time}  1707

  So the amendment was rejected.

[[Page H3785]]

  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Woodall). The question is on the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Yoder) having assumed the chair, Mr. Woodall, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2578) to 
amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act related to a segment of the Lower 
Merced River in California, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to 
House Resolution 688, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.

                              {time}  1710


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. In its current form, I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Perlmutter moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 2578, to 
     the Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendment:
       At the end of the bill, insert the following:
TITLE XV--REDUCING THE RISK OF WILDFIRE; PROTECTING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY; 
                           MAKE IT IN AMERICA

     SEC. 1501. REDUCING THE RISK OF WILDFIRE.

       The Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior are authorized 
     to enter into contracts or agreements with a State to permit 
     the State to treat insect-infected trees and remove hazardous 
     fuels on Federal land located in the State, in order to 
     reduce the risk of wildfire. Priority shall be given to the 
     protection of homes, schools, and healthcare, nursing, and 
     assisted living facilities.

     SEC. 1502. PROTECTING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY.

       Nothing in this Act shall override Tribal sovereignty, 
     including with respect to Native American burial or other 
     sacred sites.

     SEC. 1503. MAKE IT IN AMERICA.

       The Secretary of the Interior shall ensure that all items 
     offered for sale in any gift shop or visitor center located 
     within a unit of the National Park System are produced in the 
     United States.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to 
recommit. It is the final amendment to the bill. It will not kill the 
bill and, if adopted, the House will vote on final passage in this 
series of votes.
  The amendment has three parts. They are short and direct. The first 
involves wildfires and the ability and the authority of the Secretary 
of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into 
contracts with the States to clear hazardous fuel to prevent wildfires, 
as well as treat insect-infested trees. And we'll get into that.
  The second part is very clear. Just says, nothing in this act shall 
override tribal sovereignty, including with respect to Native American 
burial or other sacred sites. It speaks for itself.
  Finally, it's about making sure that in the parks and in the gift 
shops, that the goods that are sold there are made in America.
  So let's just begin with the wildfire piece. As Smokey the Bear says, 
``Only you can prevent forest fires.''
  Right now, across the West and throughout America we have wildfires 
dotting our country: 500,000 acres across our country are on fire right 
now, in Alaska, Arizona, California, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, 
North Carolina, Wyoming, and in my home State of Colorado.
  Right now we're battling a very big wildfire just north of where I 
live called the High Park fire--60,000 acres are currently burning. We 
have about 50 percent contained through the efforts of 1,800 
firefighters, some of the best Federal firefighters we have, as well as 
State and local firefighters who are doing a tremendous job in a 
situation where we have very dry conditions, record temperatures, and a 
very erratic fire.
  Now, what we can do and what is missing from this bill is any public 
policy concerning what to do with insect-infested forests. And we've 
had a terrible infestation of what they called the pine beetle. And it 
makes tremendous fuel.
  And so what this bill does is it gives the authority to the 
Agriculture Department and the Interior Department to work with the 
States to clear these insect-ravaged forests. We need to have that done 
to prevent forest fires in the future. It's as simple as that. It ought 
to be very easy for everyone to support that.
  Secondly, again, this amendment says specifically, the act shall not 
override tribal sovereignty. We've reached treaties with the various 
tribes. Those things control, not this particular bill, and we state 
that specifically.
  Finally, we address something that I think irks many of us in this 
Chamber. When we have a visitors center in our national parks which is 
selling goods made in other countries, it just seems wrong. We want to 
make things in America. Manufacturing in America is key to this 
country's economic growth and prosperity. We have a saying, ``If we 
make it in America, we'll make it in America.''
  So three very simple, very direct amendments to this bill which make 
the bill much better, address public policy that is not addressed in 
the bill that should have been addressed in the bill, especially the 
wildfire mitigation piece, something that you would have expected to be 
right in the heart of this thing after Texas was ravaged by so many 
wildfires last year, and we knew dry conditions existed across the 
West.
  So I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to support this 
commonsense amendment to mitigate and prevent forest fires, to make 
sure that tribal sovereignty is respected, and that we make things in 
America so that we make it here in America.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I've had an opportunity 
several times to come down here to debate the motions to recommit, and 
I've prefaced virtually every time I've come down here with, history 
repeats itself.
  Mr. Speaker, history is repeating itself one more time. Why do I say 
that? Because probably the biggest issue that Americans are concerned 
about is jobs. This is another effort that deals with American jobs by 
dealing with regulation that slows down economic activity.
  So what does the other side do? They try to put up another impediment 
to a bill that is straightforward, had transparency in committee, had a 
full debate in committee, and put together to debate on the floor. It's 
the same arguments that we have that, frankly, are meaningless.
  Now, to the essence of what the gentleman's amendment does. All of 
this is essentially redundant. It's in law right now.
  Is this just a political move on the minority's part? Is that what it 
is?
  If the issue is really trying to deal with firefighting in the West, 
I would remind this body, Mr. Speaker, that 2 weeks ago, we passed 
legislation to allow the Forest Service to buy tankers to fight forest 
fires. We've already done that.
  All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that history repeats itself. Let's 
vote down this motion to recommit and let's vote for the jobs bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.

[[Page H3786]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered, and the motion to 
suspend the rules and pass H.R. 2938.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188, 
noes 234, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 386]

                               AYES--188

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barber
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--234

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Altmire
     Cummings
     Dingell
     Huizenga (MI)
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Lewis (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Young (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There is 1 minute 
remaining.

                              {time}  1735

  Messrs. ROYCE, COFFMAN of Colorado, and TIPTON changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232, 
nays 188, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 387]

                               YEAS--232

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Cassidy
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hochul
     Holden
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--188

     Ackerman
     Amash
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bartlett

[[Page H3787]]


     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Guinta
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Israel
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Altmire
     Cummings
     Dingell
     Huizenga (MI)
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Lewis (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1742

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 387, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________