[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 23 (Thursday, February 6, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H1662-H1677]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PUBLIC ACCESS AND LANDS IMPROVEMENT ACT
General Leave
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2954.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McClintock). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 472 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. 2954.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 0913
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. 2954) to authorize Escambia County, Florida, to convey certain
property that was formerly part of Santa Rosa Island National Monument
and that was conveyed to Escambia County subject to restrictions on use
and reconveyance, with Mr. Denham in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read
the first time.
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the Public Access and Lands Improvement Act, H.R. 2954,
is a bipartisan package of 10 bills to protect and promote public
access to lands; to improve opportunities by removing red tape that
stands in the way of responsible, local economic development and jobs;
and to encourage transparent community center land management.
This small grouping of bills will advance important local projects
that will have a direct impact on jobs and on economic growth in
communities throughout the country.
{time} 0915
The package includes several commonsense land conveyance bills to
remove unnecessary bureaucratic strings attached to how land is used
and how it is managed. It recognizes that locally elected leaders, not
Federal bureaucrats, know how to best manage certain lands.
There are measures to prevent unreasonable Federal regulations or
actions from destroying a historic lookout tower in my home State of
Washington, blocking unreasonable public recreation access to the Cape
Hatteras seashore in North Carolina, and preventing the use of hand-
powered boats, such as kayaks, in several national parks in the West.
This bill will help family businesses and ranchers by implementing
commonsense reforms to the process of renewing livestock grazing
permits. Livestock grazing on Federal lands is an important part of the
American ranching tradition. This bill will help our Nation's ranchers
operate more efficiently and with greater certainty.
The package, Mr. Chairman, also includes legislation sponsored by the
Public Lands Subcommittee chairman, Mr. Bishop of Utah, requiring the
BLM to establish an Internet database for all BLM lands that are
available for sale to the public.
In the year 2014, if I may be parochial, when a Seahawks fan can
purchase a championship hat on the Internet just moments after the
Superbowl ends, the Federal Government can certainly get its act
together and post its lands that are available for sale online.
This bill will expedite the planning and implementation of emergency
salvage timber sales for Federal lands in California that were ravaged
by the Rim Fire last summer. Without prompt emergency action, the
impacts of this devastating wildfire could become even worse. Fire-
damaged trees invite disease. They invite insect infestations. They
increase the risk of future wildfires, and they are a threat to visitor
safety. Emergency salvage and forest restoration efforts should not be
delayed due to bureaucratic hurdles and lawsuits.
Finally, the bill provides for transparency and accountability in how
Federal funds are spent in protecting the Chesapeake Bay.
This small package of bills is reasonable, responsible, and it
reflects the will of local communities and their elected leaders. It
deserves support, I believe, from my Democrat and Republican
colleagues.
Before concluding my remarks on this piece of legislation and
listening to the statement of the gentleman from Arizona, I would like
to briefly address the legislative work of this committee as a whole.
The committee, of course, I speak of is the Natural Resources
Committee.
Just this week, the House will have considered three measures from
the House Natural Resources Committee.
[[Page H1663]]
Two of these packages were individual bills, which means a total of 18
different bills from this committee will have effectively been
considered and debated and voted upon by the House this week.
Prior to this week, over the first 13 months of this Congress, the
Natural Resources Committee has advanced nearly 60 individual bills
through the House. Nearly 50 of those bills have passed on a broad
bipartisan basis under the expedited suspension process. Ten bills
under the jurisdiction of the committee, both Republican and Democrat,
have been signed by the President, which represents a noticeable
percentage of the public laws that have been enacted by this Congress.
These totals do not include individual bills included in other
measures, such as bills that were included in the Defense Authorization
Act.
Mr. Chairman, this statement is not made as a pat on the back, but to
make clear that the intent of this committee is to dutifully work and
act on priorities for our Nation. They may be narrow bills to resolve a
parochial problem or broad measures affecting the country as a whole.
Of course, the nature of our committee is to deal with, in many cases,
bills that deal on very parochial issues. That is one of the reasons
why there are so many bills that come out of our committee.
In matters of broad policy, some are of great urgency, such as the
importance of restoring responsible, active forest management to both
support economically struggling rural communities and to improve the
health of Federal forests. We passed that bill earlier this year. Just
yesterday, the House moved swiftly to provide a solution to the
devastating drought in California.
We have also acted on multiple bipartisan measures to streamline red
tape and boost America's ability to safely harness our vast energy
resources to create jobs--because we know that energy jobs are good-
paying jobs--to lower prices, and to strengthen our national security
by reducing dependence on foreign energy from hostile nations.
On each of these measures, it is time for the Senate to act and to
pass their own proposals so that we can then work to reach an
agreement. Obviously, there will be differences between both Houses,
but they need to pass their legislation so we can work on the
differences so that these measures can become law. We have differences,
but we have a responsibility to represent those we are elected to serve
and put forward real solutions for the challenges facing the American
people.
There are dozens of bills solving local problems, implementing
locally supported solutions, and establishing protections for historic
and special places that can be acted on by both the House and the
Senate. I believe that this is possible on matters under the
jurisdiction of the Natural Resources Committee, that we can find
common ground with the Senate. Why do I say that? Because we have
successfully done so repeatedly over this last year. That is why there
are a noticeable number of public laws from our committees that have
been acted on by the House and have gone to the President.
But, as always, this will require a willingness to recognize and
respect differences in philosophy and procedure in both the House and
in the Senate. It must be a two-way street where each Chamber acts on
the other's priorities, but, again, has successfully been done in the
past, and I know it can be done in the future. The Republican majority
in the House has demonstrated our willingness to do so while
maintaining our fundamental views on Federal land management, the
importance of multiple use of public lands, and the ability of local
communities to make better decisions for themselves than Federal
bureaucracies.
So as we conclude this week's full slate of action on House Natural
Resources Committee bills, I pledge to continue working with my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of the Capitol
to make progress in the days, weeks, and months ahead.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me congratulate the chairman on the Seahawks, and also remind him
that there was a long 16-game season. They won their division. They
played San Francisco three times, two out of three, and then after that
they went into the playoffs. Then after the playoffs, they went to the
championship game and, finally, to the Superbowl, which they won.
Congratulations. So it is great that you got that cap 1 minute after
the game was over. I am pointing out that there was a long, deliberate
process with rules, games to be won, that encompassed the whole season.
Sometimes us rushing legislation is cutting corners that great
championship teams like the Seahawks never do.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Cartwright), my colleague.
I will have more to say on the specifics of this legislation later.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Grijalva).
I rise today to express my opposition to H.R. 2954, the mistitled
Public Access and Lands Improvement Act. Rather than improving our
Nation's lands, this bill negatively affects our land management
decisions. It conveys or disposes of Federal lands improperly. It
rewrites grazing policy, and it waives numerous environmental laws like
the Natural Environmental Policy Act, the Wilderness Act, and the
Endangered Species Act.
Overall, H.R. 2954 contains a number of provisions that would
undermine the responsible balance of interests and considerations in
the stewardship of our Nation's lands and our Nation's resources.
Included in the myriad of poor land management provisions that this
bill cobbles together is language that gives away thousands of acres of
Federal land in Florida, Alaska, and Nevada, valued at millions of
dollars, without a transparent public planning process. When the
Federal Government gives away land, we do so with certain
understandings of how it will be used. It is just wrong to change the
rules without due consideration and without any compensation for the
Federal Government--the taxpayers of this Nation--if others will now
profit from this land.
Yet another ill-advised land management provision, H.R. 2954 also
prevents the Bureau of Land Management from carrying out its mission to
manage public lands for multiple use. Specifically, this bill requires
that until the agency creates a public database of all lands identified
for disposal, BLM would be barred from all land acquisitions. This is
couched as a transparency measure when, in reality, it is nothing more
than an attempt to prevent and delay BLM from doing its all-important
work.
Further, provisions of the bill would disregard or reduce public
engagement on a range of community interests, including natural
resource protections. In fact, H.R. 2954 would overturn a multiyear
National Park Service process that has resulted in balanced provisions
that protect threatened shorebirds and endangered nesting sea turtles
while preserving the economic health of the community at the Cape
Hatteras National Seashore. The National Park Service should be allowed
to continue their balanced and successful management of Cape Hatteras
National Seashore in order to ensure these critical protections remain
in place.
Along with these poor land management decisions and irresponsible
consideration of our Nation's lands and natural resources, H.R. 2954
would eliminate or delay timely reviews of grazing leases necessary to
ensure sound conservation principles.
In addition, H.R. 2954 includes a bill to expedite salvaged logging
on the Rim Fire area of northern California, overriding NEPA and
administrative and judicial review.
The end result after piecing together all these provisions is a piece
of legislation that waives Federal law, including laws that require
consultation with Federal, State, local, or tribal governments or with
local residents in order, among other things, to expedite timber
harvest on certain Federal lands in California; reverse course on the
science-based National Park Service plan that provides an appropriate
balance of off-road vehicle access and protection of sensitive seashore
areas in North Carolina; and waive NEPA in multiple scenarios,
weakening important public involvement and planning provisions.
[[Page H1664]]
Mr. Chairman, our public lands and natural resources would simply be
mismanaged, unprotected, and undervalued as a result of this bill. I
believe we have to put partisan politics aside and work together to
protect and responsibly manage America's natural resources and to
support and ensure that the Nation's spectacular landscapes, unique
natural life, and cultural resources and icons endure for future
generations. This bill is just a giant step in the wrong direction.
Mr. Chairman, for all these reasons, I urge my colleagues here in the
House to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2954.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), who is the
author of one of the titles of the bill.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and
particularly want to thank him for his work on the Natural Resources
Committee and for his invaluable assistance on this bill.
This summer, the biggest fire in the history of the Sierra Nevada
mountains burned 400 square miles of forestland. The fire left behind
an unprecedented swath of environmental devastation that threatens the
loss not only of the affected forestland for generations to come, but
sets events in motion that could destroy the surrounding forest for
many years to come.
The fire also left behind hundreds of millions of board feet of dead
timber that is on Federal land that could be sold to raise millions of
dollars, money that could then be used to replant and reforest our
devastated lands. In addition, processing that timber would help to
revive the economy of a stricken region.
But time is already running out. Within a year, the value of the
timber declines rapidly as the wood is devoured by insects and rot.
That is the problem. Cumbersome environmental reviews and litigation
that inevitably follow will run up the clock of this valuable asset
until it becomes absolutely worthless.
{time} 0930
Indeed, it becomes worse than worthless--it becomes hazardous. Bark
and wood-boring beetles are already moving in to feast on the dead and
dying timber, and a population explosion of pestilence can be expected
if those dead trees remain. The beetles won't confine themselves to the
fire areas, posing a mortal threat to the adjacent forests.
By the time the normal bureaucratic reviews and lawsuits have run
their course, what was once forestland will have already begun
converting to brushland, and by the following year, reforestation will
have become infinitely more difficult and expensive. Within just a few
years, several feet of dry brush will have built up, and the smaller
trees will have begun toppling on this tinder. It is not possible to
build a more perfect fire stack than that. That means that intense
second-generation fires will take advantage of this fuel, sterilizing
the soil, eroding the landscape, fouling the watersheds, and
jeopardizing surrounding forests.
Without timely salvage and reforestation, we know the fate of the
Sierras because we have seen the result of neglect after previous
fires. The trees don't come back for many, many generations. Instead,
thick brush takes over the land that was once shaded by towering
forests. It quickly overwhelms any seedlings struggling to make a
start. It replaces the diverse ecosystems supported by the forests with
scrub brush.
For this reason, I introduced H.R. 3188, which waives the time-
consuming environmental review process and prevents the endless
litigation that always follows. It authorizes Federal forest managers,
following well-established environmental protocols for salvage, to sell
the dead timber and to supervise its careful removal while there is
still time. The millions of dollars raised can then be directed toward
replanting the region before layers of brush choke off any chance of
forest regrowth in the foreseeable future.
It was modeled on legislation authored by Democratic Senator Tom
Daschle for salvaging dead and dying trees in the Black Hills National
Forest, a measure credited with speeding the preservation and recovery
of that forest. Unfortunately, the bill spawned lurid tales from the
activist left of uncontrolled logging in the Sierras. Nothing could be
further from the truth. The legislation vests full control of the
salvage plans with Federal forest managers, not the logging companies.
It leaves Federal foresters in charge of enforcing salvage plans that
fully protect the environment.
Because of the opposition--and we heard a little bit of it just a
moment ago--in a few minutes, I will offer an amendment that was worked
out in consultation with the U.S. Forest Service and with several
Democratic offices, and I hope it will receive bipartisan support. It
preserves the EIS process and the environmental and judicial reviews,
but it expedites them and assures that salvage under the direction of
the Forest Service can begin this spring.
There is plenty of room for compromise, but there is absolutely no
excuse for inaction. The left wants a policy of benign neglect--to let
a quarter of a million acres of destroyed timber rot in place, to
surrender the ravaged land to beetles and to watch contentedly as the
forest ecosystem is replaced by scrub brush. It is true that without
human intervention the forests will eventually return in about a
century from now but certainly not in the lifetimes of ourselves, of
our children or of our children's children. If we want to stop the loss
of this forestland and if we want to control the beetle infestation
before it explodes out of control, the dead timber has to come out
soon.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 1
minute.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. If we take it up now, we can generate the funds
necessary to suppress brush buildup, to plant new seedlings and to
restore these forests for the use and enjoyment of our children. If we
wait for the normal bureaucratic reviews and litigation and delays, we
will have lost these forests for the next several generations.
The irony is that 16,000 acres of that same forest were destroyed but
were on private land. The owner, Sierra Pacific Industries, is in the
process of salvaging the timber on their lands. They will be done by
this summer, and then they will begin reforesting from a portion of
those proceeds. Meanwhile, the public lands lay unattended. Let me tell
you something. Within a couple of years, the difference is going to be
dramatic. We will have fully salvaged and reforested private lands next
to neglected, overgrown public lands that are dry with scrub brush and
just waiting for the next fire.
The public management of our lands will be judged in comparison with
the management of the private lands, and if we maintain current law, we
will have been held in the balance and found wonting.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlelady from Washington (Ms. DelBene).
Ms. DelBENE. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today with great frustration, and must oppose
the Public Access and Lands Improvement Act in its current form.
This bill is a merger of 10 public lands and natural resource bills,
all of which are unrelated to each other and many of which would ignore
the best available science, would compromise the stewardship of our
public lands and would completely disregard the bedrock environmental
laws that have served to protect our environment and cherished open
space for decades.
That being said, there is one part of this bill that I do support.
Buried in title VI of this bill is the Green Mountain Lookout Heritage
Protection Act, which I introduced with Congressman Larsen and Senators
Murray and Cantwell.
Green Mountain Lookout, located in the Glacier Peak Wilderness, was
built in 1933 as a Civilian Conservation Corps project to detect fires
and spot enemy aircraft during World War II. The lookout is an
important, historic and unique part of the Pacific Northwest. It is a
popular destination for hikers, and it is listed on the National
Register of Historic Places. Unfortunately, severe weather caused the
Green Mountain Lookout to fall into disrepair in 2001, and the U.S.
Forest Service began taking steps to preserve the historic
[[Page H1665]]
structure for future generations. However, an out-of-State group filed
a lawsuit against the Forest Service for using machinery to conduct
these repairs, and a U.S. District Court ordered the Forest Service to
remove the lookout.
My bill would allow critical and routine maintenance while keeping
this iconic structure where it is meant to be--in its original home.
Local governments in the area, my constituents, as well as a number of
environmental and historic preservation groups support my bill to keep
the Green Mountain Lookout where it is. The Natural Resources Committee
agrees. They passed this bill unanimously last year, and why wouldn't
they? This bill is common sense. It saves us money because it would
actually cost more to remove the lookout than to keep it where it is.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that, if this bill had been
brought up on its own, by its own merits, it would have passed with
overwhelming bipartisan support. Unfortunately, that is not what is
happening here today. Instead, this bill has gotten wrapped up in a
series of very controversial and divisive bills. The Green Mountain
Lookout represents a significant piece of the Pacific Northwest's
history, and it deserves to be protected for outdoor enthusiasts to
enjoy for years to come. It does not deserve to be wrapped up in a
package of bills that we all know will be dead on arrival in the
Senate. The administration has also voiced its support for keeping the
Green Mountain Lookout where it is while strongly opposing the rest of
this bill.
Green Mountain deserves a vote on its own, and I am extremely
disappointed that my amendment to separate my bill from the rest of
this package was denied a chance to be considered today. The way this
piece of legislation was handled is emblematic of the dysfunction that
is so prevalent and so unnecessary in Congress today. The people of
Washington State expect Congress to make progress, and they expect
compromise, not partisan exercises that won't make it to the
President's desk or achieve a meaningful result. I am deeply
disappointed that that is where this bill is today, and I know that
many of my constituents are as well.
It is my hope that I will be able to work with my colleagues from
across the aisle to consider the Green Mountain Lookout Heritage
Protection Act before it is too late. The need for immediate action is
great because, if the lookout is moved once, there is no moving it
back.
It is simple. Taking care of our environment is critical to
protecting the quality of life we cherish. I cannot in good conscience
support this overall bill due to the many other harmful measures that
are included in this package.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4
minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Labrador), who is an author of
one of the titles of the bill.
Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of title VIII of
H.R. 2954, which I originally introduced as H.R. 657, the Grazing
Improvement Act. I thank Chairman Hastings for recognizing the
importance of this issue and for including it in H.R. 2954 for
consideration today.
Livestock grazing is an important part of the rich ranching tradition
in Idaho and the United States. My home State of Idaho produces some of
the world's finest lamb and beef. Food production is a major part of
Idaho's history, and it 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.
The financial security of ranchers depends upon their responsible
stewardship of the land. Unfortunately, the Federal process to review
the permits which allows them to produce food has become severely
backlogged due to lawsuits aimed at eliminating livestock from public
lands. The local Federal land-managing offices 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 jeopardizing their
livelihoods.
Agriculture is a challenging way to make a living, but producers
choose this path because it is their passion, and it is their way of
life. Several ranchers in my State of Idaho have said, if they were to
lose their grazing permits, they would have to subdivide their land and
further reduce their grazing areas. My bill, the Grazing Improvement
Act, would provide relief to these ranchers and to ranchers throughout
the country.
It would, number one, extend livestock grazing permits from 10 to 20
years in order to give producers adequate longevity and production
stability. It would codify existing appropriation language to put into
statute annual riders. It would also encourage the respective
Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to utilize categorical
exclusions to expedite permit processing.
I believe that protecting our environment can be done in a manner
that does not impede our economic growth. It is time that we improve
our regulatory structure so that we continue to prosper as a Nation. We
can no longer allow the Federal Government to maintain an enormous
backlog in processing grazing permits.
I thank the cosponsors of this legislation, and I look forward to
working with my colleagues on this issue.
Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2954 is another attempt to weaken landmark
environmental protections, to dictate land management decisions, to
convey and dispose of Federal land, and to rewrite grazing policy.
This Chamber, once again, will spend a day debating bad policy put
forth by the majority, which seems to work tirelessly to undermine the
progress of the last century Americans have made in land conservation
and environmental protection, undeterred by reality or a desire by the
American people for bipartisan legislation and compromise. Furthermore,
Republicans have long criticized omnibus bills as an affront to regular
order, but they now attempt to force this bill of bad policy proposals
through the House, which has no chance of passing in the Senate.
Let me quote a statement from the White House, which strongly opposes
the bill. It reads:
Overall, H.R. 2954 contains a number of provisions that
would undermine the responsible balance of interests and
considerations and stewardship of the Nation's lands and
natural resources . . . Provisions of the bill would
disregard or reduce public engagement on a range of community
interests, including natural resource protections, and would
preclude agencies from considering less detrimental
environmental alternatives . . . Provisions of the bill would
waive all Federal laws and consultation requirements that
would now initiate a timber sale without those, that would
eliminate the balanced limitation on off-road vehicle use
within the Cape Hatteras recreation area and that would waive
environmental review requirements for grazing activities on
Federal lands.
The White House said it could support provisions that would restore
the Green Mountain Lookout in Washington State and that would modify
conservation programs at the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Overall, this legislation is going nowhere. It has no chance of ever
becoming law, but here we are. Furthermore, even though we could be
working together on a variety of public land issues that need to be
addressed, like the reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund, we are, instead, debating a package of bills that fails to
address significant issues that have bipartisan solutions. In fact, we
can work together on some of the individual titles in this bill as
stand-alones. We are not legislating. We are wasting valuable time. It
is clear why the American people have such a negative view of Congress.
Let me review quickly the substance of the package.
{time} 0945
Title I would extinguish the reversionary clause covering property on
Santa Rosa Island in Florida. The reversionary clause requires that the
property in question is used for public purposes, since Federal land is
for the American public in its entirety.
What is the reason for rescinding the clause? So that the county of
Escambia can dredge and build a harbor that would cut off access to the
rest of the island, most of which is managed as part of the Gulf
islands National Seashore, a unit of the National Park Service.
Titles II and III are much of the same, Federal land grabs to be used
for
[[Page H1666]]
windfall profits at the expense of the American people. Title III goes
further by waiving a number of laws, including the Endangered Species
Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act; the National Historic Preservation Act; and the Native
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.
Title IV would prevent the BLM from carrying out its mission to
manage public lands for multiple use until the agency creates a public
database of all lands identified for disposal. BLM would be barred from
all land acquisitions until such database is created.
BLM currently uses a public process developed and implemented locally
through Resource Management Plans, and approved by Congress, to
identify parcels for acquisition or disposal. This measure would just
add another extreme layer of bureaucracy.
Title V would threaten endangered nesting shorebirds and sea turtles
in the Cape Hatteras National Seashore recreational area. In 2007, the
National Park Service placed modest limits on the use of off-highway
vehicles on the beaches in order to limit the impacts on these species.
The National Park Service was sued, and a judge determined the limits
were inadequate protection for the endangered species.
In arbitration, the parties, including all stakeholders, agreed on a
new plan that provided adequate protection for endangered species while
allowing managed off-highway vehicle access. This measure would require
the seashore be managed under the first rule rather than the agreed
upon settlement.
Title VIII would change grazing tenure from 10 to 20 years and
provide environmental waivers for grazing permit renewals, reissuance,
or transfers. If we are going to reform grazing permit tenure, we
should also talk about those ranchers who would like to get out of the
business and retire their permits.
Also, we should address the low cost of grazing on Federal lands.
Grazing fees have not changed since 1996 and are significantly lower
than in the past, while State and private landowners generally seek
market value for grazing. This measure is completely unbalanced and
fails to address significant grazing issues.
Title IX, like many other natural resource measures proposed by the
Republicans, waives NEPA, judicial review, and administrative review,
completely disregarding the input of critical stakeholders such as the
general public.
In conclusion, this so-called lands package should be called the
``Federal Lands Giveaway, Destruction of Protected Species, and Lack of
Accountability Act.'' This package undermines the management of our
public lands, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, the bill we are considering this morning
includes a provision that would repeal excessive restrictions on public
access to Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Even though the seashore is
paid for by tax dollars, current regulations have restricted access to
the recreational area that is owned by the taxpayer. The elected
officials of Dare County have verified that the regulations have
damaged the economy in the area, which relies heavily on tourism. The
last thing that we need in eastern North Carolina--and across the
country--is governmental regulations stifling job creation and economic
growth.
This bill would overturn the current rule, while restricting access
to the seashore, and reinstitute the National Park Service's 2007
Interim Management Strategy to govern visitor access and species
protection at Cape Hatteras. The Interim Management 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 concerns.
Please support this legislation. Let's protect the species that need
to be protected, but let's also protect the rights of the taxpayer.
This bill finds the balance between the two.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), an author of one
of the titles of the bill.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. I thank the chairman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chair, I do want to say that this is a simple solution to a very
important property rights issue in northwest Florida.
Pursuant to a 1947 Federal deed, Escambia County, Florida, was given
authority to transfer property on Santa Rosa Island but could not issue
title to that land. Instead, the county began leasing the property to
individuals who would pay a lease fee instead of being charged a
property tax.
In the years since 1947, Pensacola Beach and Navarre Beach have grown
into bustling communities and fine tourist destinations.
Additionally, numerous pending cases in the judicial system seek to
allow local authorities to levy taxes now on those properties that
currently are being leased. As a result of these developments, local
stakeholders, including the boards of commissioners of both Escambia
and Santa Rosa Counties, asked me to introduce this piece of
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, this is a fairness issue. It will allow leaseholders
the option of attaining fee simple title to their property while also
protecting current agreements governing conservation, public access,
and recreation. Additionally, the bill would help ease management of
the island by allowing conveyance of certain land currently owned by
Escambia County to Santa Rosa County.
It is important to note that the bill does not address the issue of
property taxes on those properties. It simply seeks to permit
leaseholders the option to attain title to their property so that
leaseholders and local governments can jointly address any local tax
issues that may arise in the future.
Contrary to a statement released by the White House yesterday, this
bill does not remove any protections from Santa Rosa Island. Rather, it
restates those protections that are currently in place with Santa Rosa
County and Escambia County that are critical to this barrier island.
I also want to take note that this bill in no way affects the right
to public beach access, nor does it change the boundaries of the Gulf
Islands National Seashore, nor does it impact the mission of the
National Park Service. And contrary to what the ranking member said,
Escambia County has absolutely no intention of dredging a bay. This is
not going to happen.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Escambia County is protected on both sides of
the land that they have currently now under lease by the National Park
Service, the Gulf Islands National Seashore, so I urge all of my
colleagues to support this commonsense bill.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
It should be noted for the record that the National Park Service
provided a series of recommendations to make this portion of the
legislation workable, and those were not considered during the process.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. If the National Park Service said Escambia
County was doing this because they had an intent of doing some type of
dredging project, they are absolutely incorrect.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Reclaiming my time, this land was to be used for public
purposes. This is public land, not land to give away and, as stated
before, over and over again, be dredged and used for a harbor for
potential windfall profit. Not only that, this action completely
disregards the conservation goals of the adjacent national seashore by
hindering access. On one hand, we talk about limited access to public
lands; on the other, we hinder access to those places we see fit.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H1667]]
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), subcommittee
chairman and also an author of one of the titles of the bill.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by talking about some
things that have been overstated on parts, especially the one that is
my title.
My title does not stop the BLM or anybody in the Interior Department
from doing multiple use on land. It has nothing to do with management.
It simply says they can buy no new land until they first become
transparent and provide a database that anyone can easily accomplish.
As with some of the other statements that have been made on the
floor, some of them are somewhat exaggerated from what this bill
intends to do.
Mr. Chairman, let me talk about this bill as an entity. There is a
common thread that runs through this bill that deals with public lands
and people from Florida to Alaska and all stations in between. What we
simply have found is the Federal Government has large, centralized
bureaucracies that do our land management process that no longer meet
the needs of people, but, rather, they hide behind rules and policies
and regulations which make them safe for them. But they don't actually
help people, which requires sometimes people to be flexible and think
outside the proverbial box.
The island in Florida that Mr. Miller was just referring to was given
by Florida to the government, and the government gave it back to
Florida before I was born--and that has been a while. But the concept
here is that the government does not own this land. They don't need it,
they don't use it, but they still wish to control it--it doesn't matter
why; they still do--and there is no purpose for that.
It is ludicrous that the Congressman from Alaska must come down here
and write a law to transfer 3 acres of land in Anchorage back to the
city of Anchorage so it can be used to benefit the people of Anchorage.
Again, land the Federal Government does not own, they don't need, they
don't use, but they still wish in some way to control it.
The grazers in Idaho who produce the stuff from which Big Macs and
Whoppers are made--and I know that from personal experience,
obviously--only wanted to be treated fairly and consistently and with
consideration for the needs so they can be successful in their trade.
Kayakers in Wyoming simply want the ability to recreate on an area
that was designed for recreation without being specifically prohibited
by rules and regulations that were to insist and support a policy that
we have found no longer is necessary and does not work.
If these 10 bills were to pass, unfortunately it doesn't solve all
our problems. Because all these 10 bills do is show a tip of the
proverbial iceberg of the problems that we face in dealing with land
management when it comes from a large, centralized bureaucracy and we
no longer put our primary interest in helping people meet their needs.
Mr. Chairman, when the Berlin Wall fell down, the entire world
realized that large, centralized bureaucracies of the communist world
failed.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 1
minute.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Eastern Europe learned that, entrepreneurs
learned that. They found that lean, aggressive companies simply take
market share from the lumbering corporate products of the past.
Everyone realized that a large, centralized bureaucratic program is
ineffective, except here in Washington, D.C., where we still address
every problem with an effort to try and build something that is going
to be controlled here in the center of all wisdom that is large, that
is centralized, and that is bureaucratic. It is mind-boggling that the
Nation who defeated the Soviet Union with creativity and freedom still
decides to solve all problems and all management issues by going back
to a Soviet-styled agency program and concept.
This bill is needed because it affects people throughout the length
and breadth of this country, and it is only the beginning of what we
need to do to set it right and make sure that our highest priority is
people, not rules and regulations.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
We have heard our colleagues on the other side of the aisle make fun
of the fact that the United States Congress has to be involved in such
unimportant matters as the conveyance of Federal land, this great
Nation defeated that the Soviet Union, and we allude to the fact that
we have a Soviet-style centralized government with regard to land
management in this country. I think that my colleagues need to take
that up with the Framers of the Constitution.
Article IV of that document states:
The Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make
all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or
other property belonging to the United States.
So I am sorry if the majority finds this burdensome, but the Framers
apparently felt that Federal property was valuable and that Congress
should play a role in determining what to do with it.
{time} 1000
Let's be clear: we are talking here about Federal property, that is,
property owned by all Americans. The land in question in Escambia
County, Florida; Anchorage, Alaska; Fernley, Nevada; Cape Hatteras,
North Carolina; Yellowstone and Grand Teton and the land on which
Federal grazing occurs, the land impacted by this package is Federal
land, owned by each and every American taxpayer.
In the case of these land transfers, the Federal Government gave the
land, gave it to a local community as a means of Federal support, and
the only requirement, in most cases, was that the land always be used
for public purposes. As long as it is a park or a school or a fire
station, it is yours, for free.
What these bills do is end those public purpose requirements. The
communities want to use these lands for private profit. They want to
close them to the public, in many cases.
This is not a land grab by Uncle Sam. This is not some silly scheme
by the Feds to harm local communities and to use their power to hold
down the taxpayers and keep the public out. This is a community asking
to make money off land that was owned by all Americans, and it is the
job of Congress to decide if that is a good idea or not.
Let's put one other misleading claim to rest. While Republicans claim
the Federal Government owns too much land, the historic trend has been
one of divestiture and fragmentation.
As recently as the late 1860s, the Federal Government owned 1.8
billion of the 2.3 billion acres in the contiguous United States.
Grants to States, homesteaders, land-grant colleges, railroads and
others settling in the Alaska and the West have reduced Federal land
ownership by roughly 640 million acres to date.
We have been giving land away for centuries, not buying it up. Today
we have a whole series of bills seeking more Federal land, and we owe
it to the American people--the American people require that we consider
this carefully, and the Constitution requires that Congress be
empowered to consider these carefully.
These mischaracterizations are not helpful in the discussions. These
bills are not in the best interest of the American people, on the
merits alone, and using misinformation to claim otherwise is wrong.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire how much
time is on both sides?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
The gentleman from Washington has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I will advise my friend
that, at this point, I have no more requests for time, and I am
prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
I want to respect the chairman. The chairman is correct. The Natural
Resources Committee, of which I am a proud member, appears to be very
busy passing bills.
[[Page H1668]]
But let's be clear: the Republican majority, time and time again,
acts unilaterally, alone, without meaningful cooperation with the
minority in this legislation, in the House, and with the Senate and
with the administration.
On suspensions, the majority insists on ridiculous limitations that
prevent consideration of many measures designed to conserve lands, and,
of course, they insist on a more than 3:1 ratio of their legislation to
the minority's legislation, to ours. No wonder the number of
suspensions is lagging behind what we have done in the past.
As to the bills we have considered under a rule, most of them are
almost identical repeats of the bills that were passed in the House
last Congress, but because they were opposed by the Senate and the
administration, they went nowhere.
To keep passing the same, dead-on-arrival bills over and over again
to make the committee look busy should not be mistaken for legislating.
The idea is to work on legislation that can bring bills of a bipartisan
nature, that the Senate will deal with and, more importantly, that the
administration will sign.
That is the legislation my side of the aisle looks forward to working
on and, in a very serious manner, improving the operation of Interior,
improving the operation of our public lands, and creating transparency
at all levels.
We want to do that, and we look forward to working with the majority
and with our esteemed chairman in that direction.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of the time.
Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased when I heard my good friend from
Arizona congratulate the work of the committee until I heard his
explanation of what the committee did, and then I had to have a bit of
a caution there.
I just want to point out that when the gentleman complains about the
ratio of majority and minority, we are following precisely the same
example when roles were reversed. In other words, when the Democrats
were in the majority, when we were in the minority, we had the same
ratio. So we are following that pretty much to the same, and that has
been the tradition in this House for a long period of time.
The difference, however, I would say, Mr. Chairman, is that the
committee has been much more productive when we have been in control,
meaning that there has been more legislation moving that the Democrats
would like.
I want to make this point also. There are Democrat and Republican
suspension bills that are both sitting in the Senate that haven't been
acted on, and I think that the Senate needs to act on those pieces of
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, this is an important piece of legislation. All of these
titles have passed out of the committee and were amalgamated here, but
they had all been acted on. They all had input in subcommittee in some
way or the other within the committee.
So I wanted to make that point. This is not legislation that was
pulled out of the air. It was legislation that was deliberated upon
within the committee.
I also want to mention, even though the Statement of Administration
Policy was negative in some parts of the bill, there is no veto threat
by the administration on this piece of legislation. They expressed
concerns, as is understandable, on certain parts of it. I understand
that, but there is no veto threat at all whatsoever in what the
administration has said.
Finally, let me make this observation, and we hear this over and over
and over, especially as it relates to the NEPA, the National
Environmental Policy Act.
Now, I am going to acknowledge that NEPA certainly has its place
within our statutes and how we conduct policy, particularly on public
land, but here is where we part company, Mr. Chairman.
We part company because my friends on the other side of the aisle
always advocate that, even before Congress acts, NEPA should be the
judge of whatever that action is.
Now, I have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, I think that is contrary to
what our role is here. Congress created NEPA, meaning that Congress is
the one who decides what the law of the land is. Within these bills, we
are deciding what the law of the land is, and NEPA should not get in
front of our actions.
To hear my friends on the other side of the aisle argue, they are
saying over and over and over again that NEPA should be between
Congress acting on a law.
Wait a minute. We are putting regulations before Congress should be
doing their constitutional duty and enacting statutes?
I am sorry, Mr. Chairman; I part company with that philosophy, yet
that is exactly what we hear over and over and over from our colleagues
on the other side of the aisle.
We are the ones that are given authority by the Constitution to make
statutes. We believe that that should be the law, and then regulations
follow, not the other way around. But that is what we hear over and
over and over again.
So, Mr. Chairman, this is a good piece of legislation. As I
mentioned, it addresses areas that are certain parochial and certain
parts of the country, as my colleague from Utah said, all the way from
Florida to Alaska.
I think it is responsible legislation, and I think it deserves our
support.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
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 113-35. 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. 2954
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 ``Public Access and Lands
Improvement Act''.
TITLE I--SANTA ROSA ISLAND TITLE FAIRNESS AND LAND PRESERVATION ACT
SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Santa Rosa Island Title
Fairness and Land Preservation Act''.
SEC. 102. CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY.
(a) Conveyance Free of Restrictions.--Notwithstanding the
restrictions on conveyance of property located on Santa Rosa
Island, Florida, contained in the Act of July 30, 1946
(chapter 699; 70 Stat. 712), and the deed to the property
from the United States to Escambia County, Florida, dated
January 15, 1947, Escambia County may, at its discretion,
convey or otherwise dispose of all of its right, title, and
interest (in whole or in part), in and to any portion of the
property that was conveyed to it pursuant to that Act and
deed, to any person or entity, free from any restriction on
conveyance or reconveyance imposed by the United States in
that Act or deed. Any conveyance under this subsection shall
be subject to the conditions set forth in subsection (c).
(b) Leasehold Interests.--No person or entity holding a
leasehold interest in the property as of the date of the
enactment of this Act shall be required to involuntarily
accept a fee interest in lieu of their leasehold interest in
the property.
(c) Conditions.--Any conveyance under subsection (a) shall
be subject to the following conditions:
(1) Not later than two calendar years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, Escambia County shall convey to Santa
Rosa County all right, title, and interest held in and to any
portion of the property that was conveyed to Escambia County
under the Act and deed that fall in the jurisdictional
boundaries of Santa Rosa County, Florida. The conveyance by
Escambia County to Santa Rosa County shall be absolute and
shall terminate any subjugation of Santa Rosa County to
Escambia County or any regulation of Santa Rosa County by
Escambia County. Santa Rosa County shall not be required to
pay any sum for the subject property other than actual costs
associated with the conveyance.
(2) Santa Rosa County or any other person to which property
is conveyed under this title may reconvey property, or any
portion of property, conveyed to it under this section.
(3) For all properties defined under subsection (a) the
leaseholders, or owners are free to pursue incorporation,
annexation, or any other governmental status so long as all
other legal conditions required for doing so are followed.
(4) Each property defined under subsection (a) is under the
jurisdiction of the county and any other local government
entity in which the property is located.
(5) Any proceeds from the conveyance of any property
defined under subsection (a) by Escambia County or Santa Rosa
County, other than direct and incidental costs associated
with such conveyance, shall be considered windfall profits
and shall revert to the United States.
[[Page H1669]]
(6) Escambia County and Santa Rosa County shall in
perpetuity preserve those areas on Santa Rosa Island
currently dedicated to conservation, preservation, public,
recreation, access and public parking in accordance with
resolutions heretofore adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of each respective county.
(d) Determination of Compliance.--Escambia County and Santa
Rosa County shall have no deadline or requirement to make any
conveyance or reconveyance of any property defined under
subsection (a) other than the conveyance required under
subsection (c)(1). Each county may establish terms for
conveyance or reconveyance, subject to the conditions set
forth in this title and applicable State law.
TITLE II--ANCHORAGE LAND CONVEYANCE ACT
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Anchorage Land Conveyance
Act of 2014''.
SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) City.--The term ``City'' means the city of Anchorage,
Alaska.
(2) Non-federal land.--The term ``non-Federal land'' means
certain parcels of land located in the City and owned by the
City, which are more particularly described as follows:
(A) Block 42, Original Townsite of Anchorage, Anchorage
Recording District, Third Judicial District, State of Alaska,
consisting of approximately 1.93 acres, commonly known as the
Egan Center, Petrovich Park, and Old City Hall.
(B) Lots 9, 10, and 11, Block 66, Original Townsite of
Anchorage, Anchorage Recording District, Third Judicial
District, State of Alaska, consisting of approximately 0.48
acres, commonly known as the parking lot at 7th Avenue and I
Street.
(C) Lot 13, Block 15, Original Townsite of Anchorage,
Anchorage Recording District, Third Judicial District, State
of Alaska, consisting of approximately 0.24 acres, an
unimproved vacant lot located at H Street and Christensen
Drive.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
SEC. 203. CONVEYANCE OF REVERSIONARY INTERESTS, ANCHORAGE,
ALASKA.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary shall convey to the City, without
consideration, the reversionary interests of the United
States in and to the non-Federal land for the purpose of
unencumbering the title to the non-Federal land to enable
economic development of the non-Federal land.
(b) Legal Descriptions.--As soon as practicable after the
date of enactment of this Act, the exact legal descriptions
of the non-Federal land shall be determined in a manner
satisfactory to the Secretary.
(c) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions to the
conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary considers
appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.
(d) Costs.--The City shall pay all costs associated with
the conveyance under subsection (a), including the costs of
any surveys, recording costs, and other reasonable costs.
TITLE III--FERNLEY ECONOMIC SELF-DETERMINATION ACT
SEC. 301. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) City.--The term ``City'' means the City of Fernley,
Nevada.
(2) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means the
approximately 9,407 acres of land located in the City of
Fernley, Nevada, that is identified by the Secretary and the
City for conveyance under this title.
(3) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled
``Proposed Fernley, Nevada, Land Sales'' and dated January
25, 2013.
SEC. 302. CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN FEDERAL LAND TO CITY OF
FERNLEY, NEVADA.
(a) Conveyance Authorized.--Subject to valid existing
rights and not later than 180 days after the date on which
the Secretary of the Interior receives an offer from the City
to purchase the Federal land depicted on the map, the
Secretary, acting through the Bureau of Land Management and
the Bureau of Reclamation, shall convey, 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), to the City 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
such Federal land.
(b) Appraisal To Determine 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) Reservation of Easements and Rights-of-Way.--The City
and the Bureau of Reclamation may retain easements or rights-
of-way on the Federal land to be conveyed, including
easements or rights-of-way the Bureau of Reclamation
determines are necessary to carry out--
(1) the operation and maintenance of the Truckee Canal; or
(2) the Newlands Project.
(e) Costs.--The City shall, at closing for the conveyance
authorized under subsection (a), pay or reimburse the
Secretary, as appropriate, for the reasonable transaction and
administrative personnel costs associated with the conveyance
authorized under such subsection, including the costs of
appraisal, title searches, maps, and boundary and cadastral
surveys.
(f) Conveyance Not a Major Federal Action.--A conveyance or
a combination of conveyances made under this section shall
not be considered a major Federal action for purposes of
section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)).
SEC. 303. RELEASE OF UNITED STATES.
Upon making the conveyance under section 302,
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.
SEC. 304. WITHDRAWAL.
Subject to valid existing rights, the Federal land to be
conveyed under section 302 of this title shall be withdrawn
from all forms of--
(1) entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land
laws;
(2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
(3) disposition under the mineral leasing, mineral
materials, and geothermal leasing laws.
TITLE IV--LAND DISPOSAL TRANSPARENCY AND EFFICIENCY ACT
SEC. 401. PROHIBITION ON ACQUISITION OF LAND.
(a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the ``Land
Disposal Transparency and Efficiency Act''.
(b) Prohibition on Acquisition of Land.--No land or
interests in land may be added by acquisition, donation,
transfer of administrative jurisdiction, or otherwise to the
inventory of land and interests in land administered by the
Bureau of Land Management until a centralized database of all
lands identified as suitable for disposal by Resource
Management Plans for lands under the administrative
jurisdiction of the Bureau is easily accessible to the public
on a website of the Bureau. The database required under this
subsection shall be updated and maintained to reflect changes
in the status of lands identified for disposal under the
administrative jurisdiction of the Bureau.
(c) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall
provide to the Committee on Natural Resources in the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources in the Senate a report detailing the status and
timing for completion of the database required by subsection
(b).
TITLE V--PRESERVING ACCESS TO CAPE HATTERAS NATIONAL SEASHORE
RECREATIONAL AREA ACT
SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Preserving Access to Cape
Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area Act''.
SEC. 502. REINSTATEMENT OF INTERIM MANAGEMENT STRATEGY.
(a) Management.--After the date of the enactment of this
Act, 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 503.
(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 503 of this title.
SEC. 503. 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
[[Page H1670]]
area around closures implemented under this section to allow
access to areas not closed.
SEC. 504. 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 Act.
(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 Act.
TITLE VI--GREEN MOUNTAIN LOOKOUT HERITAGE PROTECTION ACT
SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Green Mountain Lookout
Heritage Protection Act''.
SEC. 602. CLARIFICATION OF LEGAL AUTHORITY OF GREEN MOUNTAIN
LOOKOUT.
(a) Legal Authority of Lookout.--Section 4(b) of the
Washington State Wilderness Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-339;
98 Stat. 300; 16 U.S.C. 1131 note) is amended by striking the
period at the end and inserting the following: ``, and except
that with respect to the lands described in section 3(5), the
designation of such lands as a wilderness area shall not
preclude the operation and maintenance of Green Mountain
Lookout.''
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the
Washington State Wilderness Act of 1984.
SEC. 603. PRESERVATION OF GREEN MOUNTAIN LOOKOUT LOCATION.
The Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of
the Forest Service, may not move Green Mountain Lookout from
its current location on Green Mountain in the Mount Baker-
Snoqualmie National Forest unless the Secretary determines
that moving Green Mountain Lookout is necessary to preserve
the Lookout or to ensure the safety of individuals on or
around Green Mountain. If the Secretary makes such a
determination, the Secretary shall move the Green Mountain
Lookout to a location outside of the lands described in
section 3(5) of the Washington State Wilderness Act of 1984
and designated as a wilderness area in section 4(b) of such
Act.
TITLE VII--RIVER PADDLING PROTECTION ACT
SEC. 701. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``River Paddling Protection
Act''.
SEC. 702. REGULATIONS SUPERSEDED.
(a) In General.--The rivers and streams of Yellowstone
National Park and Grand Teton National Park shall be open to
hand-propelled vessels as determined by the director of the
National Park Service within 3 years of the date of enactment
of this Act. Beginning on the date that is 3 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, the following regulations
shall have no the force or effect regarding closing rivers
and streams of Yellowstone National Park and Grand Teton
National Park to hand-propelled vessels:
(1) Section 7.13(d)(4)(ii) of title 36, Code of Federal
Regulations, regarding vessels on streams and rivers in
Yellowstone National Park.
(2) Section 7.22(e)(3) of title 36, Code of Federal
Regulations, regarding vessels on lakes and rivers in Grand
Teton National Park.
(b) Coordination of Recreational Use.--The Fish and
Wildlife Service shall coordinate any recreational use of
hand-propelled vessels on the Gros Ventre River within the
National Elk Refuge with Grand Teton National Park to ensure
such use is consistent with the requirements of the National
Wildlife Refuge Administration Act.
TITLE VIII--GRAZING IMPROVEMENT ACT
SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Grazing Improvement Act''.
SEC. 802. 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'';
(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.''; and
(3) after subsection (h), insert the following new
subsection:
``(i) Only applicants, permittees and lessees whose
interest in grazing livestock is directly affected by a final
grazing decision may appeal the decision to an administrative
law judge.''.
SEC. 803. RENEWAL, TRANSFER, AND REISSUANCE OF GRAZING
PERMITS AND LEASES.
(a) Amendment.--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.
``(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 shall 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 shall be
categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an
environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement
if--
``(1) the decision continues to renew, reissue, or transfer
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.
``(3) Range improvements as defined under 43 U.S.C. 315c
and 16 U.S.C. 580h.''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 is amended by
adding after the item for section 404, the following:
``Sec. 405. Renewal, transfer, and reissuance of grazing
permits and leases.''.
TITLE IX--RIM FIRE EMERGENCY SALVAGE ACT
SEC. 901. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Rim Fire Emergency Salvage
Act''.
SEC. 902. EXPEDITED SALVAGE TIMBER SALES IN RESPONSE TO THE
CALIFORNIA RIM FIRE.
(a) Salvage Timber Sales Required.--As part of the
restoration and rehabilitation activities undertaken on the
lands within the Stanislaus National Forest and the Bureau of
Land Management lands adversely impacted by the 2013 Rim Fire
in California, the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to
affected Stanislaus National Forest lands, and the Secretary
of the Interior, with respect to affected Bureau of Land
Management lands, shall promptly plan and implement salvage
timber sales of dead, damaged, or downed timber resulting
from that wildfire.
(b) Expedited Implementation.--
(1) Legal sufficiency.--Due to the extraordinary severity
of the Rim Fire occurring on the Federal lands described in
subsection (a), salvage timber sales conducted under such
subsection shall proceed immediately and to completion
notwithstanding any other provision of law, including the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.), section 14 of the National Forest Management Act of
1976 (16 U.S.C. 472a), the Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), and
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.
1701 et seq.).
(2) Administrative and judicial review.--Salvage timber
sales conducted under subsection (a) shall not be subject
to--
(A) administrative review, including, in the case of the
Forest Service, the notice, comment,
[[Page H1671]]
and appeal requirements of section 322 of the Department of
the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993
(Public Law 102-381; 16 U.S.C. 1612 note); or
(B) judicial review in any court of the United States.
TITLE X--CHESAPEAKE BAY ACCOUNTABILITY AND RECOVERY ACT
SEC. 1001. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Chesapeake Bay
Accountability and Recovery Act of 2014''.
SEC. 1002. 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
(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 Act for which the President submits a budget to
Congress.
SEC. 1003. RESTORATION THROUGH ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation
with other Federal and State agencies, and with the
participation of stakeholders, shall develop a plan to
provide technical and financial assistance to Chesapeake Bay
States to employ adaptive management in carrying out
restoration activities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
(b) Plan Development.--The plan referred to in subsection
(a) shall include--
(1) specific and measurable objectives to improve water
quality, habitat, and fisheries identified by Chesapeake Bay
States;
(2) a process for stakeholder participation;
(3) monitoring, modeling, experimentation, and other
research and evaluation technical assistance requested by
Chesapeake Bay States;
(4) identification of State restoration activities planned
by Chesapeake Bay States to attain the State's objectives
under paragraph (1);
(5) identification of Federal restoration activities that
could help a Chesapeake Bay State to attain the State's
objectives under paragraph (1);
(6) recommendations for a process for modification of State
and Federal restoration activities that have not attained or
will not attain the specific and measurable objectives set
forth under paragraph (1); and
(7) recommendations for a process for integrating and
prioritizing State and Federal restoration activities and
programs to which adaptive management can be applied.
(c) Implementation.--In addition to carrying out Federal
restoration activities under existing authorities and
funding, the Administrator shall implement the plan developed
under subsection (a) by providing technical and financial
assistance to Chesapeake Bay States using resources available
for such purposes that are identified by the Director under
section 1002.
(d) Updates.--The Administrator shall update the plan
developed under subsection (a) every 2 years.
(e) 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 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
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
Act.
(f) 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. 1004. 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. 1005. 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) State restoration activities.--The term ``State
restoration activities'' means any State programs or projects
carried out under State authority 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.
(8) Federal restoration activities.--The term ``Federal
restoration activities'' means any Federal programs or
projects carried out under existing Federal authority 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
provide financial and technical assistance to promote
responsible land use, stewardship, and community engagement
in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Restoration activities may
be categorized as follows:
[[Page H1672]]
(A) Physical restoration.
(B) Planning.
(C) Feasibility studies.
(D) Scientific research.
(E) Monitoring.
(F) Education.
(G) Infrastructure development.
The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part A of House
Report 113-340. 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.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Grijalva
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in part A of House Report 113-340.
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 IV.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward. It
strikes title IV of the bill. Title IV is the text of H.R. 2095,
introduced by my friend from Utah (Mr. Bishop), chairman of the Public
Land Subcommittee.
The title would prohibit BLM from acquiring additional land until the
agency creates a publicly accessible database that inventories current
landholdings and identifies land suitable for disposal.
Much of the bill we are considering today seeks to undermine the
public planning process and give away Federal land free of charge. This
land belongs to the American people, and if we are going to be in the
business of giving it away, we should at least not hinder our ability
to acquire more land when it makes sense to do so.
Let me see if I understand this. I do not oppose the idea of creating
a database that catalogs Federal landholdings. I do not oppose the idea
of transparency at BLM, or any other government agency for that matter,
but putting an arbitrary condition on land acquisition authority is
just bad policy.
The true intent of the title is not to create a database. The intent
is to limit land acquisition.
The majority has been clear about their agenda to limit expansion of
the Federal estate, and the bill we are considering today is just
another attempt to advance that priority. It is a wolf in sheep's
clothing.
Through the public land use planning process, BLM keeps an inventory
of its land. Land managers, from the folks down the street in the
Department of the Interior building to the field staff all over the
country, know how much land the Federal Government owns.
In fact, the Federal Land and Policy Management Act, also known as
the BLM's Organic Act, provides clear direction and authority for
cataloging and the inventory of Federal lands. FLPMA also provides the
agency with authority to dispose of lands deemed worthy for disposal
through the public planning process.
Like I mentioned before, I don't see a problem with creating a
database of information available in BLM's Resource Management Plans.
The problem is with limiting authority for land acquisition.
Land acquisition authority makes the management of Federal lands more
efficient. It is not the bogeyman that the sponsors of the bill claim.
Federal land managers acquire land in order to clean up the
checkerboard pattern of ownership, consolidating Federal holdings and
making them easier to manage.
Limiting this authority will have the consequence of making the
management of Federal lands more difficult and less efficient.
Land is also acquired when it makes sense for conservation and
resource management purposes. The Federal Government is the steward of
some of our Nation's most pristine and treasured resources. There are
times when it makes sense to add to national parks or national
monuments to make sure that they have the resources and the protection
that they merit.
Popular programs like the Land and Water Conservation Fund have
helped conserve millions of acres that provide all of our constituents
with opportunities to hike, hunt, fish, and pursue other recreational
activities.
If we want to ensure that efficient management of Federal land,
limiting land acquisition authority is a step in the wrong direction.
My amendment makes sure that this important tool is not jeopardized,
and I urge my colleagues to support its adoption.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1015
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate very much the gentleman from
Arizona. I do enjoy working with him on the subcommittee. And I have to
admit, at this stage of the game, I am a little bit perplexed about the
amendment.
The gentleman purports that the idea of transparency and keeping a
database is not a bad idea. He just objects to the enforcement
mechanism we put in there. If that were the case, I would wonder why he
didn't just strike the enforcement mechanism out or come up with a
substitute enforcement mechanism. I am not bound to this particular
one. Had there been a date certain or some other ideas, I may even have
accepted that as a friendly approach to try to help this particular
title. But, instead, the amendment strikes everything. It strikes the
very essence of forcing them to actually come up with a database that
is there.
During the Clinton administration--and that has been a while ago--the
Interior Department did come up with a database of lands that were
available for disposal, that were needless, that were useless for the
government. We have the data. The only problem is it is almost
impossible to get to the data. The data is found in books in over 150
different local offices. It would take a huge road trip to try to come
up with just the information.
This is now 2014. The idea that the BLM cannot actually put this data
on a Web site that is available to everybody is, quite frankly, not
acceptable. That they are too busy to do this is simply not acceptable.
All this says is the data is there. Put the data on a Web site so it
is transparent and it is viewable for everybody to see.
And then we said, since there has been a whole lot of dragging their
feet since the Clinton administration in trying to do this, we will
give you some incentive. You can't buy new land until you put on this
Web site so people can see what land is available for disposal. It does
not stop them from managing the land for multiple use or for
nonmultiple use or any other reason. It simply gives them an incentive
to go ahead and do it.
Like I said, if your goal was to change the incentive, I would have
been amenable to discussions on that. I will still be amenable to
discussions on that. But this amendment strikes the entire thing, not
just the enforcement provision. For that reason, I would oppose the
amendment and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, in my amendment, we are also talking
about the Federal Government having the authority to buy land from
willing sellers. And when you bar the Federal Government from trying to
buy land, then what happens? The seller still wants to sell. So who
steps up? Developers, other high-intensity uses around areas that
should be protected.
When you look at Uncle Sam as a buyer for political purposes, you
empower developers and others that want the land for completely
different uses; and before you know it, an area that you wanted to
conserve and preserve is gone. This is bad policy. And to remove the
authority from the Federal Government of being able to purchase land
from willing sellers I think is a step too far.
And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H1673]]
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Wittman) to show how this amendment would impact the
Chesapeake Bay area.
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and
to speak in support of H.R. 2954, the Public Access and Lands
Improvement Act.
I wish to extend my thanks to the gentleman from Washington, Chairman
Doc Hastings, for his leadership in bringing this important package of
bills from the Natural Resources Committee to the House floor.
Today, I want to highlight how this legislation will aid in the
cleanup of one of our prized historic resources, the Chesapeake Bay.
This body of water provides habitat for plants and animals, resources
that drive local economies, recreation, and a way of life for many that
live on and around its shores.
I am the proud author of title X of this bill, the Chesapeake Bay
Accountability and Recovery Act. These provisions would implement and
strengthen management techniques like crosscut budgeting and adaptive
management to ensure we get more bang for our buck and continue to make
progress in Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts.
These techniques will ensure that we are coordinating how restoration
dollars are spent and making sure that everyone understands how
individual projects fit into the bigger picture. That way, we are not
duplicating efforts, spending money we don't need to, or worse, working
at cross-purposes.
During the 112th Congress, the House passed similar legislation as
part of H.R. 2578, the Conservation and Economic Growth Act. More
recently, identical language was adopted by voice vote and included in
the House version of the farm bill. These provisions would implement
and strengthen management techniques to ensure, again, we get more bang
for our buck and progress in the Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts
continue and are measurable. Crosscut budgeting and adaptive management
and an independent evaluator should be key components for the complex
restoration efforts for our Chesapeake Bay.
I encourage my colleagues to join with me and support H.R. 2954.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GRIJALVA. 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 Arizona will be postponed.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mrs. Lummis
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
part A of House Report 113-340.
Mrs. LUMMIS. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 17, strike lines 3 through 12.
Page 17, line 13, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(2)''.
Page 17, line 14, strike ``subsection'' and insert
``subsections''.
Page 17, line 17, after ``decision'' insert ``concerning
renewal, transfer or reissuance of a grazing permit or
lease''.
Page 17, line 18, before the first period insert ``or
appeal officer as applicable''.
Page 18, strike lines 7 through 10 and insert ``existing
permit or lease.''.
Page 20, line 15, after ``the'' insert ``applicable''.
Page 20, line 15, strike ``and'' and insert ``or''.
Page 20, strike line 22 through page 21, line 4, and insert
the following:
``(g) Environmental Reviews.--
``(1) The Secretary concerned, in the sole discretion of
the Secretary concerned, shall determine the priority and
timing for completing required environmental reviews
regarding any grazing allotment, permit, or lease based on
the environmental significance of the allotment, permit, or
lease and available funding for that purpose.
``(2) The Secretary concerned shall seek to conduct
environmental reviews on an allotment or multiple allotment
basis, to the extent practicable, for purposes of compliance
with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.) and other applicable laws.
Page 21, line 12, after the first period, insert the
following
``(i) Temporary Trailing and Crossing.--
``(1) Any application for temporary trailing or crossing
that has been submitted in a timely manner or not less than
30 days prior to the anticipated trailing or crossing shall
be granted, modified or denied not less than fifteen days
prior to the date of requested crossing or trailing. The
minimum times specified in this subsection shall not preclude
the approval of an application in a shorter time where an
immediate need exists.
``(2) Temporary trailing or crossing authorizations across
lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management or the
Forest Service system of lands shall not be subject to
protest or appeal except by the applicant or an affected
permittee or lessee.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, the gentlewoman from
Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wyoming.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am offering this amendment with Representative Labrador after
discussions with our local agriculture producers and the Public Lands
Council on some needed adjustments to the underlying bill.
This amendment includes some conforming language to the Senate
version of the Grazing Improvement Act that was marked up in the Energy
and Natural Resources Committee last November. This includes allowing
the Secretary to consolidate environmental reviews of allotments in
order to reduce the backlog on permit and lease renewals.
The amendment clarifies the definition of current grazing management
to the common sense wording of ``the terms and conditions of an
existing permit or lease.'' It also clarifies that only those directly
affected by the renewal, transfer, or reissuance of a permit or lease
may appeal a final grazing decision.
Lastly, this amendment addresses some concerns with how the Federal
land agencies treat temporary crossings and trailing. While the
underlying bill exempts all crossing and trailing of domestic livestock
from the National Environmental Policy Act, this amendment clarifies
that temporary applications and those where an immediate need exists
will receive a timely response from the agency. It also states that
these authorizations are not subject to protest or appeal, except by
affected parties.
Our producers' normal business operations require the ability to
cross and trail livestock. It is often necessary to remain in
compliance with their grazing permits. Temporary trailing has a de
minimis impact on the range, and approval should be an administrative
action with a quick turnaround time.
Weather, changes in grazing patterns, and even requests by Federal
land agencies can all require trailing unexpectedly. For example, a
hailstorm could wipe out a stand of grass in an hour. A devastating
grasshopper infestation can change the grazing conditions on the
ground. Those kinds of things require quick response to get cattle or
sheep to a different pasture to keep that grass stand healthy. We need
to provide the flexibility for our Federal land agencies to approve
temporary requests.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Lummis-Labrador
amendment and the underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GRIJALVA. This amendment attempts to conform with the Senate
language related to the Grazing Improvement Act, but two wrongs don't
necessarily make a right. The language is still problematic.
I thank the sponsors for this amendment and for this opportunity to
talk a little bit more about public land grazing.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, title VIII attempts to address
one issue related to public lands grazing, the backlog of permit
renewals, but it fails to take on the larger issue of below-market
grazing fees.
The Federal Government charges $1.35 per month per animal unit on
Federal lands. If we are going to consider legislation that waives NEPA
and extends the tenure of grazing permits, almost doubles the number of
years, we also have to review the formula for grazing fees.
The State of Idaho charges $12 to $14 per month to graze on State
lands. In
[[Page H1674]]
Arizona, we charge $8 to $9 per month. Washington State charges $12 per
month; Nevada, $12.50 per month; California, over $16 per month.
We often hear from the majority that the States do a better job of
managing their lands. In this case, I would agree. The States do a
better job of making sure their taxpayers get a fair return on the use
of their State lands, while Federal taxpayers are stuck subsidizing the
practice of grazing on public lands.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Hastings), the chairman of our Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
I support this amendment. I think the brief part of this debate here
points out the importance of having flexibility on the local level
rather than having a one-size-fits-all; because there are conditions
that can come up in grazing in various States, and those managers need
that flexibility, which is, I think, a common thread that we talk about
all the time when we talk about Federal land management. So I think
this amendment adds very much to the Labrador title of the bill, and I
intend to support it.
Mr. GRIJALVA. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would like to point out
something about the difference between State lands and Federal lands. I
ran my State's Office of State Lands and Investments for a time, and
the rights that are conveyed by States on lands to use their lands are
very different than the rights that are conveyed by the Federal
Government to users of Federal lands.
In the case of State lands, frequently, they have many more rights,
including, in some States, the right to exclude others. They have the
right to make improvements on the ground. They have the right to
acquire water permits. They have no NEPA requirements that are specific
to the State land and other opportunities to, in fact, even sublease
their lands. And those vary from State to State. States that grant more
rights can acquire more revenue because it gives more flexibility to
the person who is grazing.
In the case of the Federal Government, there are burdensome
regulations. There are third-party challenges. There are compliance
issues. It is more of a command-and-control structure, so it is just
not worth as much financially because of the tremendous paperwork and
burden involved. Therefore, there are reasons for those differences.
Mr. Chairman, the amendments we are proposing have nothing to do with
that but offer commonsense solutions to the very important grazing
issues.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Labrador
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
part A of House Report 113-340.
Mr. LABRADOR. I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 17, line 18, after the first period, insert the
following:
``(j) Legal Fees.--
``(1) Any person, other than a directly affected party,
challenging an action of the Secretary concerned regarding a
final grazing decision in Federal court who is not a
prevailing party shall pay to the prevailing parties
(including a directly affected party who intervenes in such
suit) fees and other expenses incurred by that party in
connection with the challenge unless the Court finds that the
position of the person was substantially justified.
``(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``directly
affected party'' means any applicant, permittee, or lessee
(or any organization representing applicants, permittees or
lessees) whose interest in grazing livestock is directly
affected by the final grazing decision.''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, the gentleman from Idaho
(Mr. Labrador) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Idaho.
Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment of
title VIII of H.R. 2954, which I originally introduced as H.R. 657, the
Grazing Improvement Act.
My amendment is a commonsense reform to require groups who are not
substantially justified or directly affected by final Federal grazing
decisions to pay for the legal expenses of the other party when they
lose in court.
{time} 1030
In short, this is a ``loser pays'' system to discourage frivolous
legal challenges to Federal land management grazing decisions.
Current law gives grazing permittees the right to a hearing in
connection with grazing decisions and gives the ``interested public''
the opportunity to participate in the way Federal land is managed.
However, it is doubtful that Congress ever intended to elevate the
``interested public'' to a level of equal standing to that of grazing
permittees.
In 1995, the Bureau of Land Management established grazing
regulations that far surpassed the intent of Congress. Some were given
the ability to participate in the administrative appeals process
allowing them to sue if the nonpermittees disagreed with a final
grazing decision. Since then, environmental groups have been
increasingly effective at abusing the current appeals process, not to
promote environmental health, but for the sole reason of removing
livestock from Federal lands. Each year, hundreds of appeals are filed
on grazing decisions by groups. The cost to ranchers can hardly be
measured. In a recent case in Wyoming, for example, an appeal cost a
small group of ranchers over $125,000 in administrative appeal and
attorneys' fees alone.
My amendment simply addresses this growing problem by clarifying the
intent of Congress on who may appeal and litigate a final agency
decision on a final grazing decision. It is time we ease the burden
that environmental groups have placed on our ranchers.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LABRADOR. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I think that the gentleman's amendment to this piece of legislation
is an important policy step. In fact, I think in many cases a ``loser
pay'' ought to apply to a much larger area.
I know that the gentleman's amendment only deals with grazing, but he
cited an example in Wyoming where it cost somebody $125,000, and with
the volatility of the market, that is a big expense on individuals. I
think this will help curb that in the future.
So I congratulate the gentleman for his amendment, and I intend to
support it.
Mr. LABRADOR. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, very simply, seeks to
limit, if not eliminate, judicial review on those who have an interest
in grazing on our public lands. This amendment attempts to, with
incentives--negative incentives to the public--limit the public from
challenging Federal action on grazing decisions by making them pay the
prevailing party's legal fees.
Like I have mentioned before, all Federal taxpayers are on the hook
for subsidizing grazing on Federal lands; therefore, all citizens of
this country should have the opportunity to challenge the decisions
made that have an effect on their public lands.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Chairman, I agree that everyone should have a right
to sue, but if you lose, I think you should pay. This amendment will
allow Federal land managers to get back to managing lands, create
greater certainty in the ranching community, and help strengthen rural
economies in the West. This minor reform will save taxpayer dollars and
countless hours and dollars spent by ranchers who are forced to defend
against these nuisance suits.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, grazing has impacts on public lands like
no other use, and it is important that we
[[Page H1675]]
consider these impacts through the NEPA process and through judicial
review, both that are being struck from that process today.
Steamrolling and eliminating judicial review and the public process, as
in a reference to East Germany, centralized government and thought
control, once we begin to limit the public's and the individual's
access to redress through the courts by action of this Congress, it is
a dangerous not only precedent and a dangerous step in public
transparency, but more importantly, in the public's right to know.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Idaho (Mr. Labrador).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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 Idaho will be postponed.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. McClintock
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in
part A of House Report 113-340.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. 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 title IX and insert the following new title:
TITLE IX--RIM FIRE EMERGENCY SALVAGE ACT
SEC. 901. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Rim Fire Emergency Salvage
Act''.
SEC. 902. EXPEDITED FOREST SERVICE TIMBER SALVAGE AND
RESTORATION PILOT PROJECTS IN RESPONSE TO THE
CALIFORNIA RIM FIRE.
(a) Pilot Projects Required.--As part of the restoration
and rehabilitation activities undertaken on the lands within
the Stanislaus National Forest adversely impacted by the 2013
Rim Fire in California, the Secretary of Agriculture shall
conduct a timber salvage and restoration pilot project on
burned National Forest System land within the Rim Fire
perimeter.
(b) Management Plan.--
(1) Use of eis proposed alternative.--The Secretary of
Agriculture shall conduct the pilot project required by
subsection (a) in the manner provided in the proposed
alternative contained in the draft environmental impact
statement noticed in the Federal Register on December 6,
2013, for Rim Fire recovery.
(2) Modification.--During the course of the pilot project,
the Secretary may adopt such modifications to the management
plan as the Secretary considers appropriate in response to
public comment and consultation with interested Federal,
State, and tribal agencies.
(c) Legal Sufficiency.--The pilot project required by
subsection (a), and activities conducted under the pilot
project, are deemed to be in compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.),
section 14 of the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16
U.S.C. 472a), the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources
Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et
seq.), and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.).
(d) Administrative and Judicial Review and Action.--The
pilot project required by subsection (a), and activities
conducted under the pilot project, are not subject to--
(1) administrative review;
(2) judicial review by any court of the United States; or
(3) a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction
based on environmental impacts in a case for which a final
decision has not been issued.
SEC. 903. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING USE OF FUNDS GENERATED
FROM SALVAGE SALES CONDUCTED AFTER CATASTROPHIC
WILD FIRES ON NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LAND OR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT LANDS.
It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of
Agriculture, with respect to National Forest System lands,
and the Secretary of the Interior, with respect to Bureau of
Land Management land, should use existing authorities
available to the Secretary to retain revenues (other than
revenues required to be deposited in the general fund of the
Treasury) generated by salvage sales conducted in response to
catastrophic wild fires on such land to cover the cost of
restoration projects on such land.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, the gentleman from
California (Mr. McClintock) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, last August, the Rim Fire destroyed 400
square miles of timber in the Sierra Nevada. It left behind hundreds of
millions of board feet of dead timber that can still be salvaged, but,
as I pointed out earlier, time is of the essence. Within a year, the
fire-killed timber loses much of its value. Yet the current
environmental review process takes a year to complete, and then
litigation starts and runs out the clock on what remains of that
perishable resource.
Sixteen thousand acres of the destroyed timber is on private land
owned by Sierra Pacific Industries. It does not face the bureaucratic
obstacles that we face on the public land. SPI is already halfway
through its salvage. It will be completed by summer. They will use a
portion of those proceeds to replant their devastated acreage.
Meanwhile, the timber on the public land continues to rot and decay.
The earliest the Forest Service can conclude its environmental review
is August, and then the litigation process will start, and then it will
be too late. The cost will be hundreds of jobs, millions of dollars of
lost economic activity, and millions of dollars of lost salvage
revenues that could otherwise have been used by the Federal Government
for reforestation of the public lands.
Now, title IX of the bill in its current form was based on bipartisan
language introduced by Senator Tom Daschle to expedite salvage in the
Black Hills National Forest, but these provisions were opposed from the
other side of the aisle. So I sat down with the Forest Service and
opposition offices to work out a process that will assure that salvage
can begin by spring, while maintaining both environmental and judicial
review. And I particularly want to thank Chief Tom Tidwell for his
technical assistance and that of his office. This amendment is the
product of these talks.
It authorizes the Forest Service to select acreage for salvage where
there is no wilderness, ESA, historic, or other legal restrictions. It
authorizes them to implement the draft EIS that is expected to be
completed by April and deems the draft is compliant with all applicable
environmental reviews. This will allow salvage to begin under their
direction in April.
It authorizes the Forest Service to modify the draft EIS in response
to public comment and allows for judicial review of the final EIS based
on ecological impacts. It merely bars litigation based on process, and
it bars temporary restraining orders. This will allow the timely
salvage of a portion of the public lands destroyed by the fire while
the final EIS is prepared and while any judicial review proceeds.
Finally, it authorizes the Forest Service to use the millions of
dollars raised by the salvage for forest restoration in the devastated
Sierra.
This compromise language assures compliance with all environmental
laws and maintains judicial review while assuring that salvage can
begin this spring. It is also important to the economy of the region
that has been devastated by the fire and by increasingly stringent
Federal restrictions and land acquisitions that have ravaged the
timber, livestock, mineral, and tourist industries upon which these
mountain communities depend. It means jobs for hundreds of lumberjacks,
mill workers, truckers, and all those who support them.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
just want to say that I think this amendment adds to what he is
attempting to do because the issue of salvage and the timeliness of
that is something that is lost on a lot of people. So I congratulate
the gentleman for not only the title in the bill but for the amendment.
I intend to support it.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, since the Rim Fire burned over 200,000
acres in California's Sierra Nevada Mountains in August of last year,
Mr. McClintock has expressed an interest in expediting salvage logging
operations in the burned area. The language he has offered to achieve
this
[[Page H1676]]
goal keeps evolving, and, in my opinion, it keeps getting better.
Unfortunately, I still cannot support this amendment, the latest
version of H.R. 3188.
Since the fire, the Forest Service has engaged in an extensive
planning effort that includes salvage operations where they are deemed
appropriate. The planning effort is ongoing, and the amendment seeks to
force a decision before it is complete. The amendment references a
proposed action that predates the issuance of the draft Environmental
Impact Statement. The draft EIS is due out in April. Until then, we
should allow the public process to end before backing the Forest
Service into a corner with a mandated decision. Otherwise, we take away
the opportunity for public input and the ability for the Forest Service
to examine the economic feasibility of salvage operations, potential
damage to wildlife, and other consequences.
CEQ has already approved an expedited process for the EIS that
includes a shortened timeline for the comment period and eliminates
notification requirements. The Forest Service is committed to this
expedited process and working diligently to advance appropriate
restoration.
The amendment still mandates salvage logging in areas where it might
not be appropriate while waiving Federal environmental standards.
Taking NEPA out of the picture will not end up in more logging or less
lawsuits. Supporters of this amendment understand that this is the
case. That is why the amendment waives a bevy of other environmental
laws, including the Endangered Species Act.
The forests of Sierra Nevada provide Californians with clean water,
fish, and wildlife habitat and recreation. Indiscriminate salvage
logging threatens these treasured forests.
Additionally, the amendment limits judicial and administrative
review. This is still a huge sticking point. Salvage logging is
extremely controversial, and we shouldn't take away any tools available
for the public to be able to weigh in on these critical decisions.
Supporters of this amendment argue that the objection process is
overused and abused, but it is there to make sure that everybody has a
voice in the process.
I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to oppose its
adoption. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, if the opposition prevails, the Sierra,
400 square miles of it anyway, will be consigned to scrub brush and
disease for generations to come. We have bent over backwards with the
opposition to work out this compromise, and their continued opposition
is quite disappointing.
I repeat that time is of the essence. I beg the Senate and the
Democrats to take up these provisions without further delay. These
provisions were developed with the full input of the administration and
Democratic offices. But if they are still not acceptable, then tell us
what is, but please don't just sit there and do nothing.
The Forest Service estimates that 2.2 million board feet can be
processed per day. That means every day we dither and delay, $250
million of Federal revenue is lost. That is enough to reforest more
than 1,000 every day. But every day we delay, we lose that revenue, we
lose those jobs, the salvage value deteriorates with the wood, and that
window will start to close even before the litigation begins under
current law.
The private lands destroyed by the fire will have been fully salvaged
and replanted a few years from now. They are going to host a thriving,
young forest. If we don't change current law now, the public lands will
remain unsalvaged and the millions of dollars we could have raised for
reforestation will have been forfeited. Dry brush and dead trees will
be the legacy of the Sierra that we leave our children.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, the Forest Service, as we speak, is
preparing to authorize salvage operations on 30,000 of the 154,000
burned acres, and a decision is due as early as August. As I said
earlier, salvage logging is not without controversy, and the decisions
to authorize these activities need to be fully analyzed and fully
transparent. Many ecologists believe that post-fire landscapes are an
essential component of forest lifecycles that provide critical habitat
for wildlife and other essential ecological services. Rushing to allow
indiscriminate salvage operations, as this bill intends, threatens the
overall health of the forest. The planning process is ongoing under
expedited emergency provisions set out by CEQ.
Our national forests are more than timber factories, and we have a
public planning process that ensures all uses and benefits are
considered. This bill ignores that process, and that is why I repeat
opposition to it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. McClintock).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1045
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in
part A of House Report 113-340.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
TITLE XI--ALASKA NATIVE VETERAN ALLOTMENT
SEC. 1101. ALASKA NATIVE VETERAN ALLOTMENT.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Application.--The term ``application'' means the Alaska
Native Veteran Allotment application numbered AA-084021-B.
(2) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means the 80
acres of Federal land that is--
(A) described in the application; and
(B) depicted as Lot 2 in U.S. Survey No. 13957, Alaska,
that was officially filed on October 9, 2009.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(b) Issuance of Patent.--Notwithstanding section 41 of the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1629g) and
subject to subsection (c), the Secretary shall--
(1) approve the application; and
(2) issue a patent for the Federal land to the person that
submitted the application.
(c) Terms and Conditions.--
(1) In general.--The patent issued under subsection (b)
shall--
(A) only be for the surface rights to the Federal land; and
(B) be subject to the terms and conditions of any
certificate issued under section 41 of the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1629g), including terms and
conditions providing that--
(i) the patent is subject to valid existing rights,
including any right of the United States to income derived,
directly or indirectly, from a lease, license, permit, right-
of-way, or easement on the Federal land; and
(ii) the United States shall reserve an interest in
deposits of oil, gas, and coal on the Federal land, including
the right to explore, mine, and remove the minerals on
portions of the Federal land that the Secretary determines to
be prospectively valuable for development.
(2) Additional terms and conditions.--The Secretary may
require any additional terms and conditions for the issuance
of the patent under subsection (a) that the Secretary
determines to be appropriate to protect the interests of the
United States.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, the gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, the Alaska Native Allotment Act
allowed Alaska Natives to acquire up to 160 acres of Federal land.
Approximately 2,800 Alaska Natives served in the military during the
Vietnam War, and because of their absence, they did not have an
opportunity to apply for their Native allotment.
In 1998, Congress passed a law that provided certain Alaska Native
Vietnam veterans an opportunity to obtain an allotment.
One of my constituents, Mr. William Alstrom, applied for an allotment
in accordance with this law. During the war, he served honorably in the
Air Force. Mr. Alstrom is a lifelong resident of St. Mary's, Alaska, a
village of roughly 550 mostly Yup'ik Eskimo residents located on the
Lower Yukon River in southwestern Alaska. His family has a long history
in the region, helping to settle the area and operating the first
general store. During World War II, Mr. Alstrom's father, Fred, was a
member of the Alaska Territorial Guard, or the Eskimo Scouts, a
military reserve component of the U.S. Army organized in 1942.
[[Page H1677]]
Following a TB outbreak in 1954, Mr. Alstrom was sent to a boarding
school in southeast Alaska with many other children from Alaska
villages. As the Vietnam War was escalating, he graduated from one of
these boarding schools and promptly enlisted in the U.S. Air Force,
serving his country. Soon thereafter, he left his wife and two children
stateside and headed to southeast Asia. During the war, the newly
minted Sergeant Alstrom served in Thailand, preparing aircraft on their
way to strike North Vietnam.
On completion of his service, William and his family returned home to
St. Mary's, where he invested himself in his village and continued to
grow and raise his family. Today, William continues to serve--this time
as mayor of his community and president of his village corporation.
In 2002, William applied for the Alaska Native veteran's allotment he
was entitled to by law. Following an extensive application and vetting
process, in 2009, the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, deeded him two
80-acre parcels located in the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge.
With his deed in hand, William transported lumber and other supplies
to one of his parcels on his skiff, spent countless hours clearing
trees and brush, and finally built a small cabin and fish camp for him
and his family to enjoy.
Out of the blue a few years later, the Fish and Wildlife Service
realized that errors had been made by the Fish and Wildlife Service and
BLM personnel, both in the surveying and application approval process.
Instead of being located on general refuge lands, the two allotment
parcels were located within the congressionally designated Andreafsky
Wilderness Area. Conveying allotments in wilderness areas is prohibited
by law. Similarly, making improvements to the land, such as
constructing a cabin, cutting trees, or clearing bush, is also
prohibited. As a result, the BLM canceled the deed to the two parcels,
plunging this Alaska Native veteran and the status of his allotment and
cabin into a state of limbo.
After this decision, William contacted me for assistance. To their
credit, the BLM quickly admitted that both they and the Fish and
Wildlife Service screwed up. Though, after looking into their options,
they also admitted that they couldn't fix their mistakes
administratively. In an attempt to resolve the issue, the BLM offered
William two parcels of equal size elsewhere in the region. While he
agreed to accept one of the replacement parcels, the second proposed
parcel excluded his cabin.
My amendment today would approve his application for the second
original parcel, subsequently saving his cabin and fish camp from
demolition.
Though two Federal agencies are at fault, my Alaska Native
constituent is the one being forced to bear the full cost of their
errors. The purpose of my amendment is simply to allow a veteran to
retain the 80-acre parcel with the cabin on it, at no cost to the
taxpayer.
An identical version of this amendment was adopted by voice vote when
the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held their markup of
the Green Mountain Lookout Heritage Protection Act, of which the House
version is included in today's package.
As you well know, I am no proponent of the fact that the Federal
Government is the landlord of well over 60 percent of my State. Think
about this: 60 percent. I generally oppose wilderness areas. I have
often had an adversarial relationship with Federal land management
agencies. All of that aside, this amendment is not meant to make a
statement for or against wilderness designations, but rather to fix a
unique issue for a truly deserving Vietnam veteran. At its core, fixing
issues like this is what we do well when we are sent to Washington. Mr.
Alstrom, like his father before him, served this country with honor and
dignity, and he deserves similar treatment from this government in
return.
I hope you will join me today in fixing this unfortunate mistake and
allow this gentleman and his family to move on with their lives by
supporting this simple amendment to H.R. 2954.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. If no Member is seeking recognition in opposition, the
question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alaska (Mr.
Young).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee
do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Young of Alaska) having assumed the chair, Mr. Denham, 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. 2954) to
authorize Escambia County, Florida, to convey certain property that was
formerly part of Santa Rosa Island National Monument and that was
conveyed to Escambia County subject to restrictions on use and
reconveyance, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________