[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 36 (Tuesday, March 4, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H2126-H2128]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NORTH FORK WATERSHED PROTECTION ACT OF 2014
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules
and pass the bill (H.R. 2259) to withdraw certain Federal land and
interests
[[Page H2127]]
in that land from location, entry, and patent under the mining laws and
disposition under the mineral and geothermal leasing laws and to
preserve existing uses, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 2259
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 ``North Fork Watershed
Protection Act of 2014''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Eligible federal land.--The term ``eligible Federal
land'' means--
(A) any federally owned land or interest in land depicted
on the Map as within the North Fork Federal Lands Withdrawal
Area; or
(B) any land or interest in land located within the North
Fork Federal Lands Withdrawal Area that is acquired by the
Federal Government after the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Map.--The term ``Map'' means the Bureau of Land
Management map entitled ``North Fork Federal Lands Withdrawal
Area'' and dated June 9, 2010.
SEC. 3. WITHDRAWAL.
(a) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid existing rights, the
eligible Federal land is withdrawn from--
(1) all forms of location, entry, and patent under the
mining laws; and
(2) disposition under all laws relating to mineral leasing
and geothermal leasing.
(b) Availability of Map.--Not later than 30 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Map shall be made
available to the public at each appropriate office of the
Bureau of Land Management.
(c) Effect of Section.--Nothing in this section violates
the rights of existing leaseholders or prohibits the
Secretary of the Interior from taking any action necessary to
complete any requirement under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) or the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) required for
permitting surface-disturbing activity to occur on any lease
issued before the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 4. EXISTING USES NOT AFFECTED.
Except with respect to the withdrawal under section 3,
nothing in this Act restricts recreational uses, livestock
management activities, or forest management activities
allowed on the date of the enactment of this Act on the
eligible Federal land in accordance with applicable law.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
General Leave
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on the legislation under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
The legislation before the House today enjoys bipartisan and
bicameral support in Congress and the strong endorsement of the
affected local communities.
Our colleague, Mr. Daines of Montana, is the lead sponsor of this
bill, and he has championed its action here in the House. I can assure
everyone that it is because of his leadership, his commitment and
energy that this legislation will pass the House today. Mr. Daines has
put the interests of Montana first and has been willing to work in a
bipartisan way, with Republicans and Democrats, to get this bill
passed.
Mr. Speaker, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act would codify
protections of Federal forest lands in the North Fork watershed from
development in accordance with the memorandum of understanding signed
in 2010 between the Province of British Columbia and the State of
Montana. Very significantly, the bill makes certain in law that
existing uses, including public recreation, livestock management, and
forest management are protected and not restricted. This bill will
ensure that this region stays accessible for most of the traditional
activities in this beautiful part of Montana.
Mr. Speaker, in 1988, the Ninth Circuit Court enjoined the Department
of the Interior from allowing any activity on issued oil and gas leases
in this area. Since then, no oil and gas development has taken place in
this area, and several leaseholders have voluntarily relinquished their
oil and gas leases within this area. The State of Montana has made
clear its desire to partner with British Columbia, as I have mentioned,
to protect this watershed. H.R. 2259 would similarly protect the
Federal land located within this region.
Again, I would like to recognize the author of this legislation, Mr.
Daines, for his hard work and leadership, and I urge my colleagues to
support this legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
H.R. 2259 will protect an important watershed and recreational
resource west of Glacier National Park, and we are glad to see it on
the suspension calendar. It is a widely supported initiative in Montana
that will conserve a treasured landscape that belongs to every
American. Some places are just too special to allow short-term
commercial considerations to potentially harm their long-term
viability.
Stakeholders in Montana identified the importance of the North Fork
watershed, an area that supports the recreation-based economy, provides
clean drinking water, and allows wildlife to thrive. H.R. 2259
guarantees that this area will not be threatened by unfettered energy
development. I support this bill, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1715
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 6
minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Daines), the author of this
legislation.
(Mr. DAINES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DAINES. Mr. Speaker, I want to give my thanks to the chairman of
the Natural Resources Committee for his support and leadership in
moving this bill through the House.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to proudly offer H.R. 2259, the North Fork
Watershed Protection Act, for consideration in the full House.
This bill is special to Montana for many reasons.
The Flathead River is one of the most cherished waterways in our
great State, and our country, for trout fishing. In fact, it is
considered a ``red ribbon'' stream. That is Montana's version of a blue
ribbon trout stream.
The Flathead is an area beloved by the local community for recreation
and supporting the region's forest-based economy.
Last but not least, this watershed is a gateway to one of the crown
jewels of the National Park system, Glacier National Park.
Protecting the watershed and ensuring its value extends for future
generations has been a task shared by Governors and legislatures of
both parties, our neighboring Canadian Province of British Columbia, as
well as our local Chambers of Commerce. It is also supported by Montana
Senators Max Baucus and John Tester, and myself. We all support
protecting this area for future generations. It makes this bill the
first lands legislation supported by the entire Montana delegation in
nearly 30 years.
The North Fork Watershed Protection Act protects 430,000 acres along
the North and Middle Forks of the Flathead River from mineral
development. Eighty percent of leases in this area have already been
voluntarily relinquished. The bill explicitly protects the rights of
existing leaseholders, and there is no loss in production.
The North Fork Watershed Protection Act represents commonsense
resource management. It is the kind of common sense Montanans
understand and Washington, D.C., needs more of.
The North Fork Watershed Protection Act ensures the region's current
uses--forest management, hunting, fishing, outdoor recreation, quality
water supply for local communities, access to gravel for infrastructure
maintenance, and livestock grazing--will continue for many generations
to come because that is our way of life in Montana.
The North Fork Watershed Protection Act is a key to international
agreement between the State of Montana and British Columbia. In fact,
in February of 2010, the Province of British Columbia and the State of
Montana
[[Page H2128]]
signed a Memorandum of Understanding to preclude mineral development
along the Flathead. British Columbia completed prohibition of mineral
development along the Flathead River in 2011.
The North Fork Watershed Protection Act is necessary to hold up the
U.S. end of the bargain and to be a good neighbor. The Canadian
province has expended significant resources for the sake of upholding
this agreement and strongly supports passage of this legislation so
their efforts will be solidified.
The bill also has an unprecedented mix of supporters, from
ConocoPhillips, Anadarko, and Chevron, to Ducks Unlimited, Theodore
Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and local chambers of commerce.
This unity across diverse stakeholders is reflective of the bill's
strong support among Montanans. It is time we get this done.
Montanans have been working toward protecting the Flathead for
decades. Senator Max Baucus began work to protect this watershed in his
very first year in Congress. That was back in 1974, when he was
Montana's Congressman in the House. I am proud to be part of the effort
to get it done and across the finish line.
Passage of the North Fork Watershed Protection Act is a major stop
towards a commonsense goal that Montanans have worked toward together
for decades.
Though Senator Bachus has now retired and is serving in China, the
passage of the North Fork Watershed Protection Act will send a strong
message to the Senate to get it done.
I urge passage of H.R. 2259, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act.
Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise again to reiterate our support for
H.R. 2259, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to
support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2259, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________