[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 26, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H2671-H2683]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENSURING PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN THE CREATION OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS ACT
General Leave
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1459.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Denham). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 524 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. 1459.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) to preside over
the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1445
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. 1459) to ensure that the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 applies to the declaration of national monuments, and for other
purposes, with Mr. Poe in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
{time} 1445
The 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. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, President Obama has not been shy about his willingness
or his desire to circumvent Congress and take unilateral action on a
variety of issues. This lack of shyness includes the designation of new
national monuments.
In fact, during the President's first term in office, an internal
memo was leaked that showed plans to potentially lock up more than 13
million acres of Western land with the simple stroke of the President's
pen.
Major land use decisions such as this should not be made behind
closed doors and should fully involve the local citizens whose
livelihoods would be directly affected by such action.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 1459, the Ensuring
Public Involvement in the Creation of National Monuments Act, sponsored
by our colleague from Utah (Mr. Bishop). This legislation would require
public participation before a President can designate a national
monument under the Antiquities Act.
Mr. Chairman, let me repeat this last sentence that I gave because
this is the heart of the legislation. This legislation would require
public participation before a President can designate a national
monument under the Antiquities Act.
Over 100 years ago, the Antiquities Act was passed to allow a
President to unilaterally designate national monuments without any
input or involvement from the people, communities, or elected officials
of the areas that would be directly impacted.
However, this authority was intended to be used under narrow
circumstances and in emergencies to prevent destruction of a precious
place; but unfortunately, we have seen this power abused by Presidents
of both parties. It has been used as a tool to score political points,
rather than to protect areas facing imminent threat or harm.
National monuments are one of the most restrictive of all land use
designations. They can significantly block public access and limit
public recreation and other job-creating economic activities.
The American people and their elected leaders deserve to have a say
in which of their lands deserve special protections as national
monuments and which should, instead, be allowed to contribute to the
full range of recreational, conservation, economic, and resource
benefits that carefully managed multiple-use lands provide.
H.R. 1459 would guarantee public involvement and ensure that the
designation process is transparent by requiring all national monument
designations made under the Antiquities Act to comply with the NEPA
process.
Most, if not all, major land use decisions are statutorily required
to go through the NEPA process. Designations made by the President
should be treated no differently than those other processes.
I will openly state, however, that I--and many of my Republican
colleagues--believe that NEPA is a law that should be streamlined and
updated. However, this bill is about transparency and ensuring that the
public has a voice.
So let me ask the rhetorical question, Mr. Chairman: If my Democrat
colleagues believe that the NEPA is a worthwhile law that works and
that NEPA is important, why should they oppose making sure that
Presidential designations should not go through the same process?
This bill continues to uphold the original intention of the
Antiquities Act, which is to allow the President to act in emergency
situations. It protects the President's ability to act if there is an
eminent threat to an American antiquity by allowing for a temporary
emergency designation of 5,000 acres or less for a 3-year period.
After that time, in order to ensure public participation in the
process, the designation would be made permanent if the NEPA process is
completed or if it is approved by Congress.
The bill would also limit national monument declarations to no more
than one per State during any 4-year Presidential term and prevent the
inclusion of private property in monument designations without the
prior written consent of the property owners.
National monument designations deserve public input from the people
and communities who are directly impacted. This bill is necessary to
stop unilateral actions by the President and ensure participation by
the American public.
I commend subcommittee Chairman Bishop for his work on this bill, and
I encourage my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this week, the majority advanced a bill that would
block the administration from implementing a stream buffer zone rule
intended to protect waterways from the impacts of mountaintop removal
coal mining, adding to the list of their attacks on the environment.
House Republicans ignore the fact that Americans want clean water,
clean skies, and more--not less--national parks and national monuments
because, now, they are forcing a vote on H.R. 1459, a bill that will
make it harder for Presidents to create new national monuments, adding
layers upon layers of duplicative oversight and unnecessary
congressional review.
[[Page H2672]]
This is not what our constituents are asking Congress to do. It is
simply another attempt by the majority to stall the protection of
Federal land.
In its 100-year history, the Antiquities Act has been used by 16 out
of 19 Presidents. In fact, Teddy Roosevelt used it to protect the Grand
Canyon, and over half our national parks started out as national
monuments.
Congress should not be diluting this popular tool or making it more
difficult for future Presidents to set land aside and honor our shared
history, but that is exactly what this legislation is trying to do.
There are two ways to create a new national monument. Congress can
pass a law, or the President can use the Antiquities Act.
As we all know, it is becoming increasingly difficult to pass a law,
even for popular bipartisan conservation measures. Bills languish in
Congress for years, and the Antiquities Act is often the only way to
move some of these projects across the goal line.
The majority will refute this by pointing the finger at the Senate,
blaming the other side of the Hill for inaction, and highlighting their
own track record of passing bills out of the House.
That is a smokescreen. They have only moved a fraction of the
conservation bills sitting before the House. Many do not even get a
subcommittee hearing, and some of these proposals have been around for
10 years.
As Democrats, we are very pleased to create new wilderness in the
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. Don't get me wrong. This is a
good legislation; but passing one standalone wilderness bill, one
national monument, and one new national park bill in 3 years is not
proof that Congress can do the work of conserving land and creating
national monuments.
For example, I introduced a bill to establish a national monument in
my district that would honor and recognize land considered sacred by
Native American communities in the Southwest.
It is an area full of ancient petroglyphs increasingly under threat
for looting and vandalism. A national monument designation will ensure
that these cultural treasures receive the level of protection that they
deserve.
This proposal is supported by the National Congress of American
Indians and every tribe in Arizona. Like many of my colleagues with
similar national monument proposals, I am unable to get even a hearing
on that particular bill.
If the majority is truly concerned about public input or
congressional review of national monuments and conservation of Federal
land, why don't they consider bills to establish new monuments, parks,
heritage areas, or wilderness?
Nearly 100 conservation designation bills have been introduced in the
last two Congresses. Four have become law. This track record doesn't
prove that we need more Congressional review. On the contrary.
If the majority is so eager to apply NEPA to the Antiquities Act, why
are they trying to limit its scope for other activities on public
lands?
In the Natural Resources Committee alone, the majority has considered
and advanced measures to limit public review for timber operations,
mining activity, and oil and gas leasing.
Following this logic, there is too much review when foreign
corporations want to extract American taxpayer-owned natural resources,
but not enough when we set aside land for future generations.
House Republicans have attempted to rewrite California water law,
undermine the Endangered Species Act, blow up the Stream Buffer Rule,
and encourage State and private takeover of Federal lands, a trust
owned by all of the American people.
Putting up barriers to Presidential proclamations of national
monuments, as envisioned by H.R. 1459, is just another feather in the
antienvironmental cap.
H.R. 1459 will set up arbitrary per-State limits on Presidential
monument designations and require congressional review of any monument
under 5,000 acres. Monuments over 5,000 acres won't have to be approved
by Congress, but they will be delayed by a process intended to evaluate
the environmental impact on major Federal actions.
I hate to break it to the majority, but conservation and the
establishment of national monuments don't have the same footprint as
open-pit mines and oil wells.
Republicans want us to believe that this bill is about protecting
private property. The Antiquities Act only applies to Federal land--let
me repeat, only applies to Federal land.
If there are some concerned about people who have inholdings within
that Federal land, why are they standing in the way of Federal land
acquisition and depriving those property owners who are willing sellers
of the right to sell?
H.R. 1459 is a wasteful and duplicative piece of legislation that
will, like most bills passed out of this House, have no chance of ever
becoming law.
I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1459, and 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 New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the work of the gentleman from
Washington and for his yielding time.
You have just heard one view of what the bill does from our friends
on the other side of the aisle. I would bring a different view.
Just a couple of months ago, Secretary Jewell visited a city in my
district, Las Cruces, with the full intent--my belief--to create a
Presidential executive order creating a monument.
Keep in mind, that monument bill could not be passed through this
House under Democrat rule. It could not be passed through the
Republican-controlled Senate with a Republican sponsor. It could not be
passed through the Democrat-controlled Senate when they had a
filibuster-proof majority.
Now, then the President is going to come and unilaterally declare
almost one-third of a county to be restricted. The West is starving
education because of the public ownership of land. Any time you create
a monument, you restrict the ability of local economies to survive.
So the first monument--the first wilderness area that was created by
Congress is in my district, the Gila National Wilderness, and they are
starving for jobs in that entire region. They are asking: When can we
have our jobs back?
So the gentleman describes that it is somehow we, as Republicans,
objecting. No. All we are saying is that the President needs to live by
the same rules as everyone else. The President is not above the law;
neither is his Secretary.
This bill is very simple. It is transparent.
{time} 1500
It says that the NEPA process is about public involvement. That
public involvement is what has scared away both Democrats and
Republicans trying to make this 600,000-acre wilderness happen in the
2nd District of New Mexico.
This bill needs to be passed because Washington needs to understand
the people own the land.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member of the
Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank my friend and colleague for the time.
Mr. Chair, since Congress passed the Antiquities Act in 1906, both
Republican and Democratic Presidents have used the power granted under
the act to protect some of our most recognizable, most beloved natural
wonders: Grand Teton in Wyoming, Zion in Utah, Olympic in Washington,
and the Statue of Liberty. That is a few.
Last week, I had the opportunity to backpack for 7 days in what is
the best known and most visited--4.4 million people last year--the
Grand Canyon of the United States.
In 1908, Republican President Teddy Roosevelt granted national
monument designation for the Grand Canyon under the Antiquities Act,
and all but two Presidents since then have used this authority.
At that time, it was critical to protect the Grand Canyon because
tremendous development was being proposed, both for tourism purposes
and for commercial uses and mining and other issues, so that was an
extraordinary step that that President took back then.
[[Page H2673]]
Why would we turn back the clock? Why would we strip this President
or future Presidents from having this authority to preserve and
conserve national treasures when they are indefinitely stalled, as was
the Grand Canyon, in the morass of Congress?
It was dysfunctional for a different reason back then; but it is just
as dysfunctional or more dysfunctional today as it was back then. There
is going to be no protection passing this House easily or freely with
this majority in charge.
Now, it is true that there have been some controversial designations,
one mentioned previously and earlier by Chairman Bishop; but I would
also note that no one--no one--has proposed legislation to repeal that
designation by President Clinton.
If they are so aggrieved and it is so egregious, I wonder why they
haven't done that. Perhaps because it enjoys tremendous popular
support, except from among a few people.
Now, they say this is about more control. Let's take a look at what
they have done with control. Over the last 4 years, the Republican
majority has proposed legislation to sell off public lands.
They have passed multiple bills that would open our public lands,
virtually unregulated, as of yesterday, to mountaintop removal,
mineral, and energy extraction. They shut down access to our national
parks because of their stupid government shutdown last fall, and they
found out that wasn't too popular.
Then they held a hearing to find out why the parks were shut down
when the government was shut down. Look in the mirror, guys. That is
why the parks were shut down. They found out that the parks and these
monuments enjoyed tremendous support from the American people.
There have been 89 conservation bills introduced from both sides of
the aisle in this House in the last two Congresses, and only four of
the 89 have become law. This Republican majority is genuinely openly
hostile to conservation designations; yet, today, they are pretending
that they actually really care about these iconic places, and they are
just making a couple little changes to the law to include more public
input.
You know, I have an experience from the Clinton administration for
the Steens Mountains in Oregon. We only got it done because President
Clinton and Secretary Babbitt said: we are going to make that a
monument.
Now, we don't have as much flexibility in designation, but if you
would legislate something, we will work with you.
We had a meeting in my office with the Republican Senator, a
Republican Member from Oregon, myself, a couple of other Members came
in and out, and the Secretary, and we hammered out a bill to protect
the Steens Mountains in Oregon, and it passed on a bipartisan basis in
a Republican Congress, with a Republican House and a Republican Senate.
Unfortunately, those are the old days.
As I said earlier, 16 out of 19 Presidents have used this power.
Teddy Roosevelt said it best, I think, about the Grand Canyon, that we
should:
Let this great wonder of nature remain as it now is. Do
nothing to mar its grandeur, sublimity, and loveliness. You
cannot improve on it, but what you can do is to keep it for
your children, your children's children, and all who come
after you, as the one great sight which every American should
see.
Today, the majority here would undo the potential for future legacies
under the Antiquities Act.
Just one side note: Chairman Bishop made much of talking about, in a
Dear Colleague letter, that there was a provision in legislation, of
which I was a sponsor, critical and unique to my State, designating the
O&C lands, and he said it precludes new monument designations.
Yes, he is right. That was in there at the insistence of the
Republican majority. I would have been happy to take it out, but I will
cut him a deal. I would be happy to negotiate.
He voted for that bill, but it also includes 1.2 million acres of old
growth preservation, 90,000 acres of wilderness, 300,000 acres of
riparian set-asides, and 150 miles of wild and scenic designations.
If he will fully support those conservation provisions in my bill, I
will, perhaps, negotiate with them, that they could say: well, we won't
do any more monuments in that area because we have already had a
massive conservation victory.
But that is why it is in the bill. They insisted, not me. Let's not
create phony arguments here.
With that, I urge my colleagues to reject this horrible legislation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei).
Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chairman, it is nice to see that the assault on the
authority of this branch continues. It is sad that it continues from
within, and it is interesting to hear westerners talk about issues that
are particularly acute in Western lands.
I happen to hail from a State that is 87 percent owned by the Federal
Government. The key word there is ``owned.''
If you want to protect natural resources that are Federal--which, by
the way, this law takes into account--the Federal Government already
owns them. You do not have enough authority by virtue of ownership
interest over the last 110 years, almost, to protect things? Things
have not changed.
I have heard criticism about the mining reform law of 1874 from my
colleagues. Here is something from 1906, and it is like, if you can't
protect it by being the owner, as the Federal Government--under the
land management auspices of multiple Federal land use agencies, I am
wondering why--and I heard somebody say these areas enjoy tremendous
support of the people--what is the problem with allowing the people to
participate in the process of monument designation?
Why is it awful for these people who want these areas, want to enjoy
them, to say, hey, you know, we are thinking of making a monument of
this, and even though you control it by virtue of ownership and
countless regs? We want to use the regulation that applies to that, to
let the people who enjoy them so much participate in the process. We
want to cede all authority to the executive branch because we happen to
disagree on some things?
Let me tell you, as a member of the Republican side of the aisle who
has been advocating for the creation of 96,000 acres of wilderness in a
bipartisan context with my colleague from Nevada--which I can't get
through yet. I am frustrated too.
I fail to see the harm in allowing the people that so much appreciate
these Federal lands to participate in their further designation, adding
another layer of administration, as monuments.
Let's, please, defend our authority as this branch, and let's support
this bill.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Huffman), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1459.
This bill is a solution in search of a problem. The reference to public
participation in the name of the bill implies that there is a complete
lack of public input in the process of designating these monuments,
that these designations are dropping abruptly and arbitrarily out of
the White House.
I will tell you, as the Representative of the newest national
monument in the country, that is just not the case.
Before President Obama added Point Arena-Stornetta Public Lands to
the California Coastal National Monument, literally, the entire
community in that area that I represent, all of the interested
stakeholders were not only engaged, they had been engaged for several
years.
That includes everyone from the business community, local tribes,
conservation groups, and local governments, to schoolchildren in the
area. There was no opposition to this proposal.
People came out to public meetings, and that included a public
workshop that Secretary Sally Jewell had herself. She came out to the
area. I assure you, there was no shortage of public input, no shortage
of public participation, so this premise that there is a lack--an
absence of public participation is, at least in my experience, totally
false.
But so is the political narrative behind this bill, this idea that
President Obama has somehow overreached in his exercise of executive
authority. In fact,
[[Page H2674]]
President Obama has been much more judicious than many of his
predecessors in deciding when to designate these monuments.
Prior to this President, 16 Presidents from both parties have used
this authority under the Antiquities Act over the course of more than a
century, and that ranges from President Roosevelt's designation of the
Grand Canyon to 140,000 square miles of marine monument that were
designated around Hawaii by President George W. Bush.
By comparison to his predecessors, President Obama has been very
sparing in using the Antiquities Act, and he and his Cabinet have been
very careful to bring the public in and to be very transparent, so the
narrative about executive overreach is also false.
Limiting the Antiquities Act, as this bill would do--and I want to
emphasize this--will harm jobs and economic growth; and in the case of
my district, in Mendocino County, the community understood that one of
the reasons for broad support of this monument designation is that the
community understood it was good not just for the environment, but good
for the economy.
The travel and tourism industry is one of Mendocino County's biggest
industries, bringing in over $300 million annually, and everybody
understood that this monument designation was going to significantly
boost that part of our economy; and it is going to happen now, this
summer, thanks to what President Obama did.
So why should a community like Mendocino County wait on a monument
designation, especially in a situation like this, where there was no
opposition to the proposal? No one is saying that Congress shouldn't
play a role in protecting our public lands.
It is important to note that bills to protect this part of the
Mendocino coast were introduced first more than 2 years ago, so the
112th Congress had a full chance at it.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield the gentleman from California an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, we know that Congress can be slow, that
there are uncertainties in the process of moving through Congress.
The question is: Why, in the case of something like this, when there
is no opposition, all these economic benefits, should my district or
any other district have to wait for this critically important
designation?
I think we should be very careful about repealing a bill that has
stood the test of time and worked well for both Democrats and
Republicans for more than a century, and I request a ``no'' vote on
H.R. 1459.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
2 minutes now to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart), a former member
of the Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. STEWART. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my good friend and,
really, one of my heroes, Congressman Bishop of Utah, for bringing
attention to, I think, this very important topic, especially one to my
home State of Utah.
To my friends across the aisle, I think you have to twist yourselves
into pretzels in order to object to this bill. In 1996, nearly 2
million acres in the heart of my district were locked up in the
creation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument--nearly 2
million acres.
It was the largest national monument created in the history of the
United States. This massive monument was created with a stroke of the
President's pen, without any consultation, without even notice given to
the local population, no phone calls, no conversations, nothing.
The President didn't even have the courage to step into my State when
he created this monument. He stood on the Arizona border and said: I
create a national monument over there.
If the President desires to create new large national monuments,
surely he can believe that conducting a thorough environmental analysis
is a good thing. NEPA was specifically designed to mandate that Federal
agencies stop and think about proposed actions and make sure that those
actions are appropriate.
It also mandates that all of those who are impacted by that decision
would have sufficient information and approval. If the creation of a
national monument is a good idea, shouldn't the monuments have to
undergo public scrutiny?
{time} 1515
And if the President can take 5 years--5 years and counting--to
approve, say, the Keystone pipeline, can't we take an appropriate
amount of consideration before we create another massive monument? That
is what democracy is all about. That is all that this bill asks for.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is reminded not to engage in personalities
toward the President.
Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
DeFazio), the ranking member.
Mr. DeFAZIO. To the previous speaker and others who have complained
about Grand Staircase-Escalante, you could introduce a bill to repeal
it. Why don't you?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), one of my
classmates.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I join in support of this bill not just
because it is about amendments and the importance of public input, but
ultimately because it is about two central tenets that the Founding
Fathers laid out that I think are important to both Republicans and
Democrats alike.
Quite simply, their belief was that three, four, or five perspectives
were always better than one. They didn't want to see unilateral action,
they didn't want to see a king, and the idea of overstepping on that
front was contrary to what they set up; and secondly, that the
individual was to be the sole repository of power in our political
system and that any government had legitimacy only inasmuch as there
was consent by the governed. And what you see with many of these
monument-type activities is no consent by the locally governed.
So I very much believe in land conservation and have been an advocate
for a long time, but I believe in a process that prescribes to that
which the Constitution laid out necessary in that process.
Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Maryland (Ms.
Edwards).
Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I want to join my colleagues in opposition to H.R.
1459, the Ensuring Public Involvement in the Creation of National
Monuments Act. It sounds good, but it should be known as the
``Preventing New Parks Act.''
This bill would severely restrict this and any future President's
authority to establish a national monument, eliminating a crucial part
of our Nation's conservation strategy. In this current poisonous
climate, the majority has made it nearly impossible for Congress to
conserve land for future generations using the legislative process.
This past Congress, in fact, was the first since World War II to not
protect a single acre of land as a national park, monument, or
wilderness area--not one single acre.
Just last year, there was a significant bipartisan effort on the part
of the President and others to designate the Harriet Tubman National
Historical Parks Act, of which I am an original cosponsor, but that
bill failed to even make it out of the committee--with public support
and with family support, failed to make it out of committee. Just
yesterday, we celebrated the first anniversary of the Harriet Tubman
Underground Railroad National Monument located in my State of Maryland
and designated as a national monument by President Obama using his
authority under the Antiquities Act.
I was in the Oval Office with the descendants of Harriet Tubman and
the people of that community who had been working for years for this
designation. I saw what it meant to the community. They believed that
it meant economic development, also.
Had H.R. 1459 been passed a year ago, this monument to a national
hero would probably be stuck in the arbitrary hurdles and redundant
research this bill proposes.
National monuments are an important part of telling our American
story, and yet, currently, only 26 of our Nation's 460 national parks
have a primary focus on African Americans, and
[[Page H2675]]
just eight are dedicated to women. That includes the Harriet Tubman
Park.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. EDWARDS. Rather than rolling back the President's ability to
preserve both our national history and our natural heritage, we should
be encouraging this and future administrations to continue to work for
the common good--for the public good--that this necessary preservation
work entails.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this restrictive bill, and I urge a
``no'' vote on the bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to my
colleague from Wyoming, I want to address what the previous speaker
mentioned. She was talking about the Tubman bill.
Had this bill that we are debating here today been in effect, we
wouldn't have had the problem with the Tubman issue right now. The
Tubman issue was designated as a national monument, but it didn't go
through the local process, and as a result--as a result of that--there
are flaws in that designation. Thus, the bill that the gentlelady from
Maryland is introducing is to correct the flaws that were put in place
because of the monument designation.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, the State of Wyoming is exempt from the
Antiquities Act. I don't know if you knew there is any State that is
exempt from the Antiquities Act.
In 1950, when Grand Teton National Park and the Jackson Hole National
Monument were combined, lawmakers and President Truman exempted Wyoming
from further congressional designations. Now 48 percent of Wyoming is
Federal land. We have the first national park, the first national
forest, and the first national monument. We have nine total national
forests and one national grassland within our State borders. Yet,
without having to comply with the Antiquities Act, we created the
national migratory bird refuge in Wyoming, which is a massive area that
happened with local input.
You don't need the Antiquities Act as it exists to continue to create
Federal designations. They can be done with local and State input,
which is exactly what this bill will allow. If there are additional
unique and special designations necessary, they should go through the
congressional process and not be usurped by unilateral Presidential
powers.
This is 2014. We are not back in the era when Presidents needed to
designate areas that were at risk of being degraded. The ethic of a
nation for conservation has come far beyond that. Let's adapt our laws
to the morality and the ethics of the times. Let's pass this bill and
give people involvement in decisions that are made in their States.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Carney).
Mr. CARNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I want to join my colleagues in opposition to H.R. 1459. This bill
will clearly undermine the Antiquities Act, one of our country's most
important environmental and historic preservation tools, and one that
has been critical to protecting beautiful land in my home State
of Delaware.
Currently, Delaware is the only State in the Union without a national
park. That means that every summer as families flip through the
guidebooks of national parks and search through the Internet for
outdoor vacation ideas, Delaware is not on the map, except, of course,
for our beautiful beaches. The good news is that, last year, the
Antiquities Act helped fix this problem. It allowed for the creation of
the First State National Monument, including the historic Woodlawn
property, through a process that involved broad public input and public
participation.
The Woodlawn property is 1,100 historic acres spanning the border of
Delaware and Pennsylvania. It had been privately owned and used for
public recreation for over 100 years and was about to be sold,
potentially leading to extensive residential development. In response
to considerable public outcry about the possible loss of this great
property, a private foundation, the Mt. Cuba Center, stepped in with an
incredibly generous donation of more than $20 million to protect the
property for future generations. Given the various limitations related
to the management and transfer of the property, the Antiquities Act
provided the right path for us to move quickly with plenty of public
input to ensure that the monument effectively represented our
community's goals.
As part of this process, we held over a dozen public meetings on the
creation of the monument, including a hearing attended by the National
Park Service Director Jon Jarvis and hundreds of Delawareans and
Pennsylvanians who expressed strong support for the protection of the
Woodlawn property. The First State National Monument continues to enjoy
virtually unanimous, enthusiastic support from all stakeholders in our
community, including colleagues on the other side of the aisle
representing districts in Pennsylvania.
The provisions in this bill under consideration today would have
jeopardized this process, and we may not have been able to realize the
tremendous gift.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. CARNEY. I thank the gentleman for the additional time.
Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican President, a great outdoorsman, and a
lover of nature, said this about the importance of protecting our
national treasures. He said:
It is not what we have that will make us a great nation; it
is the way in which we use it.
Let's continue our Nation's tradition of protecting our public lands
in a way that reflects the greatness of our Nation. I urge my
colleagues to oppose this legislation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time
remains on both sides?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 16 minutes remaining.
The gentleman from Arizona has 9\3/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, at this point, I will
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to
H.R. 1459, the ``No More National Monuments Act.'' I have experienced
the Antiquities Act firsthand through my community's efforts and
success in establishing Fort Monroe as a national monument in November
of 2011.
The history of Fort Monroe is older than the history of the United
States, and the story of Fort Monroe is really the story of our Nation.
Fort Monroe is also known as ``Freedom's Fortress,'' witnessing both
the beginning and the end of slavery in our Nation, and it played a
crucial role in nearly every military engagement right up to its
closure in 2005. After its closure, the city of Hampton and the entire
Hampton Roads region united in support for the inclusion of Fort Monroe
in the National Park System.
The creation of Fort Monroe National Monument was the culmination of
years of hard work led by then-Hampton Mayor Molly Ward, the citizens
of Hampton, conservation and historic preservation groups, Hampton's
City Council, Virginia's Governor, and Virginia's congressional
delegation. These parties worked together at the local, State, and
Federal level to urge the President to use his powers under the
Antiquities Act to take immediate action to establish Fort Monroe as a
national monument.
While I supported legislation introduced by my neighboring colleague,
Congressman Scott Rigell, to enshrine Fort Monroe as part of the
National Parks System, this bill stalled in committee and was never
given a proper hearing. Without the President's statutory authority to
protect this land, it is doubtful that Fort Monroe and the history of
the site would be protected as it is today.
Mr. Chairman, had the underlying bill been law in 2011 when President
Obama designated Fort Monroe as a national monument, we would be
nearing the 3-year approval deadline included in this bill, and the
powerful role that Fort Monroe played in our Nation's history would be
in danger of
[[Page H2676]]
being lost to future generations as the legislation to authorize the
President's designation lingered in committee.
While this legislation has been introduced to promote more public
participation in the designation process, in my experience, the
administration, including the President and the Secretary of the
Interior, both went to great lengths to make sure that public input was
a top priority in the decision to designate Fort Monroe as a national
monument. This legislation, should it become law, would jeopardize the
ability of other communities to protect sensitive Federal lands in
their areas the same way that my community was able to do.
Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, I oppose the passage of H.R. 1459,
and I hope other Members will oppose the legislation as well.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan).
{time} 1530
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, it is with great
disappointment that I come to the floor today in opposition to this
attempt by my Republican colleagues to undermine the Antiquities Act, a
law that has resulted in the protection and preservation of some of our
Nation's most cherished lands. The Grand Canyon, Zion National Park,
the Cesar Chavez National Monument, and many more have all been
protected under the Antiquities Act by Presidents of both parties.
This issue hits close to home for me and my constituents. Last March,
President Obama designated the Rio Grande del Norte in northern New
Mexico as a national monument under the Antiquities Act. The result was
years of work and the community coming together to find consensus on a
path forward that respects our traditions and respects our culture.
Protecting the Rio Grande del Norte had broad support and a strong
coalition worked with the administration and Secretary Salazar to show
that protecting this land needed to be a top priority. Whether it is
for recreation, farming, or sustaining a way of life, the Rio Grande
del Norte impacts all those who visit and all those who live off the
sustenance it provides.
It is one of the crown jewels of our State, and if it were not for
the Antiquities Act, this majestic land that represents our culture and
drives the local economy would not have received the protections that
will ensure its vitality for future generations. This attack on the
Antiquities Act is an attack on the preservation of lands that are a
part of who we are, our rich history as a diverse Nation, and our
ability to enjoy these lands in the future. I urge my colleagues to
vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I ask my friend from
Arizona how many more speakers he has.
Mr. GRIJALVA. I have one more speaker, and then I will close.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Payne).
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for allowing me the
opportunity to speak.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1459 because it could have
severe unintended consequences for the 10th Congressional District of
New Jersey, which I represent.
This is yet once again an attack on the President's authority, but in
this case, H.R. 1459 would create unnecessary obstacles regarding the
President's ability to conserve lands and protect our country's most
notable destinations.
The Antiquities Act has been used to protect a site in my district
that commemorates the outstanding achievements of a great American
inventor, Thomas Edison. This great innovator produced many of the
inventions loved across the world--silent and sound motion pictures,
the motion picture camera, phonographs, and the electric storage
battery.
For more than 40 years, Thomas Edison's laboratory complex located in
West Orange, New Jersey, was cranking out innovation after innovation.
The laboratory employed at one time over 100 people, working on various
projects from chemistry to physics to metallurgy.
In 1956, President Dwight D. Eisenhower used his authority under the
Antiquities Act to establish the Edison Laboratory as a national
monument. One year prior, in 1955, Congress had established Thomas
Edison's home as a national historic site. Six years later, the Edison
National Historic Site legislation combined the two into a unit of the
National Park System.
Recently, the laboratory complex underwent an extensive renovation
and had a grand reopening in 2009 to welcome America to explore two new
floors of the laboratory that were previously closed to the public. The
museum collections at Thomas Edison National Historical Park are by far
the largest single body of Edison-related material in existence, and it
is the third largest museum collection in the National Park Service.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.
Mr. PAYNE. I don't believe Thomas Edison would appreciate this
partisan bill which could turn out the lights on our future national
monuments that honor innovators such as him.
I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1459.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), the sponsor of this
legislation.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, as I said on the rule, sometimes I
am amazed at the kind of misinformation and inaccuracy that is taking
place about this bill. This bill does not stop parks. It does not stop
monuments. We have heard about the Grand Canyon being made a monument
under this act, under this power, but please realize it was a national
forest before that, and it was made a park by Congress because only
Congress can make parks.
The gentleman from Delaware, I appreciate him being here, he still
has his park because only Congress can go through that particular
process.
I also get somewhat confused when people talk about how this is a way
of rolling back any kind of protection. Mr. Chairman, the Federal
Government owns over 635 million acres. We already have 336 million
acres that presently are in a protected status. There is no way they
can be touched by anyone at any time for anything. And those that are
for development are only 38 million acres. It is almost a 10 to 1 ratio
between the two of them.
I want you to think back on when the Antiquities Act was originally
passed. It was 1906. The States of Hawaii, Alaska, New Mexico, Arizona,
and Oklahoma did not exist. They were all territories. My home State
had only been in the Union for a decade. There were very few
environmental laws. Today, if you were to list all of the environmental
protections that we have on the statutes, both by the Federal
Government and by the States, it would take four or five pages, small
type, just to list them all. There could have been a reason for doing
this. This is back in the era when there was no Bureau of Land
Management. There was not even a Park Service when this was being done.
The majority of the designations Teddy Roosevelt made were in
territories that were not States. Things have changed since that time.
Unfortunately, this law hasn't.
And if you don't allow the NEPA process to allow public input, you
make mistakes. You made mistakes in Utah--and, yes, we have had bills
that have been filibustered by the Senate to make those changes, but 20
years later we are still trying to work through what ought to have been
there.
The gentlelady from Maryland was here, and I appreciate her concept.
Her Harriet Tubman national monument is a good idea. The unfortunate
thing is it was poorly done because you didn't take the time to go
through the NEPA process and get some public input. It is still in
draft status. This is the boundary within the green. The stuff with the
stripes on it are private property they just kind of found within the
boundary that now they have to try to get approval to try to acquire
that property. The white is also other private property that right now
they don't think they need to acquire.
Now, how come we missed all that stuff? It is simply because the
President decided to use the Antiquities power without taking the time
to get public input to go through those situations.
[[Page H2677]]
Yes, a lot of Presidents have used this stuff.
One other thing, too. The proclamation that created Harriet Tubman
said there would be 11,750 acres set aside. The Park Service says it is
actually 25,000, and no one knows the difference--25,000 acres of
Federal, State and private lands. See, that is the problem. If you rush
this stuff through without taking the time to get input from people,
you make mistakes.
Don't make mistakes.
The National Resources Defense Council said that NEPA, the National
Environmental Policy Act, which regulates the requirement to have
public input before you go forward with that, held that the Magna Carta
protects people from the dangers of monarchy, and NEPA protects people
by providing transparency in Federal projects. Both the Magna Carta and
NEPA espouse the ideals of public participation and democracy by giving
citizens a voice in government decisions.
Giving people the chance to have a voice in government decisions is
the purpose of NEPA. Every Federal agency has to use NEPA. Congress has
to do something very similar because everything requires some kind of
hearing. The only person that doesn't have to do that is the President
when he uses this archaic act, over 100 years old, in situations that
have changed.
Instead, what was said about this in some of the misinformation going
out, they said if this bill is passed, it eviscerates one of the
America's bedrock conservation laws. Look, you can't say it is good to
have public involvement except here, in which it is bad to have public
involvement. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the administration
said. The administration said the President should not have to go
through NEPA, should not have to get public input because he is only
head of the executive branch, he is not an agency of the executive
branch. That is intellectual gymnastics, and one of the reasons why we
have problems.
This bill doesn't stop anything. Any monument that was made could
easily be made. This bill recognizes there may be an emergency
situation, and anything less than 5,000 acres can be done.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the
gentleman.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, what I was trying to say was, this
is a damn good bill. And there is a reason why it is a good bill:
because it simply requires the President to have public information and
get the input of people.
If there is an emergency situation, it allows for them to create
something under 5,000 acres on an emergency basis without doing NEPA,
it is just that Congress has to respond within 3 years to validate it,
otherwise it reverts back. Anything that he wants to do with NEPA, he
can do it regardless of the size. It is the appropriate thing to do.
This bill moves us forward and takes a bill that may have been
appropriate in 1906--but we are certainly living in a different time
and a different era, and we need to make sure that a President, before
he puts his pen to a paper, has actually talked to local people, and it
has not always happened.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me just say that at the
direction of the Republican leadership, this House has approved a
remarkable series of anti-environmental bills in this Congress. While
conservation bills languish and are stalled in Congress, we have seen
time and time again House Republicans vote to deregulate mining, make
drilling on public lands less safe, prevent Federal regulation of
fracking, open virtually the entire coast of the United States to
unsafe drilling offshore, give away precious public lands, override
State and local water laws, and just yesterday, weaken existing limits
on dumping coal mining waste in streams and rivers.
In the last 6 years, 7.4 million acres of public lands have been
leased for oil and gas drilling; only 2.9 million protected for the
future legacy and conservation, for the future use of the public and
this Nation. That imbalance is directly the responsibility of a lack of
action by this Congress.
Each of these measures were not only poor public policy, but also
poor use of our time. They were, thankfully, dead on arrival in the
Senate. This bill, H.R. 1459, is simply another bill in this series of
deeply flawed proposals, and it will rightly suffer an identical fate.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a couple of points. It is pretty
hard to follow-up on what the author of the legislation did, talking
about the history of this legislation and why there needs to be some
changes. I thought he did that in a very, very good way.
My friends on the other side of the aisle, at least the previous
speaker, but also others, have mentioned about different pieces of
legislation that we have passed out. I understand that they are
probably in opposition to having more exploration, making us less
energy dependent with offshore legislation, with onshore legislation,
and so forth.
But, Mr. Chairman, what wasn't said in that argument was that in
every case, in every case the legislation that the gentleman lamented
that we passed, we had a hearing in the committee. We had a hearing and
went through the normal legislative process. When you look at what the
intent of this legislation is all about, it is simply to have a hearing
with consultation and transparency with those that are affected,
nothing more. You may not like it, but at least you have that
transparency.
Several Members said we haven't passed national park legislation in
several years, and that is true. There is some pending, and obviously
we hope to have that done by the end. But this point needs to be made,
too. The National Park Service, by their own admission, has over a $10
billion backlog in maintenance. Shouldn't we, as the keeper of the
taxpayers' purse, look at that and say before we rush on some of this,
let's make sure that we can afford to maintain whatever is going to be
ensuing next.
Finally, let me make an observation about my colleague from
California, from Mendocino County, Mr. Huffman. He was saying that his
community was very in favor of that monument designation that is going
to happen, I guess, later on this year.
{time} 1545
I don't think the gentleman, however, mentioned that that precise
piece of legislation, which was H.R. 1411, passed this House on a voice
vote. In other words, there is no need to make a monument designation
for that because this House had determined that it was the right thing
to do.
The problem is the Senate hasn't moved on that piece of legislation;
so, on the one hand, they say we haven't passed legislation, and when
we do, the President steps in and, I think, overstates his authority on
the Antiquities Act.
I am sorry. Before I close, I did have another speaker. I apologize
to my friend. If the gentleman wants to take more time, I will give him
more time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Scalise).
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend from Washington
for yielding and for bringing this bill forward.
We are seeing an abuse of the Antiquities Act where you have got a
President using this law to shut off more areas of Federal land to
things like energy exploration. That is not what this law was intended
to do.
In fact, I think, if you look at the reforms that are included in
this law, they are very good and responsible in ensuring that a
President still has the ability to designate monuments where
appropriate, one in each State for a Presidential term.
If there is some monument that warrants being designated a national
monument, that opportunity is still there. You just have to come and
talk to Congress.
I know this President has a hard time working with Congress, but we
are right here. He talks about he has got a pen and a phone. Pick up
the phone, Mr. President.
You can call us, and if it makes sense, we are going to work with you
to get it done; but don't abuse the Antiquities Act to go and cordon
off Federal land, so that we can't explore for energy and for other
great resource needs.
[[Page H2678]]
I think it is important that we finally put the brakes on this
Presidential land grab that we are seeing.
I encourage all my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I want to,
again, make the point there of my colleague from California (Mr.
Huffman). He had a bill that passed the House and is pending in the
Senate.
There is no need for the President to go through this. All you have
to do is pass the legislation which, by the way, had a hearing and was
marked up properly in our committee.
This piece of legislation, I think, is a good piece of legislation. I
think it corrects abuses that have happened by the way of Presidents in
both parties over the years.
I ask my colleagues to support the legislation, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, today I rise in opposition to
H.R. 1459.
Exactly one year ago yesterday, the President designated 970 acres
of land in my district as the San Juan National Monument. This
designation came after years of grassroots work and outreach to create
a consensus plan to protect these critically important areas.
It came only because Congress failed to act on that consensus. I
know, because I tried to get Congress to act and it didn't happen.
In both the 112th and 113th Congress, I introduced legislation that
would have protected these lands in a nearly identical way to the
National Monument designation. Unfortunately, those bills stalled
because of ideological opposition to conservation.
In the part of the country I represent, people know that conservation
isn't just good for the environment, it's good for business. The San
Juans and the water around them are home to diverse wildlife from the
Island Marble Butterfly to the Southern Resident Killer Whales.
Because of that diversity, they are an economic engine for Northwest
Washington that attracts thousands of tourists each year. Every year,
fishermen, hunters, tourists, boaters, hikers, snowboarders, and
tourists spend millions throughout my state. They come for the natural
beauty and abundant outdoor activities we have to offer.
If we do not protect those resources, we lose that business. For many
rural areas, outdoor recreation is the driver of the economy.
Unfortunately, this Congress has handcuffed itself when it comes to
protecting public lands. And this legislation would handcuff the
President and prevent him from providing that protection. I suppose the
idea is that the President should follow our bad example. I disagree
with that.
Instead of stopping the President from doing his job, we should start
doing ours.
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 and shall be considered as read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 1459
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 ``Ensuring Public Involvement
in the Creation of National Monuments Act''.
SEC. 2. NEPA APPLICABILITY TO NATIONAL MONUMENT DECLARATIONS.
Section 2 of the Act of June 8, 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431;
commonly known as the ``Antiquities Act of 1906'') is
amended--
(1) by striking ``That the President'' and inserting the
following:
``(a) That the President'';
(2) by striking ``discretion, to declare'' and inserting
``discretion, subject to the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), to declare'';
(3) by inserting before the final period the following ``.
No more than one declaration shall be made in a State during
any presidential four-year term of office without an express
Act of Congress''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) A declaration under this section shall--
``(1) not include private property without the informed
written consent of the owner of the private property affected
by the declaration;
``(2) be considered a major Federal action under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.), if it affects more than 5,000 acres;
``(3) be categorically excluded under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
expire three years after the date of the declaration (unless
specifically designated as a monument by Federal law), if it
affects 5,000 acres or less; and
``(4) be followed by a feasibility study that includes an
estimate of the costs associated with managing the monument
in perpetuity, including any loss of Federal and State
revenue, which shall be submitted to the Committee on Natural
Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and made
available on the website of the Department of the Interior
not later than one year after the date of the declaration.''.
The CHAIR. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those
printed in House Report 113-385. 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. Bishop of Utah
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
House Report 113-385.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 4, beginning on line 6, strike ``if it affects more
than 5,000 acres;'' and insert ``except if it affects 5,000
acres or less, in which case--
``(A) the declaration shall be categorically excluded from
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969;
``(B) the declaration shall expire three years after the
date of the declaration; and
``(C) the declaration may become permanent if--
``(i) specifically designated as a monument by Federal
statute; or
``(ii) the President follows the review process under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; and
Page 4, strike lines 8 through 13.
Page 4, line 14, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(3)''.
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 3. USE OF EXISTING FUNDS.
This Act shall not be construed to increase the amount of
funds that are authorized to be appropriated for any fiscal
year.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 524, the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, this amendment tries to clarify the
process for monument designations of 5,000 acres or less, providing
that they can become permanent if the President follows the regular
NEPA public involvement process.
There was a question on the clarity of the language in the underlying
bill that is there.
It also ensures that new taxpayer dollars are spent by requiring the
use of existing funds to conduct any study or analysis that is in the
bill or may be added by an amendment.
With that, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I think his amendment adds to this legislation, and I support his
amendment.
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, we are not really sure what this
amendment is trying to achieve. If the underlying goal of the bill is
to make sure that every national monument designation goes through a
NEPA process or is approved by Congress, this amendment makes things
more confusing.
The amendment states that all monuments established through the use
of the Antiquities Act shall expire after 3 years. It goes on to say
that they may become permanent if the President follows the review
process under NEPA.
Does this mean the President could declare the designation a
categorical exclusion? If so, what is the point of the amendment? Does
that mean the administration has to file an environmental assessment or
an environmental impact statement? Can they just issue a finding of no
significant impact?
Again, the amendment does nothing to fix or clarify the underlying
bill. I oppose the legislation and the adoption of the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, just to respond one more time, the
purpose of this is to make sure that it was
[[Page H2679]]
very clear on those emergency situations that were 5,000 or less. If,
indeed, the President uses the NEPA process, that 3-year clock does not
tick on all those parcels of property. Anything that he does NEPA
process, that is okay.
It was not clear in the underlying bill. This attempts to make it
clear.
With that, I encourage adoption of the managers' amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Barber
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
House Report 113-385.
Mr. BARBER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 4, line 17, after ``revenue,'' insert ``and the
benefits associated with managing the monument in perpetuity,
including jobs created and tourism dollars associated with
managing the monument,''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 524, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Barber) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. BARBER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R.
1459, the Ensuring Public Involvement in the Creation of National
Monuments Act.
Under this bill, national monument declarations must include a
feasibility study that assesses the costs to the Federal Government to
manage the monument in perpetuity. However, costs of managing the
monument are only one side of the equation.
As all Arizonans know well, national monuments, like Chiricahua and
the Casa Grande Ruins, also bring significant benefits, such as tourism
dollars, that create jobs and stimulate local economies. These benefits
are real.
Travel and tourism is a major economic driver in Arizona, bringing in
millions of dollars to the part of the State that I represent--southern
Arizona--and billions of dollars in direct spending statewide.
The same is true for national monuments all across the country.
Communities near national monuments would testify to the economic
benefits of their national monuments.
My amendment is simple and straightforward. This amendment says that,
in addition to assessing the costs associated with managing a monument,
we should also look at the many benefits that result from the
establishment of a national monument.
Doing so will ensure that Congress and the American people have a
thorough and complete picture of how a monument will impact local
communities.
This is a commonsense amendment that will not add additional costs to
the bill.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I wish to claim the time in
opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I think what the Barber amendment
does is reemphasize the fundamental purpose of this bill, which is to
ensure there is transparent public participation and input in making
these types of designations.
I appreciate the addition he has made as to what should be studied
and what should be encompassed. I think it an addition to the bill. I
think it is a good amendment. I would urge its adoption.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Barber).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Tsongas
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
House Report 113-385.
Ms. TSONGAS. 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 new section:
SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY.
The amendments made by this Act shall not apply to any use
of section 2 of the Act of June 8, 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431;
commonly known of as the ``Antiquities Act of 1906'') the
purpose of which is the protection or conservation of
historic or cultural resources related to American military
history.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 524, the gentlewoman from
Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.
Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill presented before us
today is problematic for many reasons, as my Democratic colleagues on
the Natural Resources Committee have very clearly outlined on the floor
this afternoon.
The Antiquities Act has served our country for well over 100 years
and has been used by 16 Presidents to designate over 140 national
monuments, many of them protecting American military heritage.
To date, Presidents and Congress have designated 22 military sites as
national monuments. One of the many unintended consequences of this
legislation is that it would prevent the President from protecting
important military cultural and historical sites under the Antiquities
Act.
As someone who grew up on military bases both across the country and
overseas, I know firsthand the tremendous sacrifices that our
servicemembers and their families make on behalf of our Nation.
My father was a survivor of the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the World
War II Valor in the Pacific National Monument is just one example of a
monument that was designated by Presidential authority under the
Antiquities Act.
My amendment preserves the ability of the President to declare as
national monuments those that provide for the ``protection or
conservation of historic or cultural resources related to American
military history,'' regardless of their size.
I urge adoption of this amendment to maintain the President's ability
to honor our military and military families and fix one small piece of
this misguided legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
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. Mr. Chairman, I claim opposition to the misguided
amendment to the well-proportioned bill that is under there.
I appreciate what the gentlelady from Massachusetts is trying to do.
I am an old history teacher, so these sites are important to me.
But as well-intended as this amendment may indeed be, it still
undermines the intent of the legislation, which is to make sure that
any designation that is at large has public transparency, and you allow
the local people to do it, whether it is a military site or not.
This would create a very large loophole that is unnecessary because
the provisions of the bill provide for that. If something is smaller
than 5,000 and in immediate jeopardy, it can be handled.
If it is larger than that and goes through the NEPA process, it is
handled. There is no problem that could develop from this particular
piece of legislation.
I might also add that, in the Antiquities Act, any harm to anything
that is an antiquity of element on a public property already is subject
to fine and imprisonment.
This amendment was attempted in committee--I appreciate the
sentiment--but it was also defeated in committee by a vote of 24-13. It
is the same amendment here.
I would urge my colleagues to also defeat it, simply because it
undermines the very purpose of this bill, and it does not lead to the
public process.
With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for his remarks, but
I respectfully disagree.
As we know, yet again to reiterate, the Antiquities Act has served
our
[[Page H2680]]
country well for over 100 years, has been used by Presidents, both
Democratic and Republican, to designate over 150 national monuments.
It was created to allow swift action to conserve high priority public
lands when Congress is unable to act. It was not the intention of the
Antiquities Act to let Congress dictate which national monuments the
President can and cannot create.
We have heard from our colleagues from Delaware and New Mexico the
robust public input around designating the Antiquities Act.
Presidential actions taken under the Antiquities Act are, like all
other Presidential actions, exempt from the NEPA process.
It would be a radical departure from long practice to subject
Presidential action to NEPA. A significant change like this should not
be considered on the fly in a manager's amendment without prior debate
in the House.
{time} 1600
Again, the underlying intent of this amendment was to protect
military monuments. I respectfully disagree with my colleague across
the aisle.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Massachusetts will be
postponed.
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments printed in House Report 113-385 on which
further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 3 by Ms. Tsongas of Massachusetts.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Tsongas
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms.
Tsongas) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 197,
noes 223, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 145]
AYES--197
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gerlach
Gibson
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--223
Aderholt
Amash
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--11
Amodei
Campbell
Cardenas
Courtney
DelBene
Duckworth
Frankel (FL)
Hinojosa
McCarthy (NY)
Miller, Gary
Schwartz
{time} 1628
Messrs. RYAN of Wisconsin and LaMALFA changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
Mr. PETERSON, Mrs. NEGRETE McLEOD, Messrs. DANNY K. DAVIS of
Illinois, HANNA, and CLEAVER changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Duncan of Tennessee). Under the rule, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Nugent) having assumed the chair, Mr. Duncan of Tennessee, Acting Chair
of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
1459) to ensure that the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
applies to the declaration of national monuments, and for other
purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 524, he reported the bill
back to the House with sundry amendments adopted in the Committee of
the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
[[Page H2681]]
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the
Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
{time} 1630
Motion to Recommit
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan). Is the gentleman opposed to the
bill?
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Rahall moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1459 to the
Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith, with the following
amendment:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 3. PROVIDING A WAGE INCREASE FOR AMERICA'S WORKERS.
This Act shall not take effect until the hourly wage for
the lowest 10th percentile of workers for all occupational
codes reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics under the
Occupational Employment Statistics survey is no less than
$10.10 an hour.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill. It
will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If the amendment
is adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as
amended.
My amendment is quite simple. It raises the minimum wage to $10.10.
My amendment assures that, in America, if you work hard, you will not
be forced to live in poverty.
In this era of stagnant and falling wages, of a widening gap in
inequality between the haves and the have-nots, we must ensure that the
promise of the American Dream remains a reality for all Americans, not
just the wealthiest among us. We can't just say it. We have to act to
make it possible.
Today, the minimum wage is 22 percent below its peak level in the
1960s. It has not increased since July 2009, when it reached $7.25 per
hour. It has not been raised in five long years.
It has not increased since the near bottom of the Great Recession,
when working Americans were walloped by the greed and reckless behavior
of the privileged and the elite on Wall Street.
We like to think that, if you work hard, if you earn calloused hands,
you can rise to the heights of success in America. The reality is that,
by not raising the minimum wage, we are condoning--we are endorsing a
pay cut for the very hardworking Americans that we speak about in such
glowing terms whenever we talk about working our way--working your way
up the ladder. Such doublespeak makes a mockery of the American Dream.
This is the House of the people, not the House of the 1 percent. Ours
is a government of, for, and by the people and not a government of,
for, and by the billionaires, at least not yet. Heaven help us.
As Representatives of the people, we have a constitutional obligation
to look after the interests of all of our citizens, but more
fundamentally, we have a moral obligation to ensure that opportunity is
available to all and not reserved only for the most well-to-do among
us.
Each and every year, minimum wage workers face a pay cut as inflation
eats away at their earnings. Each and every year, this House, the
people's House, sits inactive. It sits silent. It sits shamefully moot.
As the House of the people, we have a moral obligation to do what we
can to help boost the paychecks of hardworking Americans. There should
be outrage. There should be contempt for our inactivity on this issue.
I am talking about the 3.6 million American workers whose salaries
are at or below the current minimum wage, more than three-quarters of
whom are adults, nearly two-thirds of whom are female, more than one-
third of whom are full-time workers, and nearly three-quarters of whom
have graduated from high school.
These are real people--real people, Mr. Speaker, husbands, wives,
fathers, mothers. Every day, they must make hard choices to provide for
their families. Every day, they look to this body, this House of
Representatives, the House of the people, they look to us for help; and
every day, this body has nothing to say, nothing new to offer.
Introduced in 1938, the minimum wage has been increased 22 times, by
both Republican and Democratic Congresses. It was even raised in the
hyperpartisan Congress of the Gingrich impeachment era twice--twice;
but it has not been raised in this Congress, nor the last. That is more
than shameful. It is immoral.
In running against the do-nothing Republican-controlled House of
Representatives in 1948, Harry Truman spoke of the gluttons of
privilege, of cold men, of cunning men who were curiously deaf to the
voice of the people, but who also were curiously able to hear even the
slightest whisper from Big Business.
Here is a case where the government must be an advocate for the
people and for the working men and women of this Nation and for the
forgotten man, as another great President once said, those at the
bottom of the economic pyramid upon which everything else is built.
Vague promises of hope are not sufficient. Economic excuses are not
enough. We must act, and we must act now, and we can. Vote for this
amendment to increase the minimum wage for the working men and women of
this country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion
to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am still having a difficult time
trying to grasp the concept that my good friend, the gentleman from
West Virginia, would be opposed to such a brilliant bill in its current
form in the first place; but with that, I appreciate his efforts and
his concept dealing with this MTR.
I just want to remind of you of one element. If you pass this motion,
you don't raise the minimum wage, and you don't bring about any of the
consequences CBO or other organizations talked about, that concept.
All this amendment does is delay the bill. It doesn't raise anything.
It simply delays the bill.
This bill, the underlying bill, tries to take an act that is 108
years old and modernize it, so that the American people are given the
right to be heard before the President takes his pen and signs his name
to a piece of paper and a proclamation.
This bill simply says let Americans have the chance to talk about
this before the President acts, like every other element of government
has to do.
With that, I urge your rejection of this MTR. I urge you to favorably
vote for passage.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 5-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-
minute votes on passage of H.R. 1459, if ordered, and agreeing to the
Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 193,
noes 227, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 146]
AYES--193
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
[[Page H2682]]
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--227
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--11
Becerra
Campbell
DelBene
Graves (GA)
Hinojosa
McCarthy (NY)
McIntyre
Miller, Gary
Olson
Roe (TN)
Schwartz
{time} 1647
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222,
noes 201, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 147]
AYES--222
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOES--201
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gerlach
Gibson
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
[[Page H2683]]
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--8
Campbell
DelBene
Duncan (SC)
Hinojosa
Johnson (GA)
McCarthy (NY)
Miller, Gary
Schwartz
{time} 1656
Mr. CONYERS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 147, I
missed the vote on final passage of H.R. 1459, the Public Involvement
in the Creation of National Monuments Act. I supported this bill in the
Natural Resources Committee and would have voted in favor of it on
final passage. Unfortunately business on the Senate side of the Capitol
prevented me from voting before the rollcall ended. Had I been present,
I would have voted ``aye.''
____________________