[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 148 (Thursday, October 8, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H6911-H6920]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIVE AMERICAN ENERGY ACT
General Leave
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on the bill H.R. 538.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Alaska?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 466 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. 538.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1458
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. 538) to facilitate the development of energy on Indian lands by
reducing Federal regulations that impede tribal development of Indian
lands, and for other purposes, with Mr. Rouzer in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Grijalva) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska.
{time} 1500
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
H.R. 538 has been in the works for several years. This is not a bill
that came out of nowhere. Its provisions are the result of oversight
hearings and consultation with Indian tribes and Alaska Native
Corporations. The bill streamlines Federal permitting for, and
increases tribal control over, energy and other natural resource
development on Indian lands. It gives tribes options to perform or
waive appraisals of their lands and prohibits the Interior Department's
hydraulic fracturing from applying to Indian lands without the consent
of the tribe.
It also contains provisions to streamline judicial review and deter
frivolous lawsuits concerning Federal permitting for Native American
energy projects. The judicial review provisions are crucial for Alaska
Natives, whose ability to develop their land claims settlement lands
has been abused by special interest groups filing lawsuits.
The bill also authorizes a pilot project for the Navajo Nation to
handle mineral leasing of its trust lands if Interior approves its
tribal leasing program.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 538 promotes tribal forest stewardship
contracting on Federal lands adjacent to Indian reservation land to
provide a full supply of biomass energy for the tribes.
This summer, the GAO issued a report called ``Indian Energy
Development--Poor Management by BIA Has Hindered Energy Department on
Indian Lands.'' Here a couple of the highlights:
``The BIA does not have comprehensive data to identify ownership and
resources available for development, does not have a documented process
or data to track and monitor its review and response times, and some
offices do not have the skills or adequate staff resources to
effectively review energy-related documents.''
``In 2012, Interior's inspector general found that weaknesses in
BIA's management of oil and gas resources contributed to a general
preference by industry to acquire oil and gas leases on non-Indian
lands over Indian lands.''
This is a jobs bill. It provides energy for America, and more than
that, it takes care of the tribal community that has been blessed with
resources. In some Indian reservations, where unemployment rates are 50
percent, energy jobs are the only high-wage, private sector jobs
available for members. These energy jobs dollars go a long way in
supporting families.
The Native American Energy Act is strongly supported by a broad array
of Native organizations as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
specifically, the National Congress of American Indians, the Affiliated
Tribes of Northwest Indians, the Intertribal Timber Council, Navajo
Nation, Southern Ute Indian Tribe, Confederated Tribes of the Colville
Reservation, Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation,
and the Ute Tribe of Utah.
I am a little bit surprised that the White House has issued a
statement against this bill. Really, it is not anything new. I always
listen to this administration's ``all of the above but none of the
below'' as far as energy goes. In other words, the administration
promotes only wind and solar, while opposing oil, gas, and coal on
Nations' lands--Nations' lands.
In the Dakotas, it takes 15 permits on tribal lands and 2 off of
tribal lands. That is a disgrace, and I suggest, with 56 million acres
of land, there ought to be the ability to be self-determined, be the
first Americans, with the ability to take and produce energy, and help
their tribal members out.
Those that oppose this, it is the same old story: don't get too
smart; we will give you a side of beef and a blanket. Don't let us help
ourselves, let the government tell you what to do.
This is a good piece of legislation. This did not come from me. This
came from the Native tribes themselves. It is an example, as we have
trust authority, we should let them control their own destiny.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, frankly, we are still not addressing the most pressing
needs in Indian Country. Six years later, the Carcieri decision still
has not been fixed, despite much lipservice that has been given to it
from the majority.
Our colleague Mr. Cole and our colleague Ms. McCollum both have
legislation, bipartisan legislation, that would deal with that
immediately. We should call that up. We should have a hearing, and we
should deal with this decision that has left so much doubt and
confusion in Indian Country.
Sacred sites are in need of identification and protection rather than
midnight riders attached to unrelated legislation that violates tribal
sacred site protections, as has happened already. Lack of funding from
this body coupled with sequestration has left Indian health and
education really with no relief in site.
Yes, barriers to energy development on Indian land are among the most
pressing needs, both as an economic driver for tribes and for the
energy needs of the United States. But this bill does not address the
real energy needs on tribal lands, and while we are wasting time on it,
these other, and even more pressing needs, just continue to grow more
urgent.
The legislation claims to facilitate energy development, but,
instead, it short-circuits the review process set up by the National
Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, and limits judicial review of
development decisions. Instead of helping tribes develop energy
resources on their lands, this approach will lead to less environmental
protection on Indian lands and less judicial recourse to those
affected.
These proposals are not new. We have seen and debated them before as
part of the failed Republican energy bills last Congress, and here they
are again. The legislation would amend NEPA, one of the Nation's
bedrock environmental laws, to limit review of and comment on proposed
projects to members of the affected Indian tribe and other individuals
residing within an undetermined affected area. This limitation severely
restricts public involvement in proposed Federal projects that may
affect the environment, a central tenet of NEPA.
Arbitrarily limiting such review and comment would prevent even other
Indian tribes with cultural ties in the so-
[[Page H6912]]
called affected area from commenting on a proposed project. Limiting
the universe of members of the public who can participate in the NEPA
process but then failing to actually define that universe is not
reform. It is not reform at all.
Additionally, this restriction is not just applicable to energy
projects; it applies to any major project on Indian lands. This could
mean proposed mining contracts, proposed water development projects,
construction of solid waste facilities, and even construction of tribal
class III gaming facilities all would slip through this undefined
loophole. Nontribal partners would also reap this benefit as well, as
long as the project is located on Indian lands.
The legislation also throws up insurmountable barriers to those
seeking to hold the Federal Government accountable for its actions in
court. It prevents the recovery of attorney's fees in cases challenging
energy projects, and it makes a claimant who fails to succeed on the
merits of a suit potentially liable to the defendant for attorneys'
fees and costs. This makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible,
for members of the public--even tribal members whose homelands may be
impacted by a major Federal action of any kind--to seek judicial
review.
The other side will say this is in response to frivolous lawsuits
that have been filed in these cases in the past, but according to the
Department of the Interior Solicitor's Office, very few approved
energy-related projects have ever been challenged in court. This is
truly a solution in search of a problem. It is clear the real intent of
this provision is to chill legitimate litigation and to undermine the
real teeth of NEPA by making the availability of injunctive relief all
but disappear.
Furthermore, this applies even to non-Indian land. If an energy
company is developing natural resources anywhere in the United States
and they get a tribal partner, they can fall under this provision. This
could incentivize energy companies to partner with tribes simply for
the benefit of skirting NEPA and profiting from restricted judicial
review.
The legislation is opposed by the administration, as well as many
environmental and conservation groups. I enter the following letter of
opposition to this legislation into the Record, which has been signed
by the Alaska Wilderness League, Center for Biological Diversity,
Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Green Latinos, The Lands Council,
League of Conservation Voters, National Parks Conservation Association,
Natural Resources Defense Council, Northern Alaska Environmental
Center, San Juan Citizens Alliance, Sierra Club, Western Environmental
Law Center, and The Wilderness Society.
Alaska Wilderness League, Center for Biological
Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Green
Latinos, The Lands Council, League of Conservation
Voters, National Parks Conservation Association,
Natural Resources Defense Council, Northern Alaska
Environmental Center, San Juan Citizens Alliance,
Sierra Club, Western Environmental Law Center, The
Wilderness Society,
September 9, 2015.
Chairman Rob Bishop,
Ranking Member Raul Grijalva,
House Natural Resources Committee, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva: On behalf
of our millions of members and supporters, we write to
express our strong concerns with H.R. 538, the ``Native
American Energy Act.'' The bill purports to promote and
encourage increased energy production on tribal lands by
reducing government barriers and streamlining burdensome
procedures. While we are not opposed to the development of
energy projects on tribal lands under the law, this bill goes
far beyond that by severely limiting public involvement in
the development of any major project on tribal lands, as well
as by insulating potentially environmentally devastating
energy projects on tribal lands (or even projects done in
partnership with an Indian tribe on non-tribal lands) from
judicial review. It further erodes the public interest by
diminishing its full authority to conduct appraisals,
especially in the context of land exchanges between the
federal government and an Alaska Native Corporation. Given
the problems with these provisions, we ask that you oppose
H.R. 538.
We are particularly concerned with Sections 2, 4, and 5 of
this legislation.
Section 2 would diminish the public interest by allowing
state-chartered, for-profit corporations to gain full
authority to conduct appraisals, especially in the context of
land exchanges between the federal government and an Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) corporation. Many land
swaps have been very controversial in Alaska, including in
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Section 4 would amend the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (NEPA) by mandating that Environmental Impact
Statements (EISs) for any federal action on tribal lands by
an Indian tribe ``shall only be available for review and
comment by the members of the Indian tribe and by any other
individual residing within the affected area.'' This
provision would severely undermine one of the most basic
tenets of NEPA: to facilitate public involvement in decision
making. Additionally, this limitation is applicable to more
than energy projects; it applies to any major project on
tribal land by a native community. By its terms, section 4
applies to the lands of Native Corporations transferred under
the provisions of ANCSA, or associated land trades. For
example, if passed into law, this section would limit public
participation in a broad range of EISs: Clean Water Act 404
permits for any purpose; highway projects; energy or any
other federal project; or funding of any project on tribal
lands by an native community. Furthermore, the provision
would allow for significantly limiting the defined ``affected
area'' such that some members of the public would be excluded
from commenting on a draft EIS. This would artificially limit
what the agency might learn about the potential impacts of
its project, leading to uninformed decision making.
Section 5 aims at insulating energy related projects from
judicial review by placing severe restrictions on the time in
which to file claims and making the pursuit of any legal
challenge overwhelmingly cost-prohibitive. In addition to
curtailing the amount of time an individual or group has to
challenge the decision to only 60 days, Section 5 further
restricts judicial review by requiring plaintiffs to pay the
attorney's fees and costs of the defendants if they do not
``ultimately prevail.'' Furthermore, even where plaintiffs
are successful in their challenge, this section precludes
them from winning awards typically provided for through the
Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) and the Treasury
Department's Judgment Fund. EAJA and the Judgment Fund costs
are incredibly important in cases which seek non-monetary
relief, such as those involving environmental protection and
public health issues. These funds make the courts accessible
to the individual citizen, non-profit organization, small
business, or public interest group that would otherwise lack
the financial ability to challenge large corporations or the
federal government, who are harming their communities or
environment in the name of energy development. For over three
decades, the financial backstop provided for under EAJA and
the Judgment Fund has meant that access to the courts is not
limited to those with deep pockets. By eliminating the
ability of parties to utilize EAJA or the Judgment Fund, H.R.
538 prevents such individuals or organizations from bringing
cases that challenge harmful or illegal energy related
projects. Section 5 creates insurmountable barriers to
justice at the expense of the American public and rejects
equal access to the courts in favor of a perverse pay-to-play
system.
Additionally, Section 5 defines ``energy related action''
broadly so as to ensure the restrictive judicial review
provisions of this section apply equally to projects on
tribal land as well as those energy projects on non-tribal
lands where at least one tribe is involved. This invites the
partnering of energy corporations with native communities for
the purpose of limiting judicial review.
Finally, Section 9 of the bill would eliminate health and
environmental protections established by the Department of
the Interior in rules regarding hydraulic fracturing. Those
living on and near tribal lands would possibly be subjected
to heightened risk of spills, underground contamination from
toxic chemicals, weakened air quality, reduced well
construction standards, and other benefits from DOI's updates
to long out-of-date rules.
We recognize the self-determination framework for federally
recognized tribal governments and tribal members, but it is
important to ensure that development decisions adequately
address all of the impacts of those decisions, some of which
occur well beyond the project site, and that the public has
the ability to participate. H.R. 538 eliminates broad public
participation for projects on tribal land, including ANCSA
Corporation lands. Further, it will have a significant
chilling effect on the ability of the public (including
tribal members) to seek judicial review of a decision related
to an energy project on Indian land or proposed by (or done
in partnership with) an Indian tribe to ensure that the
project complies with the law. For these reasons, we ask that
you oppose H.R. 538.
Sincerely,
Alaska Wilderness League, Center for Biological Diversity,
Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Green Latinos, The Lands
Council, League of Conservation Voters, National Parks
Conservation Association, Natural Resources Defense Council,
Northern
[[Page H6913]]
Alaska Environmental Center, San Juan Citizens Alliance,
Sierra Club, Western Environmental Law Center, The Wilderness
Society.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, instead of using energy development on
Indian land as an excuse to weaken NEPA and judicial review, we should
be concentrating our efforts on real reform that would achieve tribal
self-determination and energy development. We should be dealing with
the disparities in the Tax Code that stymie investments in Indian
Country and create an unfair playing field. Tax credits and incentives
for energy development that cities and communities have long used to
their benefit, these need to be available to tribes as well. We should
be encouraging investment in the future of renewable energy on tribal
lands.
According to the Department of Energy Office of Indian Energy, Indian
land contains an estimated 5 percent of all renewable energy resources,
and the total energy potential from these resources is almost 14
percent of the total U.S. potential. In my home State of Arizona, there
is a great potential for solar, wind, and geothermal energy on Indian
land. We just need to fix the real issues that prohibit the investment
in these projects.
But this bill doesn't do that. Instead, the majority is here today to
once again attack NEPA and judicial review, this time attempting to use
this as a wedge issue, attempting to drive a wedge between people that
care about tribal self-determination as well as environmental
stewardship.
Picking between tribal sovereignty and responsible energy development
is a false choice. We can have both. We can have successful energy
development in Indian Country while retaining the environmental
protections that will ensure future generations of Native Americans
that they, too, can enjoy the benefits of that economic development.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to abandon this irresponsible
proposal in favor of a real tribal energy bill. In the meantime, I
would plead with my colleagues to bring legislation to the floor
addressing Indian health care, Indian education programs, a codified
process for tribal consultation with Federal agencies that respects
sovereignty and upholds the trust responsibility that we have to Indian
Country, and a fix--finally, a fix--for the current cloud hanging over
the status of so many trust lands.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I would like to mention one thing.
I do have an amendment for a future day--I am speaking to the
gentleman--on NEPA. We don't change the NEPA policy at all, other than
the fact that only those affected can have comments on how it affects
their land, not a bunch of people from New York or Maine or Dallas or
Florida. So that is really a red herring that was drug across this
bill. This is to help the tribes.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Bishop), my good chairman of the full committee.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from
Alaska yielding.
There are some Native American tribes that do not rely on gaming
alone for their source of revenue. They can't. It is amazing how often
we hear, dealing with North American Native tribes, all of a sudden
give lipservice that we would like to empower them, until they actually
have a chance to do so; and then, all of a sudden, we change. We are
talking about a lot of tribes who have a great deal of land but very
little employment.
This bill, in fact, is based on recommendations that come from Indian
Country. By that, I don't mean the Bureau of Indian Affairs, because
they, shamefully, oppose this bill. I do mean groups like Southern Utah
Utes, the Confederated Tribes of Colville, the National Congress of
American Indians, the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, and
community groups like the Chamber of Commerce. All of those people are
realizing the importance of this particular bill in empowering Native
Americans in this Nation.
I hope we do not turn this into a partisan affair by saying, by
voting ``no'' on this bill, you might get three Democrat callers on C-
SPAN to support your vote. But it still does not make that right. We
need to do something differently.
In these areas in which the potential employment is based on
agriculture, mining, and energy, we don't need more regulations on the
Native Americans than there are on everybody else. We don't need
duplicative regulations on them more than anybody else. Instead, we
need to streamline that so they can be successful in charting their own
destiny and making their own choices.
Far too often we have too many people, unfortunately, with titles
around this place that still have a paternalistic attitude toward
Native Americans. That attitude has to change. This is what this bill
does.
It is amazing. Sometimes when this administration says, well, if it
deals with marijuana, they are a Native tribe, they are a sovereign
country, let them do what they want to; but if it deals with
agriculture and mining, well, not so fast. That is public lands. We
still need to have some kind of control over that.
That is the problem: pot, yes; energy, no. That doesn't work. We need
these people to be able to make decisions for themselves.
I appreciate the chairman of the subcommittee mentioning that he does
have an amendment on NEPA which does solve those problems. This is not
a NEPA issue. This is an issue on whether we truly believe in
empowering Native Americans so they can make decisions for themselves
and help their own people.
{time} 1515
I had a chairman of a tribe who sat in my room and wisely said: I
don't care what game we play. I just want to know what the ball looks
like.
This bill gives them a chance to see the ball. It gives the Native
Americans a chance to approve the design of the ball. More importantly,
it gives them a chance to win.
So, Lucy, please, just before contact, don't pull the ball away. Let
the Native Americans win. This bill gives them an opportunity to win
and chart their own destiny. That is why they support it, and that is
why we should vote for it.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The GAO report has mentioned many times about the rationale behind
and the catalyst behind this particular legislation; yet, the
conclusion, which I agree with, is that we are not living up to our
responsibilities as it applies to energy development on Indian land.
But reading the recommendations, nowhere does it say that the
solution to the problem is to gut NEPA or to stifle judicial recourse.
Instead, the recommendations talk about resources that are needed by
Indian Country to successfully fulfill their obligations and
responsibilities to their members. It talks about staffing shortages,
outdated mapping systems, and the need to ensure that the BIA can
provide support to the tribes on energy programs.
These are things the BIA has asked for in their budget and that the
President's budget sent over has requested time and time again. Funding
these requests go unheeded by this majority.
So it is disingenuous, as the majority does time and time again, to
starve an agency or a program of needed funding and then to complain
that that agency program is ineffective.
It is also disingenuous to say that the responsibility to work with
and honor our trust responsibility to Indian Country is down to the
choice in this legislation whether you vote ``yes'' or ``no.''
As I stated in my opening statement, there is a litany of pressing
issues that face Indian Country and Native Americans in our Nation, a
litany of benign neglect for many, many years, of which all bear
responsibility.
But with that responsibility comes also the opportunity to act. The
fix is necessary so that fact is quelled on a bad Supreme Court
decision. We need the adequate funding so that the trust responsibility
that we inherit as Members of Congress is upheld.
We need programs of infrastructure in Indian Country. We need many,
many issues to address not only the human need, but the economic needs
of Indian Country.
[[Page H6914]]
To say that this bill is the watershed moment that is going to turn
all that benign neglect and irresponsibility backwards is disingenuous
at best.
I would suggest let's talk about a real comprehensive approach to the
issue of Indian Country and the support this Congress needs to give to
our trust responsibility.
If we do that, I am sure all of us collectively can come to the same
conclusion, that we need to do something and that there is before us
legislation from both sides of the aisle that begin to address it.
This legislation is not it. It is not a panacea. And to pit the trust
responsibility this Congress has and to question whether sovereignty is
supported or not by Members that oppose this is not fair.
The fairness in this would have been an energy bill that is
comprehensive. The fairness would have been not to gut NEPA, judicial
review, and present a bill that is clean and upholds bedrock
environmental laws and--and it is not complicated--uphold the trust
responsibility that we have when we swear an oath of office to serve in
this Congress.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Native
American Energy Act.
Having an all-of-the-above energy policy means all people in all
communities. Each community across the country should have the
opportunity to unleash the natural resources closest to them to help
meet their energy needs. For those of us in the Pacific Northwest, it
means encouraging biomass.
We have just had a devastating wildfire season, and the issue of
forest health continues to be on the forefront. Fallen trees,
overgrowth, and general mismanagement have led to worsening fire
seasons.
By encouraging forest products for biomass, we would add and have a
benefit of reducing forest fire risk by keeping our lands healthier, in
addition to creating a stable energy source.
This legislation allows a pilot project to encourage greater biomass
production on tribal forestland. In my district in eastern Washington,
it would help the confederated tribes of the Colville Reservation, who
already play a very active role in forest management, get new tools at
their disposal to maintain the health of the adjacent forest to the
reservation. It would help them develop energy and, most importantly,
help them protect their homeland.
I am proud to support this legislation and encourage my colleagues to
do the same.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to give my voice in strong
support for the Native American Energy Act.
I would also like to be able to thank Chairman Young and Chairman
Bishop for their leadership and support of Native American energy
development.
Energy resource development on Native American lands is important and
becoming increasingly significant year after year. For example, in
2014, responsible conventional energy development on Native American
lands alone generated revenues of $24 billion.
This revenue figure does not include renewable energy development on
tribal lands, which is the potential to increase revenues, jobs, and
household incomes for Native American communities.
I am privileged to be able to represent the Southern Ute Indian Tribe
located in southwest Colorado. Some of my colleagues know that the
Southern Ute Indian Tribe is a model of tribal governance and economic
development. The tribe is widely known as the premier natural gas
developer and the largest employer in the region.
I am extremely proud that the Southern Ute Indian Tribe continues to
take the lead in demanding that the Federal Government respect self-
determination and tribal decisionmaking when it comes to energy and
environmental regulation.
To his credit, Chairman Young continues to hold numerous oversight
hearings and legislative hearings to allow tribal leaders to illustrate
the challenges they face daily as they attempt to develop their natural
resources so that they can provide programs, services, and jobs for
their nations.
The result is H.R. 538, which will remove a number of these barriers.
The legislation streamlines the appraisal process that must be
undertaken by the Department of Interior because the status quo has
resulted in delays that have caused the tribe to miss out on royalty
payments totaling more than $95 million.
The legislation also amends the Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004,
to direct the Department of Interior to enter into agreements with
tribes to carry out demonstration projects that promote biomass energy
production on Native American forestland and in nearby communities by
providing tribes with reliable supplies of woody biomass from Federal
lands.
It also prohibits the Interior rule regarding hydraulic fracturing
from having any effect on land held in trust or restricted status for
Native Americans, except with the express consent of the Indian
beneficiaries. The Southern Ute's repeated attempts to ensure tribal
lands were not included in this misguided rule were completely
disregarded by this administration.
Fortunately, H.R. 538 promotes Native American self-determination,
strengthens tribal sovereignty, and reinforces our commitment to tribal
self-sufficiency.
I urge my colleagues to support this vital legislation.
Once again, I thank Chairman Young for his leadership and Chairman
Bishop on this issue.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support of this
commonsense legislation.
This bill empowers Native Americans to invest in their communities,
their people, and their resources as they see fit without the heavy
hand of Washington bureaucracy trying to insert itself between them and
their own land.
Under current policy, potential resource development on tribal lands
face many obstacles that projects on private or State lands do not.
Before entering into a lease agreement with energy developers on
their own land, a tribe must first attempt to navigate the long, slow,
and duplicative process of the Department of Interior's approval. This
process can be fraught with litigation and delays that chase away
potential investments and crush otherwise viable projects.
The Native American Energy Act streamlines many of the duplicative
Federal regulatory hurdles that prevent tribes or individuals from
profitably developing energy resources on their land.
This will provide tribes with greater control over how they best
develop their own natural resources and allow them to do so in ways
that will best benefit their communities, not a D.C. bureaucrat's
ideology.
Because of the commonsense and empowering reforms it contains, this
bill has widespread support from the Indian tribes. It is odd that the
only groups on record in opposition to this bill are the Obama
administration and some Democratic members of the Natural Resources
Committee.
Why does the administration continue to insist that bureaucrats from
their comfy leather chairs and marble offices in Washington, D.C., know
more about how to manage Indian land than the tribes themselves?
If Congress is actually serious about supporting tribal efforts to
generate high-paying jobs and improving the everyday standard of living
in American Indian communities, this bill is a real, concrete way to
empower them to do so.
I commend the chairman and the committee for their work on this bill.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
[[Page H6915]]
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alaska for
bringing this legislation forward.
In my hometown of Hobbs, New Mexico, truck drivers are making
$100,000 a year. They don't have to have a college degree, not even a
high school diploma. And, yet, we limit this sort of opportunity on
tribal lands. This bill is fairly simple. Simply let them free. Let
them free to develop their lands in the way they want to.
I heard one of my colleagues say that there are no frivolous
lawsuits. Just this week the WildEarth Guardians were found to have
filed a frivolous lawsuit on matters such as these, trying to stop
development, trying to hold things up. The judge said this is
frivolous. It is the WildEarth Guardians v. Kirkpatrick decision that
is very recent.
We are told that there are a litany of issues that we should be
dealing with. I will tell you that Native Americans are sophisticated
enough to take care of their own problems. They just need the
opportunity to have jobs. They need the opportunity for economic
development inside their own nations.
Just recently we hosted in New Mexico a gathering of different tribes
who are looking at investments in oil and gas. One lady said: My son is
working in North Dakota for $60,000 a year, and he should be working
here on the reservation in the oil and gas industry for $60,000 a year.
That is the urgency that I am sensing on the reservations.
The reservations are beginning to build their own houses, and they
are doing magnificent work. They are becoming self-determined. But we
here in Washington say we know better. Mr. Young's bill says that we
don't know better.
Just let them develop what they want. Take the shackles off, take the
chains loose, and let the American spirit that is on the reservations
live and breathe. It is a very simple concept, but one some have a very
difficult time accepting.
I say vote for H.R. 538 and put them free.
{time} 1530
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
just want to note that the Democrats on the Natural Resources Committee
filed several amendments to this bill. We felt our Members were
squarely within the House rules.
Sadly, the majority on Rules failed to make any of their amendments
in order. One of these rejected amendments would have fixed the
terrible mess created by the decision in Carcieri.
If you want to help tribes in a legitimate, coequal way control their
own lands and move closer and closer to self-determination, you have to
address this problem. It is telling that my friends on the other side
have refused to even address the bill or to have a legitimate hearing
on the bill.
Let me just in closing address the Statement of Administrative
Policy.
While the administration supports the need to facilitate
energy development in Indian Country, it does not support
H.R. 538, the Native American Energy Act. This bill would
undermine public participation and transparency of review of
projects on Indian lands under the National Environmental
Policy Act, set unrealistic deadlines, and remove oversight
for appraisals of Indian lands or trust assets, and prohibit
awards under the Equal Access to Justice Act or payment of
fees or expenses to a plaintiff from the judgment fund in an
energy-related action.
By foreclosing the judgment fund, this provision would
negatively impact the Indian Affairs budget that is intended
to serve all tribes. In addition, this bill's changes to
mineral leasing loss applicable to Navajo Nations land may
adversely affect energy development on these lands.
The bill also stipulates that Indian lands are exempt from
the Department of the Interior's hydraulic fracking rule.
That rule already contains the provision allowing for
variances from the rules requirements when tribal laws meet
or exceed the rule standards.
The rule approach both protects environmental and trust
resources while also protecting decisionmaking of the tribes.
Overall, H.R. 538 would not ensure diligent development of
resources on Indian land.
The administration appreciates the committee's efforts to
address energy needs in Indian Country. Income from energy
development is one of the largest sources of revenue
generated from trust lands, and delays in development
translate to delays in profits to Indian mineral rights
owners.
The administration has been taking meaningful action to
update the leasing process for lands held in trust for Indian
tribes and is actively working to expedite appraisals,
leasing, and permitting on Indian lands, and to provide
resources to ensure safe and responsible development.
The administration looks forward to working with Congress
to develop the reforms necessary to support this development.
The point is that this legislation is a rush to judgment. It is a
gift, in a sense, when you exempt from the judicial review and from
NEPA the exploration and production of energy on Indian land. As
coequals, these environmental protections and public processes are
intended for all.
So rather than be patronizing, as coequals and within our trust
responsibility, this bill should be rejected. We should work on
comprehensive energy opportunity legislation that truly recognizes
self-determination for all members of tribes, provided the
environmental, public health, and judicial processes would guarantee
them that they would be treated equal under the law.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
In closing, I suggest one thing. This bill came from the tribes, not
from the Sierra Club and not from the friends of this and not from the
friends of that. All 28 organizations had nothing to do with the
tribes.
I have said all along--and I am pretty well related to the Athabascan
Tribe in Alaska--it is time they are given the opportunity to fulfill
the self-determination act that we passed. Words do not do that.
This administration has these great conferences, and we invite
everybody down and winky, winky, and now have a good time. Nothing
happens administratively.
Now, I know there is some legislation and I am working very hard to
get legislation, but I can't do it all. I have to do it one little step
at a time.
This bill is requested by American Indians to have more control over
their land.
I have to remind this Congress that I sit in that we are now ranked
in the nations around the world 20th in the freedom category. We have
gone from number 1 to 20th. Think about that. The American Indians, our
first people, are 13th in freedom because of our so-called free
government. Now, there is something wrong with that.
We are doing an indirect thing, as trustees, by not allowing them to
expand their God-given right, their ability, their intellectual
capability, to expand their self-worth and keep their identity.
Every time we try to bring a bill to the floor to do that, it is,
first of all, ``We can do it better administratively.'' That is why
they are ranked 13th in freedom because of our government.
Now, I want everybody to think about this in Congress, from number 1
freest nation in the world to right now 20. That is not a good thing.
In the last 5 years, we have dropped three spaces in that freedom
chart, mainly because of overreach, regulation, and dictation by our
government. That is what it is based on. Individual freedoms are lost.
Try that as a tribe and have to go through all the other steps that
the other person doesn't have to. Well, they dropped down to 13th.
I am asking the people in this body to support this bill if you
believe in self-determination, if you believe in self-sufficiency, if
you believe in the right to get ahead, especially in nations by this
Congress that gave them the ability to be self-determined. They really
take it away.
So this is a good piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that
should be voted ``yes'' on. We should give a chance for the American
Indian to go forth as I know they have the capability of.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chair, today I will vote against H.R. 538, the
Native American Energy Act. The bill makes needed changes to allow
tribes to fully manage their lands which I strongly support.
Unfortunately, it goes too far by weakening bedrock environmental
protections, and makes it difficult for those with legitimate legal
grievances to seek justice.
Technically the 2005 Energy Act allows tribes to enter into energy
development leases
[[Page H6916]]
through what are called Tribal Energy Resource Agreements, which must
be approved by Interior. I say technically because no tribe has ever
been successful in doing so. Tribes have submitted proposals that have
sat with Interior for as long as eight years and then were never
approved. Interior has never clarified what requirements are needed to
gain approval. Potential business partners cannot and will not sit wait
to see if the federal government will do its job. They will find
partners that are able to move forward.
One of most laudable parts of the bill is the creation of biomass
demonstration projects. Our forests are overgrown and are infected with
insects and disease. Fuel reduction is vital to forest health and
reducing the severity of fires. Often overgrowth is not suitable for
timber production, but can be suitable for energy production. Many
tribes are ready to take advantage of these resources; they have their
own processing facilities, trained work force and infrastructure in
place to discover benefits to improve forest health, maintain fish and
wildlife habitat, and create renewable energy.
Tribes, lest we forget, are sovereign nations. Yet they regularly
encounter obstacles not experienced by private landowners. The federal
government already has the tools to solve this inequity, but refuses to
do so. The lack of urgency to correct what amounts to bureaucratic
indifference is not acceptable. America's first stewards of the land
have the right to manage and develop their lands, and the federal
government's inaction to ensure their rights is deplorable.
Because the bill goes beyond necessary reforms by curtailing
environmental and judicial review, the president has issued a veto
threat. I look forward to the Senate removing those provisions which
unnecessarily hinder what could be a good bill and sending it back to
the House.
The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Foxx). All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-30. That
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
H.R. 538
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 ``Native American Energy
Act''.
SEC. 2. APPRAISALS.
(a) Amendment.--Title XXVI of the Energy Policy Act of 1992
(25 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 2607. APPRAISAL REFORMS.
``(a) Options to Indian Tribes.--With respect to a
transaction involving Indian land or the trust assets of an
Indian tribe that requires the approval of the Secretary, any
appraisal relating to fair market value required to be
conducted under applicable law, regulation, or policy may be
completed by--
``(1) the Secretary;
``(2) the affected Indian tribe; or
``(3) a certified, third-party appraiser pursuant to a
contract with the Indian tribe.
``(b) Time Limit on Secretarial Review and Action.--Not
later than 30 days after the date on which the Secretary
receives an appraisal conducted by or for an Indian tribe
pursuant to paragraphs (2) or (3) of subsection (a), the
Secretary shall--
``(1) review the appraisal; and
``(2) provide to the Indian tribe a written notice of
approval or disapproval of the appraisal.
``(c) Failure of Secretary To Approve or Disapprove.--If,
after 60 days, the Secretary has failed to approve or
disapprove any appraisal received, the appraisal shall be
deemed approved.
``(d) Option to Indian Tribes To Waive Appraisal.--
``(1) An Indian tribe wishing to waive the requirements of
subsection (a), may do so after it has satisfied the
requirements of paragraphs (2) and (3).
``(2) An Indian tribe wishing to forego the necessity of a
waiver pursuant to this section must provide to the Secretary
a written resolution, statement, or other unambiguous
indication of tribal intent, duly approved by the governing
body of the Indian tribe.
``(3) The unambiguous indication of intent provided by the
Indian tribe to the Secretary under paragraph (2) must
include an express waiver by the Indian tribe of any claims
for damages it might have against the United States as a
result of the lack of an appraisal undertaken.
``(e) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the
term `appraisal' includes appraisals and other estimates of
value.
``(f) Regulations.--The Secretary shall develop regulations
for implementing this section, including standards the
Secretary shall use for approving or disapproving an
appraisal.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents of the
Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13201 note) is amended
by adding at the end of the items relating to title XXVI the
following:
``Sec. 2607. Appraisal reforms.''.
SEC. 3. STANDARDIZATION.
As soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall implement
procedures to ensure that each agency within the Department
of the Interior that is involved in the review, approval, and
oversight of oil and gas activities on Indian lands shall use
a uniform system of reference numbers and tracking systems
for oil and gas wells.
SEC. 4. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS OF MAJOR FEDERAL ACTIONS ON
INDIAN LANDS.
Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332) is amended by inserting ``(a) In
General.--'' before the first sentence, and by adding at the
end the following:
``(b) Review of Major Federal Actions on Indian Lands.--
``(1) In general.--For any major Federal action on Indian
lands of an Indian tribe requiring the preparation of a
statement under subsection (a)(2)(C), the statement shall
only be available for review and comment by the members of
the Indian tribe and by any other individual residing within
the affected area.
``(2) Regulations.--The Chairman of the Council on
Environmental Quality shall develop regulations to implement
this section, including descriptions of affected areas for
specific major Federal actions, in consultation with Indian
tribes.
``(3) Definitions.--In this subsection, each of the terms
`Indian land' and `Indian tribe' has the meaning given that
term in section 2601 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (25
U.S.C. 3501).
``(4) Clarification of authority.--Nothing in the Native
American Energy Act, except section 6 of that Act, shall give
the Secretary any additional authority over energy projects
on Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act lands.''.
SEC. 5. JUDICIAL REVIEW.
(a) Time for Filing Complaint.--Any energy related action
must be filed not later than the end of the 60-day period
beginning on the date of the final agency action. Any energy
related action not filed within this time period shall be
barred.
(b) District Court Venue and Deadline.--All energy related
actions--
(1) shall be brought in the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia; and
(2) shall be resolved as expeditiously as possible, and in
any event not more than 180 days after such cause of action
is filed.
(c) Appellate Review.--An interlocutory order or final
judgment, decree or order of the district court in an energy
related action may be reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit. The D.C. Circuit Court
of Appeals shall resolve such appeal as expeditiously as
possible, and in any event not more than 180 days after such
interlocutory order or final judgment, decree or order of the
district court was issued.
(d) Limitation on Certain Payments.--Notwithstanding
section 1304 of title 31, United States Code, no award may be
made under section 504 of title 5, United States Code, or
under section 2412 of title 28, United States Code, and no
amounts may be obligated or expended from the Claims and
Judgment Fund of the United States Treasury to pay any fees
or other expenses under such sections, to any person or party
in an energy related action.
(e) Legal Fees.--In any energy related action in which the
plaintiff does not ultimately prevail, the court shall award
to the defendant (including any intervenor-defendants), other
than the United States, fees and other expenses incurred by
that party in connection with the energy related action,
unless the court finds that the position of the plaintiff was
substantially justified or that special circumstances make an
award unjust. Whether or not the position of the plaintiff
was substantially justified shall be determined on the basis
of the administrative record, as a whole, which is made in
the energy related action for which fees and other expenses
are sought.
(f) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section, the
following definitions apply:
(1) Agency action.--The term ``agency action'' has the same
meaning given such term in section 551 of title 5, United
States Code.
(2) Indian land.--The term ``Indian Land'' has the same
meaning given such term in section 203(c)(3) of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58; 25 U.S.C. 3501),
including lands owned by Native Corporations under the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (Public Law 92-203; 43 U.S.C.
1601).
(3) Energy related action.--The term ``energy related
action'' means a cause of action that--
(A) is filed on or after the effective date of this Act;
and
(B) seeks judicial review of a final agency action to issue
a permit, license, or other form of agency permission
allowing:
(i) any person or entity to conduct activities on Indian
Land, which activities involve the exploration, development,
production or transportation of oil, gas, coal, shale gas,
oil shale, geothermal resources, wind or solar resources,
underground coal gasification, biomass, or the generation of
electricity; or
(ii) any Indian Tribe, or any organization of two or more
entities, at least one of which is an Indian tribe, to
conduct activities involving the exploration, development,
production or transportation of oil, gas, coal, shale gas,
oil shale, geothermal resources, wind or solar resources,
underground coal gasification, biomass, or the generation of
electricity, regardless of where such activities are
undertaken.
[[Page H6917]]
(4) Ultimately prevail.--The phrase ``ultimately prevail''
means, in a final enforceable judgment, the court rules in
the party's favor on at least one cause of action which is an
underlying rationale for the preliminary injunction,
administrative stay, or other relief requested by the party,
and does not include circumstances where the final agency
action is modified or amended by the issuing agency unless
such modification or amendment is required pursuant to a
final enforceable judgment of the court or a court-ordered
consent decree.
SEC. 6. TRIBAL BIOMASS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.
The Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004 is amended by
inserting after section 2 (25 U.S.C. 3115a) the following:
``SEC. 3. TRIBAL BIOMASS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.
``(a) In General.--For each of fiscal years 2016 through
2020, the Secretary shall enter into stewardship contracts or
other agreements, other than agreements that are exclusively
direct service contracts, with Indian tribes to carry out
demonstration projects to promote biomass energy production
(including biofuel, heat, and electricity generation) on
Indian forest land and in nearby communities by providing
reliable supplies of woody biomass from Federal land.
``(b) Definitions.--The definitions in section 2 shall
apply to this section.
``(c) Demonstration Projects.--In each fiscal year for
which projects are authorized, the Secretary shall enter into
contracts or other agreements described in subsection (a) to
carry out at least 4 new demonstration projects that meet the
eligibility criteria described in subsection (d).
``(d) Eligibility Criteria.--To be eligible to enter into a
contract or other agreement under this subsection, an Indian
tribe shall submit to the Secretary an application--
``(1) containing such information as the Secretary may
require; and
``(2) that includes a description of--
``(A) the Indian forest land or rangeland under the
jurisdiction of the Indian tribe; and
``(B) the demonstration project proposed to be carried out
by the Indian tribe.
``(e) Selection.--In evaluating the applications submitted
under subsection (c), the Secretary--
``(1) shall take into consideration the factors set forth
in paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 2(e) of Public Law 108-
278; and whether a proposed demonstration project would--
``(A) increase the availability or reliability of local or
regional energy;
``(B) enhance the economic development of the Indian tribe;
``(C) improve the connection of electric power transmission
facilities serving the Indian tribe with other electric
transmission facilities;
``(D) improve the forest health or watersheds of Federal
land or Indian forest land or rangeland; or
``(E) otherwise promote the use of woody biomass; and
``(2) shall exclude from consideration any merchantable
logs that have been identified by the Secretary for
commercial sale.
``(f) Implementation.--The Secretary shall--
``(1) ensure that the criteria described in subsection (c)
are publicly available by not later than 120 days after the
date of enactment of this section; and
``(2) to the maximum extent practicable, consult with
Indian tribes and appropriate intertribal organizations
likely to be affected in developing the application and
otherwise carrying out this section.
``(g) Report.--Not later than one year subsequent to the
date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit
to Congress a report that describes, with respect to the
reporting period--
``(1) each individual tribal application received under
this section; and
``(2) each contract and agreement entered into pursuant to
this section.
``(h) Incorporation of Management Plans.--In carrying out a
contract or agreement under this section, on receipt of a
request from an Indian tribe, the Secretary shall incorporate
into the contract or agreement, to the extent practicable,
management plans (including forest management and integrated
resource management plans) in effect on the Indian forest
land or rangeland of the respective Indian tribe.
``(i) Term.--A stewardship contract or other agreement
entered into under this section--
``(1) shall be for a term of not more than 20 years; and
``(2) may be renewed in accordance with this section for
not more than an additional 10 years.''.
SEC. 7. TRIBAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS.
Unless otherwise explicitly exempted by Federal law enacted
after the date of the enactment of this Act, any activity
conducted or resources harvested or produced pursuant to a
tribal resource management plan or an integrated resource
management plan approved by the Secretary of the Interior
under the National Indian Forest Resources Management Act (25
U.S.C. 3101 et seq.) or the American Indian Agricultural
Resource Management Act (25 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.), shall be
considered a sustainable management practice for purposes of
any Federal standard, benefit, or requirement that requires a
demonstration of such sustainability.
SEC. 8. LEASES OF RESTRICTED LANDS FOR THE NAVAJO NATION.
Subsection (e)(1) of the first section of the Act of August
9, 1955 (25 U.S.C. 415(e)(1); commonly referred to as the
``Long-Term Leasing Act''), is amended--
(1) by striking ``, except a lease for'' and inserting ``,
including leases for'';
(2) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``25'' the first place
it appears and all that follows and inserting ``99 years;'';
(3) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and
inserting ``; and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) in the case of a lease for the exploration,
development, or extraction of mineral resources, including
geothermal resources, 25 years, except that any such lease
may include an option to renew for one additional term not to
exceed 25 years.''.
SEC. 9. NONAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN RULES.
No rule promulgated by the Department of the Interior
regarding hydraulic fracturing used in the development or
production of oil or gas resources shall have any effect on
any land held in trust or restricted status for the benefit
of Indians except with the express consent of the beneficiary
on whose behalf such land is held in trust or restricted
status.
The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part A of House
Report 114-290. 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. Young of Alaska
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in part A of House Report 114-290.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chair, I have an amendment that was made
in order under the rule.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 4, strike lines 9 through 15, and insert the
following:
``(1) Review and comment.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the statement required under subsection (a)(2)(C) for a major
Federal action regarding an activity on Indian lands of an
Indian tribe shall only be available for review and comment
by the members of the Indian tribe, other individuals
residing within the affected area, and State, federally
recognized tribal, and local governments within the affected
area.
``(B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to a
statement for a major Federal action regarding an activity on
Indian lands of an Indian tribe related to gaming under the
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 466, the gentleman
from Alaska (Mr. Young) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chairman, this amendment clarifies who may
submit public comments on a NEPA study concerning a Federal permit or
land approval for Indian lands. It also preserves current NEPA
requirements concerning tribal gaming proposals.
When a NEPA study is done on Federal action, like a mineral lease
approval on Indian lands, the agency must consider comments received by
any member of the public, regardless of whether they are affected. This
is unfair to the tribe because tribal lands are not public land. They
are private lands.
Section 4 of the bill limits public comment in these situations to
the tribe and individuals who live within the affected area of the
project.
Section 4 was drafted. We expected an individual living within the
affected area would include State, tribal, and county officials, but no
one from New York or San Francisco. It is none of their business.
To address any ambiguity, the amendment would clarify that tribe,
States, and county governments within the area affected may have their
comments considered along with those of individuals.
Finally, the amendment provides that section 4 will not affect
Federal actions related to tribal gaming. Gaming is a unique area of
law. Gaming facilities have a significant impact outside the local
area.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition to the
manager's amendment, although I am not in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Arizona is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I just want to tell Chairman Young that I
appreciate the lipstick on this particular
[[Page H6918]]
piece of legislation, but the content is still haphazard.
It does not fix the underlying problem with public review and
judicial review. We are not in opposition, but I appreciate the
lipstick.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chair, I hope it is the right color for
Ranking Member Grijalva.
I yield back the balance of time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in part A of House Report 114-290.
Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Madam Chair, I have an
amendment made in order under the rule.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 12, after line 6, insert the following:
``SEC. 4. TRIBAL FOREST MANAGEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.
``The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of
Agriculture may carry out demonstration projects by which
federally recognized Indian tribes or tribal organizations
may contract to perform administrative, management, and other
functions of programs of the Tribal Forest Protection Act of
2004 (25 U.S.C. 3115a et seq.) through contracts entered into
under the Indian Self -Determination and Education Assistance
Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq).''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 466, the gentlewoman
from New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman.
Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Madam Chair, I yield myself
as much time as I may consume.
I rise in support of my amendment that allows the Forest Service to
establish a pilot program to execute contracts with tribes under the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, known as 638
contracts. 638 contracts allow tribes to manage and implement Federal
programs in Indian Country.
When I was the New Mexico Secretary of Health, I witnessed how
successful and beneficial these contracts can be at efficiently
delivering services to tribes. Through these contracts, tribes can
operate hospitals, health clinics, mental health facilities, and a
variety of other community health services.
Having tribes manage and operate programs in their communities not
only recognizes tribal self-determination and self-governance, but it
also helps ensure that tribal needs are being met through traditionally
and culturally appropriate methods.
Although several agencies have the authority to execute 638
contracts, such as the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of
Reclamation, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Services, the
Forest Service does not have this authority. Several tribes have
expressed to me that they would like to see the Forest Service have
this authority.
Many of the Pueblos in New Mexico have land and tribal forests
adjacent to national forests, and we know that wildfires in the past
can quickly affect entire regions, regardless of who owns the land.
In fact, the Las Conchas wildland fire, which was one of the largest
wildfires in New Mexico history, started on June 26, 2011, in the Santa
Fe National Forest and burned more than 156,000 acres in New Mexico,
including land belonging to Pueblos of Santa Clara, Ohkay Owingeh, San
Ildefonso, Pojoaque Jemez, Cochiti, and Kewa.
So it is imperative that the Forest Service and tribes actively work
together to co-manage forests.
This amendment previously passed by voice vote as part of the
Resilient Federal Forest Act, which the House passed this July.
I urge my colleagues to once again support my amendment, which will
improve the Forest Service's ability to partner with tribes to work on
projects that impact tribal lands and forests.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim
the time in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Alaska?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chair, I yield myself as much time as I
may consume.
Madam Chair, I do not oppose the amendment. I just want to
congratulate the lady on backing up what is in the bill, making this
correct.
We have had testimony from a lot of the timber tribes on how well
they have managed their timber, and right next door will be the Forest
Service land that is managed terribly. That is a threat to the tribal
timber, too.
I really think, if we want to get back on this track of the freedoms
I was talking about, if we allow the tribes to contract with the Forest
Service, make it a contract for thinning, encouraging growth, managing
growth for future timber needs--you know, the native tribes are doing
so much better than the Federal tribes. So I compliment the lady on
this deal.
{time} 1545
I compliment the gentlewoman on this view, and I accept the
amendment. I think the gentlewoman is doing a great job, and I
appreciate it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Holding) having assumed the chair, Ms. Foxx, 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. 538) to
facilitate the development of energy on Indian lands by reducing
Federal regulations that impede tribal development of Indian lands, and
for other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 466, she reported
the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted in the Committee
of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to
recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. I am opposed in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico moves to recommit the bill
H.R. 538 to the Natural Resources Committee, with
instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith,
with the following amendment:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. 10. PHYSICAL INTEGRITY OF SACRED SITES.
Nothing in this Act shall contravene the authority of the
President to avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity
of any site, identified as sacred by virtue of established
religious significance to, or ceremonial use by, an Indian
religion, under Executive Order 13007 (May 24, 1996).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, this is the final
amendment to the bill, which does not kill the bill or send it back to
committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final
passage, as amended.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer an amendment to protect sacred
sites across America. This issue is not a new one. We have been part of
many debates here on the floor and in committee on this important
issue.
[[Page H6919]]
The amendment is straightforward. It reads: ``Nothing in this Act
shall contravene the authority of the President to avoid adversely
affecting the physical integrity of any site, identified as sacred by
virtue of established religious significance to, or ceremonial use by,
an Indian religion, under Executive Order 13007.''
Mr. Speaker, as we come from different faiths, we all have respect
for one another. Just as we worship in different places, like churches
or temples, so, too, should we have respect for these sacred places.
Just as we would honor the sanctity of where our loved ones have been
laid to rest, so, too, should we honor the sanctity of tribal sacred
sites.
Sacred sites are an essential part of the culture and heritage of
tribal communities, and the degradation of these sites means a loss of
identity as well as disrespect for the faith and religion and the
culture and the history of our tribal brothers and sisters who are
connected to these lands. Sacred sites should not be desecrated. They
should be protected.
I know it is a sentiment that many of us in this Congress share.
Protecting sacred sites is the right thing to do. I ask my colleagues
to join me in supporting this very important amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion
to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in this act that
changes the President's authority. I go back to self-determination.
These are tribal lands owned by the tribes, controlled by the tribal
council, and they will make a decision about the sacred sites; not
somebody, again, in Miami or New York that wants to stop the project.
These are tribal sites, and that is the thing I don't quite
understand. This affects nothing of the present law. If they decide
this is a sacred site, that will be their decision, instead of someone
else.
I urge people to reject his motion to recommit, and let's pass this
legislation, this one little, tiny step forward for our first
Americans. This bill came from them and they support it. They are not
worried about these sacred sites because they will control them, not
somebody who is an official. We take no authority away from the
President.
Very frankly, Mr. Speaker, this is a motion to recommit to slow the
bill down. They say it doesn't, but this is an attempt to do so. I urge
a ``no'' on the motion to recommit and a ``yes'' on the passage for
that little, tiny step for the American Indians, our first people.
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.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage of the bill.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 184,
nays 239, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 543]
YEAS--184
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--239
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOT VOTING--11
Brat
Cleaver
Dingell
Hinojosa
Hudson
Payne
Pittenger
Reed
Sinema
Stutzman
Thornberry
{time} 1621
Messrs. ROYCE, AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia, FINCHER, POMPEO, and RYAN of
Wisconsin changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mses. LEE, LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Messrs. HIGGINS, CONYERS,
DOGGETT, and McDERMOTT changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
[[Page H6920]]
Mr. BRAT. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 543 I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Black). The question is on the passage
of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 254,
nays 173, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 544]
YEAS--254
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--173
Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--7
Cleaver
Dingell
Hinojosa
Hudson
Payne
Pittenger
Sinema
{time} 1630
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________