[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.

                          ____________________