[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2605-2621]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                PUBLIC ACCESS AND LANDS IMPROVEMENT ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2954.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McClintock). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 472 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2954.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  0913


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2954) to authorize Escambia County, Florida, to convey certain 
property that was formerly part of Santa Rosa Island National Monument 
and that was conveyed to Escambia County subject to restrictions on use 
and reconveyance, with Mr. Denham in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read 
the first time.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Public Access and Lands Improvement Act, H.R. 2954, 
is a bipartisan package of 10 bills to protect and promote public 
access to lands; to improve opportunities by removing red tape that 
stands in the way of responsible, local economic development and jobs; 
and to encourage transparent community center land management.
  This small grouping of bills will advance important local projects 
that will have a direct impact on jobs and on economic growth in 
communities throughout the country.

                              {time}  0915

  The package includes several commonsense land conveyance bills to 
remove unnecessary bureaucratic strings attached to how land is used 
and how it is managed. It recognizes that locally elected leaders, not 
Federal bureaucrats, know how to best manage certain lands.
  There are measures to prevent unreasonable Federal regulations or 
actions from destroying a historic lookout tower in my home State of 
Washington, blocking unreasonable public recreation access to the Cape 
Hatteras seashore in North Carolina, and preventing the use of hand-
powered boats, such as kayaks, in several national parks in the West.
  This bill will help family businesses and ranchers by implementing 
commonsense reforms to the process of renewing livestock grazing 
permits. Livestock grazing on Federal lands is an important part of the 
American ranching tradition. This bill will help our Nation's ranchers 
operate more efficiently and with greater certainty.
  The package, Mr. Chairman, also includes legislation sponsored by the 
Public Lands Subcommittee chairman, Mr. Bishop of Utah, requiring the 
BLM to establish an Internet database for all BLM lands that are 
available for sale to the public.
  In the year 2014, if I may be parochial, when a Seahawks fan can 
purchase a championship hat on the Internet just moments after the 
Superbowl ends, the Federal Government can certainly get its act 
together and post its lands that are available for sale online.
  This bill will expedite the planning and implementation of emergency 
salvage timber sales for Federal lands in California that were ravaged 
by the Rim Fire last summer. Without prompt emergency action, the 
impacts of this devastating wildfire could become even worse. Fire-
damaged trees invite disease. They invite insect infestations. They 
increase the risk of future wildfires, and they are a threat to visitor 
safety. Emergency salvage and forest restoration efforts should not be 
delayed due to bureaucratic hurdles and lawsuits.
  Finally, the bill provides for transparency and accountability in how 
Federal funds are spent in protecting the Chesapeake Bay.
  This small package of bills is reasonable, responsible, and it 
reflects the will of local communities and their elected leaders. It 
deserves support, I believe, from my Democrat and Republican 
colleagues.
  Before concluding my remarks on this piece of legislation and 
listening to the statement of the gentleman from Arizona, I would like 
to briefly address the legislative work of this committee as a whole. 
The committee, of course, I speak of is the Natural Resources 
Committee.
  Just this week, the House will have considered three measures from 
the House Natural Resources Committee. Two of these packages were 
individual bills, which means a total of 18 different bills from this 
committee will have effectively been considered and debated and voted 
upon by the House this week.
  Prior to this week, over the first 13 months of this Congress, the 
Natural Resources Committee has advanced nearly 60 individual bills 
through the House. Nearly 50 of those bills have passed on a broad 
bipartisan basis under the expedited suspension process. Ten bills 
under the jurisdiction of the committee, both Republican and Democrat, 
have been signed by the President, which represents a noticeable 
percentage of the public laws that have been enacted by this Congress. 
These totals do not include individual bills included in other 
measures, such as bills that were included in the Defense Authorization 
Act.
  Mr. Chairman, this statement is not made as a pat on the back, but to 
make clear that the intent of this committee is to dutifully work and 
act on priorities for our Nation. They may be narrow bills to resolve a 
parochial problem or broad measures affecting the country as a whole. 
Of course, the nature of our committee is to deal with, in many cases, 
bills that deal on very parochial issues. That is one of the reasons 
why there are so many bills that come out of our committee.
  In matters of broad policy, some are of great urgency, such as the 
importance of restoring responsible, active

[[Page 2606]]

forest management to both support economically struggling rural 
communities and to improve the health of Federal forests. We passed 
that bill earlier this year. Just yesterday, the House moved swiftly to 
provide a solution to the devastating drought in California.
  We have also acted on multiple bipartisan measures to streamline red 
tape and boost America's ability to safely harness our vast energy 
resources to create jobs--because we know that energy jobs are good-
paying jobs--to lower prices, and to strengthen our national security 
by reducing dependence on foreign energy from hostile nations.
  On each of these measures, it is time for the Senate to act and to 
pass their own proposals so that we can then work to reach an 
agreement. Obviously, there will be differences between both Houses, 
but they need to pass their legislation so we can work on the 
differences so that these measures can become law. We have differences, 
but we have a responsibility to represent those we are elected to serve 
and put forward real solutions for the challenges facing the American 
people.
  There are dozens of bills solving local problems, implementing 
locally supported solutions, and establishing protections for historic 
and special places that can be acted on by both the House and the 
Senate. I believe that this is possible on matters under the 
jurisdiction of the Natural Resources Committee, that we can find 
common ground with the Senate. Why do I say that? Because we have 
successfully done so repeatedly over this last year. That is why there 
are a noticeable number of public laws from our committees that have 
been acted on by the House and have gone to the President.
  But, as always, this will require a willingness to recognize and 
respect differences in philosophy and procedure in both the House and 
in the Senate. It must be a two-way street where each Chamber acts on 
the other's priorities, but, again, has successfully been done in the 
past, and I know it can be done in the future. The Republican majority 
in the House has demonstrated our willingness to do so while 
maintaining our fundamental views on Federal land management, the 
importance of multiple use of public lands, and the ability of local 
communities to make better decisions for themselves than Federal 
bureaucracies.
  So as we conclude this week's full slate of action on House Natural 
Resources Committee bills, I pledge to continue working with my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of the Capitol 
to make progress in the days, weeks, and months ahead.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me congratulate the chairman on the Seahawks, and also remind him 
that there was a long 16-game season. They won their division. They 
played San Francisco three times, two out of three, and then after that 
they went into the playoffs. Then after the playoffs, they went to the 
championship game and, finally, to the Superbowl, which they won. 
Congratulations. So it is great that you got that cap 1 minute after 
the game was over. I am pointing out that there was a long, deliberate 
process with rules, games to be won, that encompassed the whole season. 
Sometimes us rushing legislation is cutting corners that great 
championship teams like the Seahawks never do.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Cartwright), my colleague.
  I will have more to say on the specifics of this legislation later.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Grijalva).
  I rise today to express my opposition to H.R. 2954, the mistitled 
Public Access and Lands Improvement Act. Rather than improving our 
Nation's lands, this bill negatively affects our land management 
decisions. It conveys or disposes of Federal lands improperly. It 
rewrites grazing policy, and it waives numerous environmental laws like 
the Natural Environmental Policy Act, the Wilderness Act, and the 
Endangered Species Act.
  Overall, H.R. 2954 contains a number of provisions that would 
undermine the responsible balance of interests and considerations in 
the stewardship of our Nation's lands and our Nation's resources.
  Included in the myriad of poor land management provisions that this 
bill cobbles together is language that gives away thousands of acres of 
Federal land in Florida, Alaska, and Nevada, valued at millions of 
dollars, without a transparent public planning process. When the 
Federal Government gives away land, we do so with certain 
understandings of how it will be used. It is just wrong to change the 
rules without due consideration and without any compensation for the 
Federal Government--the taxpayers of this Nation--if others will now 
profit from this land.
  Yet another ill-advised land management provision, H.R. 2954 also 
prevents the Bureau of Land Management from carrying out its mission to 
manage public lands for multiple use. Specifically, this bill requires 
that until the agency creates a public database of all lands identified 
for disposal, BLM would be barred from all land acquisitions. This is 
couched as a transparency measure when, in reality, it is nothing more 
than an attempt to prevent and delay BLM from doing its all-important 
work.
  Further, provisions of the bill would disregard or reduce public 
engagement on a range of community interests, including natural 
resource protections. In fact, H.R. 2954 would overturn a multiyear 
National Park Service process that has resulted in balanced provisions 
that protect threatened shorebirds and endangered nesting sea turtles 
while preserving the economic health of the community at the Cape 
Hatteras National Seashore. The National Park Service should be allowed 
to continue their balanced and successful management of Cape Hatteras 
National Seashore in order to ensure these critical protections remain 
in place.
  Along with these poor land management decisions and irresponsible 
consideration of our Nation's lands and natural resources, H.R. 2954 
would eliminate or delay timely reviews of grazing leases necessary to 
ensure sound conservation principles.
  In addition, H.R. 2954 includes a bill to expedite salvaged logging 
on the Rim Fire area of northern California, overriding NEPA and 
administrative and judicial review.
  The end result after piecing together all these provisions is a piece 
of legislation that waives Federal law, including laws that require 
consultation with Federal, State, local, or tribal governments or with 
local residents in order, among other things, to expedite timber 
harvest on certain Federal lands in California; reverse course on the 
science-based National Park Service plan that provides an appropriate 
balance of off-road vehicle access and protection of sensitive seashore 
areas in North Carolina; and waive NEPA in multiple scenarios, 
weakening important public involvement and planning provisions.
  Mr. Chairman, our public lands and natural resources would simply be 
mismanaged, unprotected, and undervalued as a result of this bill. I 
believe we have to put partisan politics aside and work together to 
protect and responsibly manage America's natural resources and to 
support and ensure that the Nation's spectacular landscapes, unique 
natural life, and cultural resources and icons endure for future 
generations. This bill is just a giant step in the wrong direction.
  Mr. Chairman, for all these reasons, I urge my colleagues here in the 
House to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2954.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), who is the 
author of one of the titles of the bill.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and 
particularly want to thank him for his work on the Natural Resources 
Committee and for his invaluable assistance on this bill.
  This summer, the biggest fire in the history of the Sierra Nevada 
mountains burned 400 square miles of

[[Page 2607]]

forestland. The fire left behind an unprecedented swath of 
environmental devastation that threatens the loss not only of the 
affected forestland for generations to come, but sets events in motion 
that could destroy the surrounding forest for many years to come.
  The fire also left behind hundreds of millions of board feet of dead 
timber that is on Federal land that could be sold to raise millions of 
dollars, money that could then be used to replant and reforest our 
devastated lands. In addition, processing that timber would help to 
revive the economy of a stricken region.
  But time is already running out. Within a year, the value of the 
timber declines rapidly as the wood is devoured by insects and rot. 
That is the problem. Cumbersome environmental reviews and litigation 
that inevitably follow will run up the clock of this valuable asset 
until it becomes absolutely worthless.

                              {time}  0930

  Indeed, it becomes worse than worthless--it becomes hazardous. Bark 
and wood-boring beetles are already moving in to feast on the dead and 
dying timber, and a population explosion of pestilence can be expected 
if those dead trees remain. The beetles won't confine themselves to the 
fire areas, posing a mortal threat to the adjacent forests.
  By the time the normal bureaucratic reviews and lawsuits have run 
their course, what was once forestland will have already begun 
converting to brushland, and by the following year, reforestation will 
have become infinitely more difficult and expensive. Within just a few 
years, several feet of dry brush will have built up, and the smaller 
trees will have begun toppling on this tinder. It is not possible to 
build a more perfect fire stack than that. That means that intense 
second-generation fires will take advantage of this fuel, sterilizing 
the soil, eroding the landscape, fouling the watersheds, and 
jeopardizing surrounding forests.
  Without timely salvage and reforestation, we know the fate of the 
Sierras because we have seen the result of neglect after previous 
fires. The trees don't come back for many, many generations. Instead, 
thick brush takes over the land that was once shaded by towering 
forests. It quickly overwhelms any seedlings struggling to make a 
start. It replaces the diverse ecosystems supported by the forests with 
scrub brush.
  For this reason, I introduced H.R. 3188, which waives the time-
consuming environmental review process and prevents the endless 
litigation that always follows. It authorizes Federal forest managers, 
following well-established environmental protocols for salvage, to sell 
the dead timber and to supervise its careful removal while there is 
still time. The millions of dollars raised can then be directed toward 
replanting the region before layers of brush choke off any chance of 
forest regrowth in the foreseeable future.
  It was modeled on legislation authored by Democratic Senator Tom 
Daschle for salvaging dead and dying trees in the Black Hills National 
Forest, a measure credited with speeding the preservation and recovery 
of that forest. Unfortunately, the bill spawned lurid tales from the 
activist left of uncontrolled logging in the Sierras. Nothing could be 
further from the truth. The legislation vests full control of the 
salvage plans with Federal forest managers, not the logging companies. 
It leaves Federal foresters in charge of enforcing salvage plans that 
fully protect the environment.
  Because of the opposition--and we heard a little bit of it just a 
moment ago--in a few minutes, I will offer an amendment that was worked 
out in consultation with the U.S. Forest Service and with several 
Democratic offices, and I hope it will receive bipartisan support. It 
preserves the EIS process and the environmental and judicial reviews, 
but it expedites them and assures that salvage under the direction of 
the Forest Service can begin this spring.
  There is plenty of room for compromise, but there is absolutely no 
excuse for inaction. The left wants a policy of benign neglect--to let 
a quarter of a million acres of destroyed timber rot in place, to 
surrender the ravaged land to beetles and to watch contentedly as the 
forest ecosystem is replaced by scrub brush. It is true that without 
human intervention the forests will eventually return in about a 
century from now but certainly not in the lifetimes of ourselves, of 
our children or of our children's children. If we want to stop the loss 
of this forestland and if we want to control the beetle infestation 
before it explodes out of control, the dead timber has to come out 
soon.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. If we take it up now, we can generate the funds 
necessary to suppress brush buildup, to plant new seedlings and to 
restore these forests for the use and enjoyment of our children. If we 
wait for the normal bureaucratic reviews and litigation and delays, we 
will have lost these forests for the next several generations.
  The irony is that 16,000 acres of that same forest were destroyed but 
were on private land. The owner, Sierra Pacific Industries, is in the 
process of salvaging the timber on their lands. They will be done by 
this summer, and then they will begin reforesting from a portion of 
those proceeds. Meanwhile, the public lands lay unattended. Let me tell 
you something. Within a couple of years, the difference is going to be 
dramatic. We will have fully salvaged and reforested private lands next 
to neglected, overgrown public lands that are dry with scrub brush and 
just waiting for the next fire.
  The public management of our lands will be judged in comparison with 
the management of the private lands, and if we maintain current law, we 
will have been held in the balance and found wonting.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlelady from Washington (Ms. DelBene).
  Ms. DelBENE. Thank you.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today with great frustration, and must oppose 
the Public Access and Lands Improvement Act in its current form.
  This bill is a merger of 10 public lands and natural resource bills, 
all of which are unrelated to each other and many of which would ignore 
the best available science, would compromise the stewardship of our 
public lands and would completely disregard the bedrock environmental 
laws that have served to protect our environment and cherished open 
space for decades.
  That being said, there is one part of this bill that I do support. 
Buried in title VI of this bill is the Green Mountain Lookout Heritage 
Protection Act, which I introduced with Congressman Larsen and Senators 
Murray and Cantwell.
  Green Mountain Lookout, located in the Glacier Peak Wilderness, was 
built in 1933 as a Civilian Conservation Corps project to detect fires 
and spot enemy aircraft during World War II. The lookout is an 
important, historic and unique part of the Pacific Northwest. It is a 
popular destination for hikers, and it is listed on the National 
Register of Historic Places. Unfortunately, severe weather caused the 
Green Mountain Lookout to fall into disrepair in 2001, and the U.S. 
Forest Service began taking steps to preserve the historic structure 
for future generations. However, an out-of-State group filed a lawsuit 
against the Forest Service for using machinery to conduct these 
repairs, and a U.S. District Court ordered the Forest Service to remove 
the lookout.
  My bill would allow critical and routine maintenance while keeping 
this iconic structure where it is meant to be--in its original home. 
Local governments in the area, my constituents, as well as a number of 
environmental and historic preservation groups support my bill to keep 
the Green Mountain Lookout where it is. The Natural Resources Committee 
agrees. They passed this bill unanimously last year, and why wouldn't 
they? This bill is common sense. It saves us money because it would 
actually cost more to remove the lookout than to keep it where it is.

[[Page 2608]]

  There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that, if this bill had been 
brought up on its own, by its own merits, it would have passed with 
overwhelming bipartisan support. Unfortunately, that is not what is 
happening here today. Instead, this bill has gotten wrapped up in a 
series of very controversial and divisive bills. The Green Mountain 
Lookout represents a significant piece of the Pacific Northwest's 
history, and it deserves to be protected for outdoor enthusiasts to 
enjoy for years to come. It does not deserve to be wrapped up in a 
package of bills that we all know will be dead on arrival in the 
Senate. The administration has also voiced its support for keeping the 
Green Mountain Lookout where it is while strongly opposing the rest of 
this bill.
  Green Mountain deserves a vote on its own, and I am extremely 
disappointed that my amendment to separate my bill from the rest of 
this package was denied a chance to be considered today. The way this 
piece of legislation was handled is emblematic of the dysfunction that 
is so prevalent and so unnecessary in Congress today. The people of 
Washington State expect Congress to make progress, and they expect 
compromise, not partisan exercises that won't make it to the 
President's desk or achieve a meaningful result. I am deeply 
disappointed that that is where this bill is today, and I know that 
many of my constituents are as well.
  It is my hope that I will be able to work with my colleagues from 
across the aisle to consider the Green Mountain Lookout Heritage 
Protection Act before it is too late. The need for immediate action is 
great because, if the lookout is moved once, there is no moving it 
back.
  It is simple. Taking care of our environment is critical to 
protecting the quality of life we cherish. I cannot in good conscience 
support this overall bill due to the many other harmful measures that 
are included in this package.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Labrador), who is an author of 
one of the titles of the bill.
  Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of title VIII of 
H.R. 2954, which I originally introduced as H.R. 657, the Grazing 
Improvement Act. I thank Chairman Hastings for recognizing the 
importance of this issue and for including it in H.R. 2954 for 
consideration today.
  Livestock grazing is an important part of the rich ranching tradition 
in Idaho and the United States. My home State of Idaho produces some of 
the world's finest lamb and beef. Food production is a major part of 
Idaho's history, and it is an integral part of our cultural fabric and 
our economic security. These traditions are under attack, and we must 
preserve them for future generations.
  The financial security of ranchers depends upon their responsible 
stewardship of the land. Unfortunately, the Federal process to review 
the permits which allows them to produce food has become severely 
backlogged due to lawsuits aimed at eliminating livestock from public 
lands. The local Federal land-managing offices cannot keep up with the 
pace of litigation and the endless environmental analysis. This diverts 
the already limited resources from these offices and leaves ranchers at 
risk of losing their grazing permits and jeopardizing their 
livelihoods.
  Agriculture is a challenging way to make a living, but producers 
choose this path because it is their passion, and it is their way of 
life. Several ranchers in my State of Idaho have said, if they were to 
lose their grazing permits, they would have to subdivide their land and 
further reduce their grazing areas. My bill, the Grazing Improvement 
Act, would provide relief to these ranchers and to ranchers throughout 
the country.
  It would, number one, extend livestock grazing permits from 10 to 20 
years in order to give producers adequate longevity and production 
stability. It would codify existing appropriation language to put into 
statute annual riders. It would also encourage the respective 
Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to utilize categorical 
exclusions to expedite permit processing.
  I believe that protecting our environment can be done in a manner 
that does not impede our economic growth. It is time that we improve 
our regulatory structure so that we continue to prosper as a Nation. We 
can no longer allow the Federal Government to maintain an enormous 
backlog in processing grazing permits.
  I thank the cosponsors of this legislation, and I look forward to 
working with my colleagues on this issue.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2954 is another attempt to weaken landmark 
environmental protections, to dictate land management decisions, to 
convey and dispose of Federal land, and to rewrite grazing policy.
  This Chamber, once again, will spend a day debating bad policy put 
forth by the majority, which seems to work tirelessly to undermine the 
progress of the last century Americans have made in land conservation 
and environmental protection, undeterred by reality or a desire by the 
American people for bipartisan legislation and compromise. Furthermore, 
Republicans have long criticized omnibus bills as an affront to regular 
order, but they now attempt to force this bill of bad policy proposals 
through the House, which has no chance of passing in the Senate.
  Let me quote a statement from the White House, which strongly opposes 
the bill. It reads:

       Overall, H.R. 2954 contains a number of provisions that 
     would undermine the responsible balance of interests and 
     considerations and stewardship of the Nation's lands and 
     natural resources . . . Provisions of the bill would 
     disregard or reduce public engagement on a range of community 
     interests, including natural resource protections, and would 
     preclude agencies from considering less detrimental 
     environmental alternatives . . . Provisions of the bill would 
     waive all Federal laws and consultation requirements that 
     would now initiate a timber sale without those, that would 
     eliminate the balanced limitation on off-road vehicle use 
     within the Cape Hatteras recreation area and that would waive 
     environmental review requirements for grazing activities on 
     Federal lands.

  The White House said it could support provisions that would restore 
the Green Mountain Lookout in Washington State and that would modify 
conservation programs at the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
  Overall, this legislation is going nowhere. It has no chance of ever 
becoming law, but here we are. Furthermore, even though we could be 
working together on a variety of public land issues that need to be 
addressed, like the reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund, we are, instead, debating a package of bills that fails to 
address significant issues that have bipartisan solutions. In fact, we 
can work together on some of the individual titles in this bill as 
stand-alones. We are not legislating. We are wasting valuable time. It 
is clear why the American people have such a negative view of Congress. 
Let me review quickly the substance of the package.

                              {time}  0945

  Title I would extinguish the reversionary clause covering property on 
Santa Rosa Island in Florida. The reversionary clause requires that the 
property in question is used for public purposes, since Federal land is 
for the American public in its entirety.
  What is the reason for rescinding the clause? So that the county of 
Escambia can dredge and build a harbor that would cut off access to the 
rest of the island, most of which is managed as part of the Gulf 
islands National Seashore, a unit of the National Park Service.
  Titles II and III are much of the same, Federal land grabs to be used 
for windfall profits at the expense of the American people. Title III 
goes further by waiving a number of laws, including the Endangered 
Species Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 
and Liability Act; the National Historic Preservation Act; and the 
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.
  Title IV would prevent the BLM from carrying out its mission to 
manage public lands for multiple use until the

[[Page 2609]]

agency creates a public database of all lands identified for disposal. 
BLM would be barred from all land acquisitions until such database is 
created.
  BLM currently uses a public process developed and implemented locally 
through Resource Management Plans, and approved by Congress, to 
identify parcels for acquisition or disposal. This measure would just 
add another extreme layer of bureaucracy.
  Title V would threaten endangered nesting shorebirds and sea turtles 
in the Cape Hatteras National Seashore recreational area. In 2007, the 
National Park Service placed modest limits on the use of off-highway 
vehicles on the beaches in order to limit the impacts on these species. 
The National Park Service was sued, and a judge determined the limits 
were inadequate protection for the endangered species.
  In arbitration, the parties, including all stakeholders, agreed on a 
new plan that provided adequate protection for endangered species while 
allowing managed off-highway vehicle access. This measure would require 
the seashore be managed under the first rule rather than the agreed 
upon settlement.
  Title VIII would change grazing tenure from 10 to 20 years and 
provide environmental waivers for grazing permit renewals, reissuance, 
or transfers. If we are going to reform grazing permit tenure, we 
should also talk about those ranchers who would like to get out of the 
business and retire their permits.
  Also, we should address the low cost of grazing on Federal lands. 
Grazing fees have not changed since 1996 and are significantly lower 
than in the past, while State and private landowners generally seek 
market value for grazing. This measure is completely unbalanced and 
fails to address significant grazing issues.
  Title IX, like many other natural resource measures proposed by the 
Republicans, waives NEPA, judicial review, and administrative review, 
completely disregarding the input of critical stakeholders such as the 
general public.
  In conclusion, this so-called lands package should be called the 
``Federal Lands Giveaway, Destruction of Protected Species, and Lack of 
Accountability Act.'' This package undermines the management of our 
public lands, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, the bill we are considering this morning 
includes a provision that would repeal excessive restrictions on public 
access to Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Even though the seashore is 
paid for by tax dollars, current regulations have restricted access to 
the recreational area that is owned by the taxpayer. The elected 
officials of Dare County have verified that the regulations have 
damaged the economy in the area, which relies heavily on tourism. The 
last thing that we need in eastern North Carolina--and across the 
country--is governmental regulations stifling job creation and economic 
growth.
  This bill would overturn the current rule, while restricting access 
to the seashore, and reinstitute the National Park Service's 2007 
Interim Management Strategy to govern visitor access and species 
protection at Cape Hatteras. The Interim Management Strategy was backed 
by a 113-page Biological Opinion issued by the United States Fish and 
Wildlife Service, which found that it would not jeopardize piping 
plover, sea turtles, or other species of concerns.
  Please support this legislation. Let's protect the species that need 
to be protected, but let's also protect the rights of the taxpayer. 
This bill finds the balance between the two.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), an author of one 
of the titles of the bill.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. I thank the chairman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chair, I do want to say that this is a simple solution to a very 
important property rights issue in northwest Florida.
  Pursuant to a 1947 Federal deed, Escambia County, Florida, was given 
authority to transfer property on Santa Rosa Island but could not issue 
title to that land. Instead, the county began leasing the property to 
individuals who would pay a lease fee instead of being charged a 
property tax.
  In the years since 1947, Pensacola Beach and Navarre Beach have grown 
into bustling communities and fine tourist destinations.
  Additionally, numerous pending cases in the judicial system seek to 
allow local authorities to levy taxes now on those properties that 
currently are being leased. As a result of these developments, local 
stakeholders, including the boards of commissioners of both Escambia 
and Santa Rosa Counties, asked me to introduce this piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a fairness issue. It will allow leaseholders 
the option of attaining fee simple title to their property while also 
protecting current agreements governing conservation, public access, 
and recreation. Additionally, the bill would help ease management of 
the island by allowing conveyance of certain land currently owned by 
Escambia County to Santa Rosa County.
  It is important to note that the bill does not address the issue of 
property taxes on those properties. It simply seeks to permit 
leaseholders the option to attain title to their property so that 
leaseholders and local governments can jointly address any local tax 
issues that may arise in the future.
  Contrary to a statement released by the White House yesterday, this 
bill does not remove any protections from Santa Rosa Island. Rather, it 
restates those protections that are currently in place with Santa Rosa 
County and Escambia County that are critical to this barrier island.
  I also want to take note that this bill in no way affects the right 
to public beach access, nor does it change the boundaries of the Gulf 
Islands National Seashore, nor does it impact the mission of the 
National Park Service. And contrary to what the ranking member said, 
Escambia County has absolutely no intention of dredging a bay. This is 
not going to happen.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Escambia County is protected on both sides of 
the land that they have currently now under lease by the National Park 
Service, the Gulf Islands National Seashore, so I urge all of my 
colleagues to support this commonsense bill.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  It should be noted for the record that the National Park Service 
provided a series of recommendations to make this portion of the 
legislation workable, and those were not considered during the process.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. If the National Park Service said Escambia 
County was doing this because they had an intent of doing some type of 
dredging project, they are absolutely incorrect.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Reclaiming my time, this land was to be used for public 
purposes. This is public land, not land to give away and, as stated 
before, over and over again, be dredged and used for a harbor for 
potential windfall profit. Not only that, this action completely 
disregards the conservation goals of the adjacent national seashore by 
hindering access. On one hand, we talk about limited access to public 
lands; on the other, we hinder access to those places we see fit.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah

[[Page 2610]]

(Mr. Bishop), subcommittee chairman and also an author of one of the 
titles of the bill.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by talking about some 
things that have been overstated on parts, especially the one that is 
my title.
  My title does not stop the BLM or anybody in the Interior Department 
from doing multiple use on land. It has nothing to do with management. 
It simply says they can buy no new land until they first become 
transparent and provide a database that anyone can easily accomplish.
  As with some of the other statements that have been made on the 
floor, some of them are somewhat exaggerated from what this bill 
intends to do.
  Mr. Chairman, let me talk about this bill as an entity. There is a 
common thread that runs through this bill that deals with public lands 
and people from Florida to Alaska and all stations in between. What we 
simply have found is the Federal Government has large, centralized 
bureaucracies that do our land management process that no longer meet 
the needs of people, but, rather, they hide behind rules and policies 
and regulations which make them safe for them. But they don't actually 
help people, which requires sometimes people to be flexible and think 
outside the proverbial box.
  The island in Florida that Mr. Miller was just referring to was given 
by Florida to the government, and the government gave it back to 
Florida before I was born--and that has been a while. But the concept 
here is that the government does not own this land. They don't need it, 
they don't use it, but they still wish to control it--it doesn't matter 
why; they still do--and there is no purpose for that.
  It is ludicrous that the Congressman from Alaska must come down here 
and write a law to transfer 3 acres of land in Anchorage back to the 
city of Anchorage so it can be used to benefit the people of Anchorage. 
Again, land the Federal Government does not own, they don't need, they 
don't use, but they still wish in some way to control it.
  The grazers in Idaho who produce the stuff from which Big Macs and 
Whoppers are made--and I know that from personal experience, 
obviously--only wanted to be treated fairly and consistently and with 
consideration for the needs so they can be successful in their trade.
  Kayakers in Wyoming simply want the ability to recreate on an area 
that was designed for recreation without being specifically prohibited 
by rules and regulations that were to insist and support a policy that 
we have found no longer is necessary and does not work.
  If these 10 bills were to pass, unfortunately it doesn't solve all 
our problems. Because all these 10 bills do is show a tip of the 
proverbial iceberg of the problems that we face in dealing with land 
management when it comes from a large, centralized bureaucracy and we 
no longer put our primary interest in helping people meet their needs.
  Mr. Chairman, when the Berlin Wall fell down, the entire world 
realized that large, centralized bureaucracies of the communist world 
failed.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Eastern Europe learned that, entrepreneurs 
learned that. They found that lean, aggressive companies simply take 
market share from the lumbering corporate products of the past.
  Everyone realized that a large, centralized bureaucratic program is 
ineffective, except here in Washington, D.C., where we still address 
every problem with an effort to try and build something that is going 
to be controlled here in the center of all wisdom that is large, that 
is centralized, and that is bureaucratic. It is mind-boggling that the 
Nation who defeated the Soviet Union with creativity and freedom still 
decides to solve all problems and all management issues by going back 
to a Soviet-styled agency program and concept.
  This bill is needed because it affects people throughout the length 
and breadth of this country, and it is only the beginning of what we 
need to do to set it right and make sure that our highest priority is 
people, not rules and regulations.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  We have heard our colleagues on the other side of the aisle make fun 
of the fact that the United States Congress has to be involved in such 
unimportant matters as the conveyance of Federal land, this great 
Nation defeated that the Soviet Union, and we allude to the fact that 
we have a Soviet-style centralized government with regard to land 
management in this country. I think that my colleagues need to take 
that up with the Framers of the Constitution.
  Article IV of that document states:

       The Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make 
     all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or 
     other property belonging to the United States.

  So I am sorry if the majority finds this burdensome, but the Framers 
apparently felt that Federal property was valuable and that Congress 
should play a role in determining what to do with it.

                              {time}  1000

  Let's be clear: we are talking here about Federal property, that is, 
property owned by all Americans. The land in question in Escambia 
County, Florida; Anchorage, Alaska; Fernley, Nevada; Cape Hatteras, 
North Carolina; Yellowstone and Grand Teton and the land on which 
Federal grazing occurs, the land impacted by this package is Federal 
land, owned by each and every American taxpayer.
  In the case of these land transfers, the Federal Government gave the 
land, gave it to a local community as a means of Federal support, and 
the only requirement, in most cases, was that the land always be used 
for public purposes. As long as it is a park or a school or a fire 
station, it is yours, for free.
  What these bills do is end those public purpose requirements. The 
communities want to use these lands for private profit. They want to 
close them to the public, in many cases.
  This is not a land grab by Uncle Sam. This is not some silly scheme 
by the Feds to harm local communities and to use their power to hold 
down the taxpayers and keep the public out. This is a community asking 
to make money off land that was owned by all Americans, and it is the 
job of Congress to decide if that is a good idea or not.
  Let's put one other misleading claim to rest. While Republicans claim 
the Federal Government owns too much land, the historic trend has been 
one of divestiture and fragmentation.
  As recently as the late 1860s, the Federal Government owned 1.8 
billion of the 2.3 billion acres in the contiguous United States. 
Grants to States, homesteaders, land-grant colleges, railroads and 
others settling in the Alaska and the West have reduced Federal land 
ownership by roughly 640 million acres to date.
  We have been giving land away for centuries, not buying it up. Today 
we have a whole series of bills seeking more Federal land, and we owe 
it to the American people--the American people require that we consider 
this carefully, and the Constitution requires that Congress be 
empowered to consider these carefully.
  These mischaracterizations are not helpful in the discussions. These 
bills are not in the best interest of the American people, on the 
merits alone, and using misinformation to claim otherwise is wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire how much 
time is on both sides?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from Washington has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I will advise my friend 
that, at this point, I have no more requests for time, and I am 
prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close.

[[Page 2611]]


  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  I want to respect the chairman. The chairman is correct. The Natural 
Resources Committee, of which I am a proud member, appears to be very 
busy passing bills.
  But let's be clear: the Republican majority, time and time again, 
acts unilaterally, alone, without meaningful cooperation with the 
minority in this legislation, in the House, and with the Senate and 
with the administration.
  On suspensions, the majority insists on ridiculous limitations that 
prevent consideration of many measures designed to conserve lands, and, 
of course, they insist on a more than 3:1 ratio of their legislation to 
the minority's legislation, to ours. No wonder the number of 
suspensions is lagging behind what we have done in the past.
  As to the bills we have considered under a rule, most of them are 
almost identical repeats of the bills that were passed in the House 
last Congress, but because they were opposed by the Senate and the 
administration, they went nowhere.
  To keep passing the same, dead-on-arrival bills over and over again 
to make the committee look busy should not be mistaken for legislating. 
The idea is to work on legislation that can bring bills of a bipartisan 
nature, that the Senate will deal with and, more importantly, that the 
administration will sign.
  That is the legislation my side of the aisle looks forward to working 
on and, in a very serious manner, improving the operation of Interior, 
improving the operation of our public lands, and creating transparency 
at all levels.
  We want to do that, and we look forward to working with the majority 
and with our esteemed chairman in that direction.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased when I heard my good friend from 
Arizona congratulate the work of the committee until I heard his 
explanation of what the committee did, and then I had to have a bit of 
a caution there.
  I just want to point out that when the gentleman complains about the 
ratio of majority and minority, we are following precisely the same 
example when roles were reversed. In other words, when the Democrats 
were in the majority, when we were in the minority, we had the same 
ratio. So we are following that pretty much to the same, and that has 
been the tradition in this House for a long period of time.
  The difference, however, I would say, Mr. Chairman, is that the 
committee has been much more productive when we have been in control, 
meaning that there has been more legislation moving that the Democrats 
would like.
  I want to make this point also. There are Democrat and Republican 
suspension bills that are both sitting in the Senate that haven't been 
acted on, and I think that the Senate needs to act on those pieces of 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an important piece of legislation. All of these 
titles have passed out of the committee and were amalgamated here, but 
they had all been acted on. They all had input in subcommittee in some 
way or the other within the committee.
  So I wanted to make that point. This is not legislation that was 
pulled out of the air. It was legislation that was deliberated upon 
within the committee.
  I also want to mention, even though the Statement of Administration 
Policy was negative in some parts of the bill, there is no veto threat 
by the administration on this piece of legislation. They expressed 
concerns, as is understandable, on certain parts of it. I understand 
that, but there is no veto threat at all whatsoever in what the 
administration has said.
  Finally, let me make this observation, and we hear this over and over 
and over, especially as it relates to the NEPA, the National 
Environmental Policy Act.
  Now, I am going to acknowledge that NEPA certainly has its place 
within our statutes and how we conduct policy, particularly on public 
land, but here is where we part company, Mr. Chairman.
  We part company because my friends on the other side of the aisle 
always advocate that, even before Congress acts, NEPA should be the 
judge of whatever that action is.
  Now, I have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, I think that is contrary to 
what our role is here. Congress created NEPA, meaning that Congress is 
the one who decides what the law of the land is. Within these bills, we 
are deciding what the law of the land is, and NEPA should not get in 
front of our actions.
  To hear my friends on the other side of the aisle argue, they are 
saying over and over and over again that NEPA should be between 
Congress acting on a law.
  Wait a minute. We are putting regulations before Congress should be 
doing their constitutional duty and enacting statutes?
  I am sorry, Mr. Chairman; I part company with that philosophy, yet 
that is exactly what we hear over and over and over from our colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle.
  We are the ones that are given authority by the Constitution to make 
statutes. We believe that that should be the law, and then regulations 
follow, not the other way around. But that is what we hear over and 
over and over again.
  So, Mr. Chairman, this is a good piece of legislation. As I 
mentioned, it addresses areas that are certain parochial and certain 
parts of the country, as my colleague from Utah said, all the way from 
Florida to Alaska.
  I think it is responsible legislation, and I think it deserves our 
support.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2954, the so-
called ``Public Access and Lands Improvement Act.'' While there are 
some provisions in this bill that I think many of us could support, 
most of its titles include unacceptable waivers of environmental law 
and giveaways to private interests.
  The bill bypasses carefully balanced processes for transferring 
federal lands while protecting access and value for taxpayers, reverses 
a scientifically-based land management decision, and waives 
environmental protections and local consultation for certain land for 
timber harvests and grazing.
  As with many of the bills we've seen on the Floor this week, H.R. 
2954 makes sweeping and unnecessary changes to existing law that 
disrupt the balance necessary to manage our public lands in the best 
interest of American taxpayers. By waiving scientific review and local 
consultation, this cobbled-together omnibus makes ill-considered 
decisions about the future of public resources. I urge a no vote.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
of amendment under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 113-35. That 
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 2954

  Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Public Access and Lands 
     Improvement Act''.

  TITLE I--SANTA ROSA ISLAND TITLE FAIRNESS AND LAND PRESERVATION ACT

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Santa Rosa Island Title 
     Fairness and Land Preservation Act''.

     SEC. 102. CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY.

       (a) Conveyance Free of Restrictions.--Notwithstanding the 
     restrictions on conveyance of property located on Santa Rosa 
     Island, Florida, contained in the Act of July 30, 1946 
     (chapter 699; 70 Stat. 712), and the deed to the property 
     from the United States to Escambia County, Florida, dated 
     January 15, 1947, Escambia County may, at its discretion, 
     convey or otherwise dispose of all of its right, title, and 
     interest (in whole or in part), in and to any portion of the 
     property that was conveyed to it pursuant to that Act and 
     deed, to any person or entity, free from any restriction on 
     conveyance or reconveyance imposed by the United States in

[[Page 2612]]

     that Act or deed. Any conveyance under this subsection shall 
     be subject to the conditions set forth in subsection (c).
       (b) Leasehold Interests.--No person or entity holding a 
     leasehold interest in the property as of the date of the 
     enactment of this Act shall be required to involuntarily 
     accept a fee interest in lieu of their leasehold interest in 
     the property.
       (c) Conditions.--Any conveyance under subsection (a) shall 
     be subject to the following conditions:
       (1) Not later than two calendar years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, Escambia County shall convey to Santa 
     Rosa County all right, title, and interest held in and to any 
     portion of the property that was conveyed to Escambia County 
     under the Act and deed that fall in the jurisdictional 
     boundaries of Santa Rosa County, Florida. The conveyance by 
     Escambia County to Santa Rosa County shall be absolute and 
     shall terminate any subjugation of Santa Rosa County to 
     Escambia County or any regulation of Santa Rosa County by 
     Escambia County. Santa Rosa County shall not be required to 
     pay any sum for the subject property other than actual costs 
     associated with the conveyance.
       (2) Santa Rosa County or any other person to which property 
     is conveyed under this title may reconvey property, or any 
     portion of property, conveyed to it under this section.
       (3) For all properties defined under subsection (a) the 
     leaseholders, or owners are free to pursue incorporation, 
     annexation, or any other governmental status so long as all 
     other legal conditions required for doing so are followed.
       (4) Each property defined under subsection (a) is under the 
     jurisdiction of the county and any other local government 
     entity in which the property is located.
       (5) Any proceeds from the conveyance of any property 
     defined under subsection (a) by Escambia County or Santa Rosa 
     County, other than direct and incidental costs associated 
     with such conveyance, shall be considered windfall profits 
     and shall revert to the United States.
       (6) Escambia County and Santa Rosa County shall in 
     perpetuity preserve those areas on Santa Rosa Island 
     currently dedicated to conservation, preservation, public, 
     recreation, access and public parking in accordance with 
     resolutions heretofore adopted by the Board of County 
     Commissioners of each respective county.
       (d) Determination of Compliance.--Escambia County and Santa 
     Rosa County shall have no deadline or requirement to make any 
     conveyance or reconveyance of any property defined under 
     subsection (a) other than the conveyance required under 
     subsection (c)(1). Each county may establish terms for 
     conveyance or reconveyance, subject to the conditions set 
     forth in this title and applicable State law.

                TITLE II--ANCHORAGE LAND CONVEYANCE ACT

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Anchorage Land Conveyance 
     Act of 2014''.

     SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) City.--The term ``City'' means the city of Anchorage, 
     Alaska.
       (2) Non-federal land.--The term ``non-Federal land'' means 
     certain parcels of land located in the City and owned by the 
     City, which are more particularly described as follows:
       (A) Block 42, Original Townsite of Anchorage, Anchorage 
     Recording District, Third Judicial District, State of Alaska, 
     consisting of approximately 1.93 acres, commonly known as the 
     Egan Center, Petrovich Park, and Old City Hall.
       (B) Lots 9, 10, and 11, Block 66, Original Townsite of 
     Anchorage, Anchorage Recording District, Third Judicial 
     District, State of Alaska, consisting of approximately 0.48 
     acres, commonly known as the parking lot at 7th Avenue and I 
     Street.
       (C) Lot 13, Block 15, Original Townsite of Anchorage, 
     Anchorage Recording District, Third Judicial District, State 
     of Alaska, consisting of approximately 0.24 acres, an 
     unimproved vacant lot located at H Street and Christensen 
     Drive.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 203. CONVEYANCE OF REVERSIONARY INTERESTS, ANCHORAGE, 
                   ALASKA.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary shall convey to the City, without 
     consideration, the reversionary interests of the United 
     States in and to the non-Federal land for the purpose of 
     unencumbering the title to the non-Federal land to enable 
     economic development of the non-Federal land.
       (b) Legal Descriptions.--As soon as practicable after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the exact legal descriptions 
     of the non-Federal land shall be determined in a manner 
     satisfactory to the Secretary.
       (c) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require such additional terms and conditions to the 
     conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.
       (d) Costs.--The City shall pay all costs associated with 
     the conveyance under subsection (a), including the costs of 
     any surveys, recording costs, and other reasonable costs.

           TITLE III--FERNLEY ECONOMIC SELF-DETERMINATION ACT

     SEC. 301. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) City.--The term ``City'' means the City of Fernley, 
     Nevada.
       (2) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means the 
     approximately 9,407 acres of land located in the City of 
     Fernley, Nevada, that is identified by the Secretary and the 
     City for conveyance under this title.
       (3) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled 
     ``Proposed Fernley, Nevada, Land Sales'' and dated January 
     25, 2013.

     SEC. 302. CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN FEDERAL LAND TO CITY OF 
                   FERNLEY, NEVADA.

       (a) Conveyance Authorized.--Subject to valid existing 
     rights and not later than 180 days after the date on which 
     the Secretary of the Interior receives an offer from the City 
     to purchase the Federal land depicted on the map, the 
     Secretary, acting through the Bureau of Land Management and 
     the Bureau of Reclamation, shall convey, notwithstanding the 
     land use planning requirements of sections 202 and 203 of the 
     Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 
     1712, 1713), to the City in exchange for consideration in an 
     amount equal to the fair market value of the Federal land, 
     all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to 
     such Federal land.
       (b) Appraisal To Determine Fair Market Value.--The 
     Secretary shall determine the fair market value of the 
     Federal land to be conveyed--
       (1) in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); and
       (2) based on an appraisal that is conducted in accordance 
     with nationally recognized appraisal standards, including--
       (A) the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land 
     Acquisition; and
       (B) the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal 
     Practice.
       (c) Availability of Map.--The map shall be on file and 
     available for public inspection in the appropriate offices of 
     the Bureau of Land Management.
       (d) Reservation of Easements and Rights-of-Way.--The City 
     and the Bureau of Reclamation may retain easements or rights-
     of-way on the Federal land to be conveyed, including 
     easements or rights-of-way the Bureau of Reclamation 
     determines are necessary to carry out--
       (1) the operation and maintenance of the Truckee Canal; or
       (2) the Newlands Project.
       (e) Costs.--The City shall, at closing for the conveyance 
     authorized under subsection (a), pay or reimburse the 
     Secretary, as appropriate, for the reasonable transaction and 
     administrative personnel costs associated with the conveyance 
     authorized under such subsection, including the costs of 
     appraisal, title searches, maps, and boundary and cadastral 
     surveys.
       (f) Conveyance Not a Major Federal Action.--A conveyance or 
     a combination of conveyances made under this section shall 
     not be considered a major Federal action for purposes of 
     section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 
     1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)).

     SEC. 303. RELEASE OF UNITED STATES.

       Upon making the conveyance under section 302, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the United States 
     is released from any and all liabilities or claims of any 
     kind or nature arising from the presence, release, or threat 
     of release of any hazardous substance, pollutant, 
     contaminant, petroleum product (or derivative of a petroleum 
     product of any kind), solid waste, mine materials or mining 
     related features (including tailings, overburden, waste rock, 
     mill remnants, pits, or other hazards resulting from the 
     presence of mining related features) on the Federal land in 
     existence on or before the date of the conveyance.

     SEC. 304. WITHDRAWAL.

       Subject to valid existing rights, the Federal land to be 
     conveyed under section 302 of this title shall be withdrawn 
     from all forms of--
       (1) entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land 
     laws;
       (2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
       (3) disposition under the mineral leasing, mineral 
     materials, and geothermal leasing laws.

        TITLE IV--LAND DISPOSAL TRANSPARENCY AND EFFICIENCY ACT

     SEC. 401. PROHIBITION ON ACQUISITION OF LAND.

       (a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the ``Land 
     Disposal Transparency and Efficiency Act''.
       (b) Prohibition on Acquisition of Land.--No land or 
     interests in land may be added by acquisition, donation, 
     transfer of administrative jurisdiction, or otherwise to the 
     inventory of land and interests in land administered by the 
     Bureau of Land Management until a centralized database of all 
     lands identified as suitable for disposal by Resource 
     Management Plans for lands under the administrative 
     jurisdiction of the Bureau is easily accessible to the public 
     on a website of the Bureau. The database required under this 
     subsection shall be updated and maintained to reflect changes 
     in the status of lands identified for disposal under the 
     administrative jurisdiction of the Bureau.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall 
     provide to the Committee on Natural Resources in the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources in the Senate a report detailing the status and 
     timing for completion of the database required by subsection 
     (b).

     TITLE V--PRESERVING ACCESS TO CAPE HATTERAS NATIONAL SEASHORE 
                         RECREATIONAL AREA ACT

     SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Preserving Access to Cape 
     Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area Act''.

[[Page 2613]]



     SEC. 502. REINSTATEMENT OF INTERIM MANAGEMENT STRATEGY.

       (a) Management.--After the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area shall 
     be managed in accordance with the Interim Protected Species 
     Management Strategy/Environmental Assessment issued by the 
     National Park Service on June 13, 2007, for the Cape Hatteras 
     National Seashore Recreational Area, North Carolina, unless 
     the Secretary of the Interior (hereafter in this title 
     referred to as the ``Secretary'') issues a new final rule 
     that meets the requirements set forth in section 503.
       (b) Restrictions.--The Secretary shall not impose any 
     additional restrictions on pedestrian or motorized vehicular 
     access to any portion of Cape Hatteras National Seashore 
     Recreational Area for species protection beyond those in the 
     Interim Management Strategy, other than as specifically 
     authorized pursuant to section 503 of this title.

     SEC. 503. ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON ACCESS TO CAPE HATTERAS 
                   NATIONAL SEASHORE RECREATIONAL AREA FOR SPECIES 
                   PROTECTION.

       (a) In General.--If, based on peer-reviewed science and 
     after public comment, the Secretary determines that 
     additional restrictions on access to a portion of the Cape 
     Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area are necessary to 
     protect species listed as endangered under the Endangered 
     Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the Secretary 
     may only restrict, by limitation, closure, buffer, or 
     otherwise, pedestrian and motorized vehicular access for 
     recreational activities for the shortest possible time and on 
     the smallest possible portions of the Cape Hatteras National 
     Seashore Recreational Area.
       (b) Limitation on Restrictions.--Restrictions imposed under 
     this section for protection of species listed as endangered 
     under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
     seq.) shall not be greater than the restrictions in effect 
     for that species at any other National Seashore.
       (c) Corridors Around Closures.--To the maximum extent 
     possible, the Secretary shall designate pedestrian and 
     vehicular corridors of minimal distance on the beach or 
     interdunal area around closures implemented under this 
     section to allow access to areas not closed.

     SEC. 504. INAPPLICABILITY OF FINAL RULE AND CONSENT DEGREE.

       (a) Final Rule.--The final rule titled ``Special 
     Regulations, Areas of the National Park System, Cape Hatteras 
     National Seashore--Off-Road Vehicle Management'' (77 Fed. 
     Reg. 3123-3144) shall have no force or effect after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Consent Decree.--The April 30, 2008, consent decree 
     filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern 
     District of North Carolina regarding off-road vehicle use at 
     Cape Hatteras National Seashore in North Carolina shall not 
     apply after the date of the enactment of this Act.

        TITLE VI--GREEN MOUNTAIN LOOKOUT HERITAGE PROTECTION ACT

     SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Green Mountain Lookout 
     Heritage Protection Act''.

     SEC. 602. CLARIFICATION OF LEGAL AUTHORITY OF GREEN MOUNTAIN 
                   LOOKOUT.

       (a) Legal Authority of Lookout.--Section 4(b) of the 
     Washington State Wilderness Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-339; 
     98 Stat. 300; 16 U.S.C. 1131 note) is amended by striking the 
     period at the end and inserting the following: ``, and except 
     that with respect to the lands described in section 3(5), the 
     designation of such lands as a wilderness area shall not 
     preclude the operation and maintenance of Green Mountain 
     Lookout.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     Washington State Wilderness Act of 1984.

     SEC. 603. PRESERVATION OF GREEN MOUNTAIN LOOKOUT LOCATION.

       The Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of 
     the Forest Service, may not move Green Mountain Lookout from 
     its current location on Green Mountain in the Mount Baker-
     Snoqualmie National Forest unless the Secretary determines 
     that moving Green Mountain Lookout is necessary to preserve 
     the Lookout or to ensure the safety of individuals on or 
     around Green Mountain. If the Secretary makes such a 
     determination, the Secretary shall move the Green Mountain 
     Lookout to a location outside of the lands described in 
     section 3(5) of the Washington State Wilderness Act of 1984 
     and designated as a wilderness area in section 4(b) of such 
     Act.

                TITLE VII--RIVER PADDLING PROTECTION ACT

     SEC. 701. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``River Paddling Protection 
     Act''.

     SEC. 702. REGULATIONS SUPERSEDED.

       (a) In General.--The rivers and streams of Yellowstone 
     National Park and Grand Teton National Park shall be open to 
     hand-propelled vessels as determined by the director of the 
     National Park Service within 3 years of the date of enactment 
     of this Act. Beginning on the date that is 3 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the following regulations 
     shall have no the force or effect regarding closing rivers 
     and streams of Yellowstone National Park and Grand Teton 
     National Park to hand-propelled vessels:
       (1) Section 7.13(d)(4)(ii) of title 36, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, regarding vessels on streams and rivers in 
     Yellowstone National Park.
       (2) Section 7.22(e)(3) of title 36, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, regarding vessels on lakes and rivers in Grand 
     Teton National Park.
       (b) Coordination of Recreational Use.--The Fish and 
     Wildlife Service shall coordinate any recreational use of 
     hand-propelled vessels on the Gros Ventre River within the 
     National Elk Refuge with Grand Teton National Park to ensure 
     such use is consistent with the requirements of the National 
     Wildlife Refuge Administration Act.

                  TITLE VIII--GRAZING IMPROVEMENT ACT

     SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Grazing Improvement Act''.

     SEC. 802. TERMS OF GRAZING PERMITS AND LEASES.

       Section 402 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
     of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1752) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``ten years'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``20 years'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of each of paragraphs (1) 
     and (2);
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) the initial environmental analysis under National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 
     regarding a grazing allotment, permit, or lease has not been 
     completed.''; and
       (3) after subsection (h), insert the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(i) Only applicants, permittees and lessees whose 
     interest in grazing livestock is directly affected by a final 
     grazing decision may appeal the decision to an administrative 
     law judge.''.

     SEC. 803. RENEWAL, TRANSFER, AND REISSUANCE OF GRAZING 
                   PERMITS AND LEASES.

       (a) Amendment.--Title IV of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 405. RENEWAL, TRANSFER, AND REISSUANCE OF GRAZING 
                   PERMITS AND LEASES.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Current grazing management.--The term `current 
     grazing management' means grazing in accordance with the 
     terms and conditions of an existing permit or lease and 
     includes any modifications that are consistent with an 
     applicable Department of Interior resource management plan or 
     Department of Agriculture land use plan.
       ``(2) Secretary concerned.--The term `Secretary concerned' 
     means--
       ``(A) the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to 
     National Forest System land; and
       ``(B) the Secretary of the Interior, with respect to land 
     under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior.
       ``(b) Renewal, Transfer, Reissuance, and Pending 
     Processing.--A grazing permit or lease issued by the 
     Secretary of the Interior, or a grazing permit issued by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture regarding National Forest System 
     land, that expires, is transferred, or is waived shall be 
     renewed or reissued under, as appropriate--
       ``(1) section 402;
       ``(2) section 19 of the Act of April 24, 1950 (commonly 
     known as the `Granger-Thye Act'; 16 U.S.C. 580l);
       ``(3) title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1010 et seq.); or
       ``(4) section 510 the California Desert Protection Act of 
     1994 (16 U.S.C. 410aaa-50).
       ``(c) Terms; Conditions.--The terms and conditions (except 
     the termination date) contained in an expired, transferred, 
     or waived permit or lease described in subsection (b) shall 
     continue in effect under a renewed or reissued permit or 
     lease until the date on which the Secretary concerned 
     completes the processing of the renewed or reissued permit or 
     lease that is the subject of the expired, transferred, or 
     waived permit or lease, in compliance with each applicable 
     law.
       ``(d) Cancellation; Suspension; Modification.--
     Notwithstanding subsection (c), a permit or lease described 
     in subsection (b) may be cancelled, suspended, or modified in 
     accordance with applicable law.
       ``(e) Renewal Transfer Reissuance After Processing.--When 
     the Secretary concerned has completed the processing of the 
     renewed or reissued permit or lease that is the subject of 
     the expired, transferred, or waived permit or lease, the 
     Secretary concerned shall renew or reissue the permit or 
     lease for a term of 20 years after completion of processing.
       ``(f) Compliance With National Environmental Policy Act of 
     1969.--The renewal, reissuance, or transfer of a grazing 
     permit or lease by the Secretary concerned shall be 
     categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an 
     environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement 
     if--
       ``(1) the decision continues to renew, reissue, or transfer 
     the current grazing management of the allotment;
       ``(2) monitoring of the allotment has indicated that the 
     current grazing management has met, or has satisfactorily 
     progressed towards meeting, objectives contained in the land 
     use and resource management plan of the allotment, as 
     determined by the Secretary concerned; or
       ``(3) the decision is consistent with the policy of the 
     Department of the Interior or the Department of Agriculture, 
     as appropriate, regarding extraordinary circumstances.
       ``(g) Priority and Timing for Completing Environmental 
     Analyses.--The Secretary concerned, in the sole discretion of 
     the Secretary concerned, shall determine the priority and 
     timing for completing each required environmental

[[Page 2614]]

     analysis regarding any grazing allotment, permit, or lease 
     based on the environmental significance of the allotment, 
     permit, or lease and available funding for that purpose.
       ``(h) NEPA Exemptions.--The National Environmental Policy 
     Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) shall not apply to the 
     following:
       ``(1) Crossing and trailing authorizations of domestic 
     livestock.
       ``(2) Transfer of grazing preference.
       ``(3) Range improvements as defined under 43 U.S.C. 315c 
     and 16 U.S.C. 580h.''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for the 
     Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 is amended by 
     adding after the item for section 404, the following:

       ``Sec. 405. Renewal, transfer, and reissuance of grazing 
           permits and leases.''.

                TITLE IX--RIM FIRE EMERGENCY SALVAGE ACT

     SEC. 901. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Rim Fire Emergency Salvage 
     Act''.

     SEC. 902. EXPEDITED SALVAGE TIMBER SALES IN RESPONSE TO THE 
                   CALIFORNIA RIM FIRE.

       (a) Salvage Timber Sales Required.--As part of the 
     restoration and rehabilitation activities undertaken on the 
     lands within the Stanislaus National Forest and the Bureau of 
     Land Management lands adversely impacted by the 2013 Rim Fire 
     in California, the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to 
     affected Stanislaus National Forest lands, and the Secretary 
     of the Interior, with respect to affected Bureau of Land 
     Management lands, shall promptly plan and implement salvage 
     timber sales of dead, damaged, or downed timber resulting 
     from that wildfire.
       (b) Expedited Implementation.--
       (1) Legal sufficiency.--Due to the extraordinary severity 
     of the Rim Fire occurring on the Federal lands described in 
     subsection (a), salvage timber sales conducted under such 
     subsection shall proceed immediately and to completion 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, including the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.), section 14 of the National Forest Management Act of 
     1976 (16 U.S.C. 472a), the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 
     Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), and 
     the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 
     1701 et seq.).
       (2) Administrative and judicial review.--Salvage timber 
     sales conducted under subsection (a) shall not be subject 
     to--
       (A) administrative review, including, in the case of the 
     Forest Service, the notice, comment, and appeal requirements 
     of section 322 of the Department of the Interior and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public Law 102-381; 16 
     U.S.C. 1612 note); or
       (B) judicial review in any court of the United States.

        TITLE X--CHESAPEAKE BAY ACCOUNTABILITY AND RECOVERY ACT

     SEC. 1001. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Chesapeake Bay 
     Accountability and Recovery Act of 2014''.

     SEC. 1002. CHESAPEAKE BAY CROSSCUT BUDGET.

       (a) Crosscut Budget.--The Director, in consultation with 
     the Chesapeake Executive Council, the chief executive of each 
     Chesapeake Bay State, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission, 
     shall submit to Congress a financial report containing--
       (1) an interagency crosscut budget that displays--
       (A) the proposed funding for any Federal restoration 
     activity to be carried out in the succeeding fiscal year, 
     including any planned interagency or intra-agency transfer, 
     for each of the Federal agencies that carry out restoration 
     activities;
       (B) to the extent that information is available, the 
     estimated funding for any State restoration activity to be 
     carried out in the succeeding fiscal year;
       (C) all expenditures for Federal restoration activities 
     from the preceding 2 fiscal years, the current fiscal year, 
     and the succeeding fiscal year; and
       (D) all expenditures, to the extent that information is 
     available, for State restoration activities during the 
     equivalent time period described in subparagraph (C);
       (2) a detailed accounting of all funds received and 
     obligated by all Federal agencies for restoration activities 
     during the current and preceding fiscal years, including the 
     identification of funds which were transferred to a 
     Chesapeake Bay State for restoration activities;
       (3) to the extent that information is available, a detailed 
     accounting from each State of all funds received and 
     obligated from a Federal agency for restoration activities 
     during the current and preceding fiscal years; and
       (4) a description of each of the proposed Federal and State 
     restoration activities to be carried out in the succeeding 
     fiscal year (corresponding to those activities listed in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1)), including the--
       (A) project description;
       (B) current status of the project;
       (C) Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority, 
     programs, or responsible agencies;
       (D) authorization level for appropriations;
       (E) project timeline, including benchmarks;
       (F) references to project documents;
       (G) descriptions of risks and uncertainties of project 
     implementation;
       (H) adaptive management actions or framework;
       (I) coordinating entities;
       (J) funding history;
       (K) cost sharing; and
       (L) alignment with existing Chesapeake Bay Agreement and 
     Chesapeake Executive Council goals and priorities.
       (b) Minimum Funding Levels.--The Director shall only 
     describe restoration activities in the report required under 
     subsection (a) that--
       (1) for Federal restoration activities, have funding 
     amounts greater than or equal to $100,000; and
       (2) for State restoration activities, have funding amounts 
     greater than or equal to $50,000.
       (c) Deadline.--The Director shall submit to Congress the 
     report required by subsection (a) not later than 30 days 
     after the submission by the President of the President's 
     annual budget to Congress.
       (d) Report.--Copies of the financial report required by 
     subsection (a) shall be submitted to the Committees on 
     Appropriations, Natural Resources, Energy and Commerce, and 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committees on Appropriations, 
     Environment and Public Works, and Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate.
       (e) Effective Date.--This section shall apply beginning 
     with the first fiscal year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act for which the President submits a budget to 
     Congress.

     SEC. 1003. RESTORATION THROUGH ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation 
     with other Federal and State agencies, and with the 
     participation of stakeholders, shall develop a plan to 
     provide technical and financial assistance to Chesapeake Bay 
     States to employ adaptive management in carrying out 
     restoration activities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
       (b) Plan Development.--The plan referred to in subsection 
     (a) shall include--
       (1) specific and measurable objectives to improve water 
     quality, habitat, and fisheries identified by Chesapeake Bay 
     States;
       (2) a process for stakeholder participation;
       (3) monitoring, modeling, experimentation, and other 
     research and evaluation technical assistance requested by 
     Chesapeake Bay States;
       (4) identification of State restoration activities planned 
     by Chesapeake Bay States to attain the State's objectives 
     under paragraph (1);
       (5) identification of Federal restoration activities that 
     could help a Chesapeake Bay State to attain the State's 
     objectives under paragraph (1);
       (6) recommendations for a process for modification of State 
     and Federal restoration activities that have not attained or 
     will not attain the specific and measurable objectives set 
     forth under paragraph (1); and
       (7) recommendations for a process for integrating and 
     prioritizing State and Federal restoration activities and 
     programs to which adaptive management can be applied.
       (c) Implementation.--In addition to carrying out Federal 
     restoration activities under existing authorities and 
     funding, the Administrator shall implement the plan developed 
     under subsection (a) by providing technical and financial 
     assistance to Chesapeake Bay States using resources available 
     for such purposes that are identified by the Director under 
     section 1002.
       (d) Updates.--The Administrator shall update the plan 
     developed under subsection (a) every 2 years.
       (e) Report to Congress.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the end of a 
     fiscal year, the Administrator shall transmit to Congress an 
     annual report on the implementation of the plan required 
     under this section for such fiscal year.
       (2) Contents.--The report required under paragraph (1) 
     shall contain information about the application of adaptive 
     management to restoration activities and programs, including 
     level changes implemented through the process of adaptive 
     management.
       (3) Effective date.--Paragraph (1) shall apply to the first 
     fiscal year that begins after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
       (f) Inclusion of Plan in Annual Action Plan and Annual 
     Progress Report.--The Administrator shall ensure that the 
     Annual Action Plan and Annual Progress Report required by 
     section 205 of Executive Order 13508 includes the adaptive 
     management plan outlined in subsection (a).

     SEC. 1004. INDEPENDENT EVALUATOR FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--There shall be an Independent Evaluator 
     for restoration activities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, 
     who shall review and report on restoration activities and the 
     use of adaptive management in restoration activities, 
     including on such related topics as are suggested by the 
     Chesapeake Executive Council.
       (b) Appointment.--
       (1) In general.--The Independent Evaluator shall be 
     appointed by the Administrator from among nominees submitted 
     by the Chesapeake Executive Council.
       (2) Nominations.--The Chesapeake Executive Council may 
     submit to the Administrator 4 nominees for appointment to any 
     vacancy in the office of the Independent Evaluator.
       (c) Reports.--The Independent Evaluator shall submit a 
     report to the Congress every 2 years in the findings and 
     recommendations of reviews under this section.
       (d) Chesapeake Executive Council.--In this section, the 
     term ``Chesapeake Executive Council'' has the meaning given 
     that term by section 307 of the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric

[[Page 2615]]

     Administration Authorization Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-567; 
     15 U.S.C. 1511d).

     SEC. 1005. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title, the following definitions apply:
       (1) Adaptive management.--The term ``adaptive management'' 
     means a type of natural resource management in which project 
     and program decisions are made as part of an ongoing science-
     based process. Adaptive management involves testing, 
     monitoring, and evaluating applied strategies and 
     incorporating new knowledge into programs and restoration 
     activities that are based on scientific findings and the 
     needs of society. Results are used to modify management 
     policy, strategies, practices, programs, and restoration 
     activities.
       (2) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (3) Chesapeake bay state.--The term ``Chesapeake Bay 
     State'' or ``State'' means the States of Maryland, West 
     Virginia, Delaware, and New York, the Commonwealths of 
     Virginia and Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia.
       (4) Chesapeake bay watershed.--The term ``Chesapeake Bay 
     watershed'' means the Chesapeake Bay and the geographic area, 
     as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, consisting of 
     36 tributary basins, within the Chesapeake Bay States, 
     through which precipitation drains into the Chesapeake Bay.
       (5) Chief executive.--The term ``chief executive'' means, 
     in the case of a State or Commonwealth, the Governor of each 
     such State or Commonwealth and, in the case of the District 
     of Columbia, the Mayor of the District of Columbia.
       (6) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget.
       (7) State restoration activities.--The term ``State 
     restoration activities'' means any State programs or projects 
     carried out under State authority that directly or indirectly 
     protect, conserve, or restore living resources, habitat, 
     water resources, or water quality in the Chesapeake Bay 
     watershed, including programs or projects that promote 
     responsible land use, stewardship, and community engagement 
     in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Restoration activities may 
     be categorized as follows:
       (A) Physical restoration.
       (B) Planning.
       (C) Feasibility studies.
       (D) Scientific research.
       (E) Monitoring.
       (F) Education.
       (G) Infrastructure development.
       (8) Federal restoration activities.--The term ``Federal 
     restoration activities'' means any Federal programs or 
     projects carried out under existing Federal authority that 
     directly or indirectly protect, conserve, or restore living 
     resources, habitat, water resources, or water quality in the 
     Chesapeake Bay watershed, including programs or projects that 
     provide financial and technical assistance to promote 
     responsible land use, stewardship, and community engagement 
     in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Restoration activities may 
     be categorized as follows:
       (A) Physical restoration.
       (B) Planning.
       (C) Feasibility studies.
       (D) Scientific research.
       (E) Monitoring.
       (F) Education.
       (G) Infrastructure development.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part A of House 
Report 113-340. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
to a demand for division of the question.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Grijalva

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in part A of House Report 113-340.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Strike title IV.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward. It 
strikes title IV of the bill. Title IV is the text of H.R. 2095, 
introduced by my friend from Utah (Mr. Bishop), chairman of the Public 
Land Subcommittee.
  The title would prohibit BLM from acquiring additional land until the 
agency creates a publicly accessible database that inventories current 
landholdings and identifies land suitable for disposal.
  Much of the bill we are considering today seeks to undermine the 
public planning process and give away Federal land free of charge. This 
land belongs to the American people, and if we are going to be in the 
business of giving it away, we should at least not hinder our ability 
to acquire more land when it makes sense to do so.
  Let me see if I understand this. I do not oppose the idea of creating 
a database that catalogs Federal landholdings. I do not oppose the idea 
of transparency at BLM, or any other government agency for that matter, 
but putting an arbitrary condition on land acquisition authority is 
just bad policy.
  The true intent of the title is not to create a database. The intent 
is to limit land acquisition.
  The majority has been clear about their agenda to limit expansion of 
the Federal estate, and the bill we are considering today is just 
another attempt to advance that priority. It is a wolf in sheep's 
clothing.
  Through the public land use planning process, BLM keeps an inventory 
of its land. Land managers, from the folks down the street in the 
Department of the Interior building to the field staff all over the 
country, know how much land the Federal Government owns.
  In fact, the Federal Land and Policy Management Act, also known as 
the BLM's Organic Act, provides clear direction and authority for 
cataloging and the inventory of Federal lands. FLPMA also provides the 
agency with authority to dispose of lands deemed worthy for disposal 
through the public planning process.
  Like I mentioned before, I don't see a problem with creating a 
database of information available in BLM's Resource Management Plans. 
The problem is with limiting authority for land acquisition.
  Land acquisition authority makes the management of Federal lands more 
efficient. It is not the bogeyman that the sponsors of the bill claim. 
Federal land managers acquire land in order to clean up the 
checkerboard pattern of ownership, consolidating Federal holdings and 
making them easier to manage.
  Limiting this authority will have the consequence of making the 
management of Federal lands more difficult and less efficient.
  Land is also acquired when it makes sense for conservation and 
resource management purposes. The Federal Government is the steward of 
some of our Nation's most pristine and treasured resources. There are 
times when it makes sense to add to national parks or national 
monuments to make sure that they have the resources and the protection 
that they merit.
  Popular programs like the Land and Water Conservation Fund have 
helped conserve millions of acres that provide all of our constituents 
with opportunities to hike, hunt, fish, and pursue other recreational 
activities.
  If we want to ensure that efficient management of Federal land, 
limiting land acquisition authority is a step in the wrong direction. 
My amendment makes sure that this important tool is not jeopardized, 
and I urge my colleagues to support its adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate very much the gentleman from 
Arizona. I do enjoy working with him on the subcommittee. And I have to 
admit, at this stage of the game, I am a little bit perplexed about the 
amendment.
  The gentleman purports that the idea of transparency and keeping a 
database is not a bad idea. He just objects to the enforcement 
mechanism we put in there. If that were the case, I would wonder why he 
didn't just strike the enforcement mechanism out or come up with a 
substitute enforcement mechanism. I am not bound to this particular 
one. Had there been a date certain or some other ideas, I may even

[[Page 2616]]

have accepted that as a friendly approach to try to help this 
particular title. But, instead, the amendment strikes everything. It 
strikes the very essence of forcing them to actually come up with a 
database that is there.
  During the Clinton administration--and that has been a while ago--the 
Interior Department did come up with a database of lands that were 
available for disposal, that were needless, that were useless for the 
government. We have the data. The only problem is it is almost 
impossible to get to the data. The data is found in books in over 150 
different local offices. It would take a huge road trip to try to come 
up with just the information.
  This is now 2014. The idea that the BLM cannot actually put this data 
on a Web site that is available to everybody is, quite frankly, not 
acceptable. That they are too busy to do this is simply not acceptable.
  All this says is the data is there. Put the data on a Web site so it 
is transparent and it is viewable for everybody to see.
  And then we said, since there has been a whole lot of dragging their 
feet since the Clinton administration in trying to do this, we will 
give you some incentive. You can't buy new land until you put on this 
Web site so people can see what land is available for disposal. It does 
not stop them from managing the land for multiple use or for 
nonmultiple use or any other reason. It simply gives them an incentive 
to go ahead and do it.
  Like I said, if your goal was to change the incentive, I would have 
been amenable to discussions on that. I will still be amenable to 
discussions on that. But this amendment strikes the entire thing, not 
just the enforcement provision. For that reason, I would oppose the 
amendment and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, in my amendment, we are also talking 
about the Federal Government having the authority to buy land from 
willing sellers. And when you bar the Federal Government from trying to 
buy land, then what happens? The seller still wants to sell. So who 
steps up? Developers, other high-intensity uses around areas that 
should be protected.
  When you look at Uncle Sam as a buyer for political purposes, you 
empower developers and others that want the land for completely 
different uses; and before you know it, an area that you wanted to 
conserve and preserve is gone. This is bad policy. And to remove the 
authority from the Federal Government of being able to purchase land 
from willing sellers I think is a step too far.
  And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Wittman) to show how this amendment would impact the 
Chesapeake Bay area.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and 
to speak in support of H.R. 2954, the Public Access and Lands 
Improvement Act.
  I wish to extend my thanks to the gentleman from Washington, Chairman 
Doc Hastings, for his leadership in bringing this important package of 
bills from the Natural Resources Committee to the House floor.
  Today, I want to highlight how this legislation will aid in the 
cleanup of one of our prized historic resources, the Chesapeake Bay. 
This body of water provides habitat for plants and animals, resources 
that drive local economies, recreation, and a way of life for many that 
live on and around its shores.
  I am the proud author of title X of this bill, the Chesapeake Bay 
Accountability and Recovery Act. These provisions would implement and 
strengthen management techniques like crosscut budgeting and adaptive 
management to ensure we get more bang for our buck and continue to make 
progress in Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts.
  These techniques will ensure that we are coordinating how restoration 
dollars are spent and making sure that everyone understands how 
individual projects fit into the bigger picture. That way, we are not 
duplicating efforts, spending money we don't need to, or worse, working 
at cross-purposes.
  During the 112th Congress, the House passed similar legislation as 
part of H.R. 2578, the Conservation and Economic Growth Act. More 
recently, identical language was adopted by voice vote and included in 
the House version of the farm bill. These provisions would implement 
and strengthen management techniques to ensure, again, we get more bang 
for our buck and progress in the Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts 
continue and are measurable. Crosscut budgeting and adaptive management 
and an independent evaluator should be key components for the complex 
restoration efforts for our Chesapeake Bay.
  I encourage my colleagues to join with me and support H.R. 2954.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mrs. Lummis

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
part A of House Report 113-340.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 17, strike lines 3 through 12.
       Page 17, line 13, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(2)''.
       Page 17, line 14, strike ``subsection'' and insert 
     ``subsections''.
       Page 17, line 17, after ``decision'' insert ``concerning 
     renewal, transfer or reissuance of a grazing permit or 
     lease''.
       Page 17, line 18, before the first period insert ``or 
     appeal officer as applicable''.
       Page 18, strike lines 7 through 10 and insert ``existing 
     permit or lease.''.
       Page 20, line 15, after ``the'' insert ``applicable''.
       Page 20, line 15, strike ``and'' and insert ``or''.
       Page 20, strike line 22 through page 21, line 4, and insert 
     the following:
       ``(g) Environmental Reviews.--
       ``(1) The Secretary concerned, in the sole discretion of 
     the Secretary concerned, shall determine the priority and 
     timing for completing required environmental reviews 
     regarding any grazing allotment, permit, or lease based on 
     the environmental significance of the allotment, permit, or 
     lease and available funding for that purpose.
       ``(2) The Secretary concerned shall seek to conduct 
     environmental reviews on an allotment or multiple allotment 
     basis, to the extent practicable, for purposes of compliance 
     with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 
     4321 et seq.) and other applicable laws.
       Page 21, line 12, after the first period, insert the 
     following
       ``(i) Temporary Trailing and Crossing.--
       ``(1) Any application for temporary trailing or crossing 
     that has been submitted in a timely manner or not less than 
     30 days prior to the anticipated trailing or crossing shall 
     be granted, modified or denied not less than fifteen days 
     prior to the date of requested crossing or trailing. The 
     minimum times specified in this subsection shall not preclude 
     the approval of an application in a shorter time where an 
     immediate need exists.
       ``(2) Temporary trailing or crossing authorizations across 
     lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management or the 
     Forest Service system of lands shall not be subject to 
     protest or appeal except by the applicant or an affected 
     permittee or lessee.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, the gentlewoman from 
Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wyoming.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am offering this amendment with Representative Labrador after 
discussions with our local agriculture producers and the Public Lands 
Council on some needed adjustments to the underlying bill.
  This amendment includes some conforming language to the Senate 
version of the Grazing Improvement Act that was marked up in the Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee last November. This includes allowing 
the Secretary to consolidate environmental

[[Page 2617]]

reviews of allotments in order to reduce the backlog on permit and 
lease renewals.
  The amendment clarifies the definition of current grazing management 
to the common sense wording of ``the terms and conditions of an 
existing permit or lease.'' It also clarifies that only those directly 
affected by the renewal, transfer, or reissuance of a permit or lease 
may appeal a final grazing decision.
  Lastly, this amendment addresses some concerns with how the Federal 
land agencies treat temporary crossings and trailing. While the 
underlying bill exempts all crossing and trailing of domestic livestock 
from the National Environmental Policy Act, this amendment clarifies 
that temporary applications and those where an immediate need exists 
will receive a timely response from the agency. It also states that 
these authorizations are not subject to protest or appeal, except by 
affected parties.
  Our producers' normal business operations require the ability to 
cross and trail livestock. It is often necessary to remain in 
compliance with their grazing permits. Temporary trailing has a de 
minimis impact on the range, and approval should be an administrative 
action with a quick turnaround time.
  Weather, changes in grazing patterns, and even requests by Federal 
land agencies can all require trailing unexpectedly. For example, a 
hailstorm could wipe out a stand of grass in an hour. A devastating 
grasshopper infestation can change the grazing conditions on the 
ground. Those kinds of things require quick response to get cattle or 
sheep to a different pasture to keep that grass stand healthy. We need 
to provide the flexibility for our Federal land agencies to approve 
temporary requests.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Lummis-Labrador 
amendment and the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. This amendment attempts to conform with the Senate 
language related to the Grazing Improvement Act, but two wrongs don't 
necessarily make a right. The language is still problematic.
  I thank the sponsors for this amendment and for this opportunity to 
talk a little bit more about public land grazing.
  As I mentioned in my opening remarks, title VIII attempts to address 
one issue related to public lands grazing, the backlog of permit 
renewals, but it fails to take on the larger issue of below-market 
grazing fees.
  The Federal Government charges $1.35 per month per animal unit on 
Federal lands. If we are going to consider legislation that waives NEPA 
and extends the tenure of grazing permits, almost doubles the number of 
years, we also have to review the formula for grazing fees.
  The State of Idaho charges $12 to $14 per month to graze on State 
lands. In Arizona, we charge $8 to $9 per month. Washington State 
charges $12 per month; Nevada, $12.50 per month; California, over $16 
per month.
  We often hear from the majority that the States do a better job of 
managing their lands. In this case, I would agree. The States do a 
better job of making sure their taxpayers get a fair return on the use 
of their State lands, while Federal taxpayers are stuck subsidizing the 
practice of grazing on public lands.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Hastings), the chairman of our Natural Resources Committee.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  I support this amendment. I think the brief part of this debate here 
points out the importance of having flexibility on the local level 
rather than having a one-size-fits-all; because there are conditions 
that can come up in grazing in various States, and those managers need 
that flexibility, which is, I think, a common thread that we talk about 
all the time when we talk about Federal land management. So I think 
this amendment adds very much to the Labrador title of the bill, and I 
intend to support it.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would like to point out 
something about the difference between State lands and Federal lands. I 
ran my State's Office of State Lands and Investments for a time, and 
the rights that are conveyed by States on lands to use their lands are 
very different than the rights that are conveyed by the Federal 
Government to users of Federal lands.
  In the case of State lands, frequently, they have many more rights, 
including, in some States, the right to exclude others. They have the 
right to make improvements on the ground. They have the right to 
acquire water permits. They have no NEPA requirements that are specific 
to the State land and other opportunities to, in fact, even sublease 
their lands. And those vary from State to State. States that grant more 
rights can acquire more revenue because it gives more flexibility to 
the person who is grazing.
  In the case of the Federal Government, there are burdensome 
regulations. There are third-party challenges. There are compliance 
issues. It is more of a command-and-control structure, so it is just 
not worth as much financially because of the tremendous paperwork and 
burden involved. Therefore, there are reasons for those differences.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendments we are proposing have nothing to do with 
that but offer commonsense solutions to the very important grazing 
issues.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Labrador

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
part A of House Report 113-340.
  Mr. LABRADOR. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 17, line 18, after the first period, insert the 
     following:
       ``(j) Legal Fees.--
       ``(1) Any person, other than a directly affected party, 
     challenging an action of the Secretary concerned regarding a 
     final grazing decision in Federal court who is not a 
     prevailing party shall pay to the prevailing parties 
     (including a directly affected party who intervenes in such 
     suit) fees and other expenses incurred by that party in 
     connection with the challenge unless the Court finds that the 
     position of the person was substantially justified.
       ``(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``directly 
     affected party'' means any applicant, permittee, or lessee 
     (or any organization representing applicants, permittees or 
     lessees) whose interest in grazing livestock is directly 
     affected by the final grazing decision.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, the gentleman from Idaho 
(Mr. Labrador) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Idaho.
  Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment of 
title VIII of H.R. 2954, which I originally introduced as H.R. 657, the 
Grazing Improvement Act.
  My amendment is a commonsense reform to require groups who are not 
substantially justified or directly affected by final Federal grazing 
decisions to pay for the legal expenses of the other party when they 
lose in court.

                              {time}  1030

  In short, this is a ``loser pays'' system to discourage frivolous 
legal challenges to Federal land management grazing decisions.
  Current law gives grazing permittees the right to a hearing in 
connection with grazing decisions and gives the ``interested public'' 
the opportunity to participate in the way Federal land is managed. 
However, it is doubtful that Congress ever intended to elevate the 
``interested public'' to a level of equal standing to that of grazing 
permittees.

[[Page 2618]]

  In 1995, the Bureau of Land Management established grazing 
regulations that far surpassed the intent of Congress. Some were given 
the ability to participate in the administrative appeals process 
allowing them to sue if the nonpermittees disagreed with a final 
grazing decision. Since then, environmental groups have been 
increasingly effective at abusing the current appeals process, not to 
promote environmental health, but for the sole reason of removing 
livestock from Federal lands. Each year, hundreds of appeals are filed 
on grazing decisions by groups. The cost to ranchers can hardly be 
measured. In a recent case in Wyoming, for example, an appeal cost a 
small group of ranchers over $125,000 in administrative appeal and 
attorneys' fees alone.
  My amendment simply addresses this growing problem by clarifying the 
intent of Congress on who may appeal and litigate a final agency 
decision on a final grazing decision. It is time we ease the burden 
that environmental groups have placed on our ranchers.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LABRADOR. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I think that the gentleman's amendment to this piece of legislation 
is an important policy step. In fact, I think in many cases a ``loser 
pay'' ought to apply to a much larger area.
  I know that the gentleman's amendment only deals with grazing, but he 
cited an example in Wyoming where it cost somebody $125,000, and with 
the volatility of the market, that is a big expense on individuals. I 
think this will help curb that in the future.
  So I congratulate the gentleman for his amendment, and I intend to 
support it.
  Mr. LABRADOR. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, very simply, seeks to 
limit, if not eliminate, judicial review on those who have an interest 
in grazing on our public lands. This amendment attempts to, with 
incentives--negative incentives to the public--limit the public from 
challenging Federal action on grazing decisions by making them pay the 
prevailing party's legal fees.
  Like I have mentioned before, all Federal taxpayers are on the hook 
for subsidizing grazing on Federal lands; therefore, all citizens of 
this country should have the opportunity to challenge the decisions 
made that have an effect on their public lands.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Chairman, I agree that everyone should have a right 
to sue, but if you lose, I think you should pay. This amendment will 
allow Federal land managers to get back to managing lands, create 
greater certainty in the ranching community, and help strengthen rural 
economies in the West. This minor reform will save taxpayer dollars and 
countless hours and dollars spent by ranchers who are forced to defend 
against these nuisance suits.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, grazing has impacts on public lands like 
no other use, and it is important that we consider these impacts 
through the NEPA process and through judicial review, both that are 
being struck from that process today. Steamrolling and eliminating 
judicial review and the public process, as in a reference to East 
Germany, centralized government and thought control, once we begin to 
limit the public's and the individual's access to redress through the 
courts by action of this Congress, it is a dangerous not only precedent 
and a dangerous step in public transparency, but more importantly, in 
the public's right to know.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Idaho (Mr. Labrador).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. McClintock

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in 
part A of House Report 113-340.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike title IX and insert the following new title:

                TITLE IX--RIM FIRE EMERGENCY SALVAGE ACT

     SEC. 901. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Rim Fire Emergency Salvage 
     Act''.

     SEC. 902. EXPEDITED FOREST SERVICE TIMBER SALVAGE AND 
                   RESTORATION PILOT PROJECTS IN RESPONSE TO THE 
                   CALIFORNIA RIM FIRE.

       (a) Pilot Projects Required.--As part of the restoration 
     and rehabilitation activities undertaken on the lands within 
     the Stanislaus National Forest adversely impacted by the 2013 
     Rim Fire in California, the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     conduct a timber salvage and restoration pilot project on 
     burned National Forest System land within the Rim Fire 
     perimeter.
       (b) Management Plan.--
       (1) Use of eis proposed alternative.--The Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall conduct the pilot project required by 
     subsection (a) in the manner provided in the proposed 
     alternative contained in the draft environmental impact 
     statement noticed in the Federal Register on December 6, 
     2013, for Rim Fire recovery.
       (2) Modification.--During the course of the pilot project, 
     the Secretary may adopt such modifications to the management 
     plan as the Secretary considers appropriate in response to 
     public comment and consultation with interested Federal, 
     State, and tribal agencies.
       (c) Legal Sufficiency.--The pilot project required by 
     subsection (a), and activities conducted under the pilot 
     project, are deemed to be in compliance with the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), 
     section 14 of the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 
     U.S.C. 472a), the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 
     Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), the Federal 
     Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et 
     seq.), and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 
     et seq.).
       (d) Administrative and Judicial Review and Action.--The 
     pilot project required by subsection (a), and activities 
     conducted under the pilot project, are not subject to--
       (1) administrative review;
       (2) judicial review by any court of the United States; or
       (3) a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction 
     based on environmental impacts in a case for which a final 
     decision has not been issued.

     SEC. 903. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING USE OF FUNDS GENERATED 
                   FROM SALVAGE SALES CONDUCTED AFTER CATASTROPHIC 
                   WILD FIRES ON NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LAND OR 
                   BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT LANDS.

       It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, with respect to National Forest System lands, 
     and the Secretary of the Interior, with respect to Bureau of 
     Land Management land, should use existing authorities 
     available to the Secretary to retain revenues (other than 
     revenues required to be deposited in the general fund of the 
     Treasury) generated by salvage sales conducted in response to 
     catastrophic wild fires on such land to cover the cost of 
     restoration projects on such land.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McClintock) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, last August, the Rim Fire destroyed 400 
square miles of timber in the Sierra Nevada. It left behind hundreds of 
millions of board feet of dead timber that can still be salvaged, but, 
as I pointed out earlier, time is of the essence. Within a year, the 
fire-killed timber loses much of its value. Yet the current 
environmental review process takes a year to complete, and then 
litigation starts and runs out the clock on what remains of that 
perishable resource.
  Sixteen thousand acres of the destroyed timber is on private land 
owned by Sierra Pacific Industries. It does not face the bureaucratic 
obstacles that we face on the public land. SPI is already halfway 
through its salvage. It will be completed by summer.

[[Page 2619]]

They will use a portion of those proceeds to replant their devastated 
acreage.
  Meanwhile, the timber on the public land continues to rot and decay. 
The earliest the Forest Service can conclude its environmental review 
is August, and then the litigation process will start, and then it will 
be too late. The cost will be hundreds of jobs, millions of dollars of 
lost economic activity, and millions of dollars of lost salvage 
revenues that could otherwise have been used by the Federal Government 
for reforestation of the public lands.
  Now, title IX of the bill in its current form was based on bipartisan 
language introduced by Senator Tom Daschle to expedite salvage in the 
Black Hills National Forest, but these provisions were opposed from the 
other side of the aisle. So I sat down with the Forest Service and 
opposition offices to work out a process that will assure that salvage 
can begin by spring, while maintaining both environmental and judicial 
review. And I particularly want to thank Chief Tom Tidwell for his 
technical assistance and that of his office. This amendment is the 
product of these talks.
  It authorizes the Forest Service to select acreage for salvage where 
there is no wilderness, ESA, historic, or other legal restrictions. It 
authorizes them to implement the draft EIS that is expected to be 
completed by April and deems the draft is compliant with all applicable 
environmental reviews. This will allow salvage to begin under their 
direction in April.
  It authorizes the Forest Service to modify the draft EIS in response 
to public comment and allows for judicial review of the final EIS based 
on ecological impacts. It merely bars litigation based on process, and 
it bars temporary restraining orders. This will allow the timely 
salvage of a portion of the public lands destroyed by the fire while 
the final EIS is prepared and while any judicial review proceeds. 
Finally, it authorizes the Forest Service to use the millions of 
dollars raised by the salvage for forest restoration in the devastated 
Sierra.
  This compromise language assures compliance with all environmental 
laws and maintains judicial review while assuring that salvage can 
begin this spring. It is also important to the economy of the region 
that has been devastated by the fire and by increasingly stringent 
Federal restrictions and land acquisitions that have ravaged the 
timber, livestock, mineral, and tourist industries upon which these 
mountain communities depend. It means jobs for hundreds of lumberjacks, 
mill workers, truckers, and all those who support them.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
just want to say that I think this amendment adds to what he is 
attempting to do because the issue of salvage and the timeliness of 
that is something that is lost on a lot of people. So I congratulate 
the gentleman for not only the title in the bill but for the amendment. 
I intend to support it.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, since the Rim Fire burned over 200,000 
acres in California's Sierra Nevada Mountains in August of last year, 
Mr. McClintock has expressed an interest in expediting salvage logging 
operations in the burned area. The language he has offered to achieve 
this goal keeps evolving, and, in my opinion, it keeps getting better. 
Unfortunately, I still cannot support this amendment, the latest 
version of H.R. 3188.
  Since the fire, the Forest Service has engaged in an extensive 
planning effort that includes salvage operations where they are deemed 
appropriate. The planning effort is ongoing, and the amendment seeks to 
force a decision before it is complete. The amendment references a 
proposed action that predates the issuance of the draft Environmental 
Impact Statement. The draft EIS is due out in April. Until then, we 
should allow the public process to end before backing the Forest 
Service into a corner with a mandated decision. Otherwise, we take away 
the opportunity for public input and the ability for the Forest Service 
to examine the economic feasibility of salvage operations, potential 
damage to wildlife, and other consequences.
  CEQ has already approved an expedited process for the EIS that 
includes a shortened timeline for the comment period and eliminates 
notification requirements. The Forest Service is committed to this 
expedited process and working diligently to advance appropriate 
restoration.
  The amendment still mandates salvage logging in areas where it might 
not be appropriate while waiving Federal environmental standards. 
Taking NEPA out of the picture will not end up in more logging or less 
lawsuits. Supporters of this amendment understand that this is the 
case. That is why the amendment waives a bevy of other environmental 
laws, including the Endangered Species Act.
  The forests of Sierra Nevada provide Californians with clean water, 
fish, and wildlife habitat and recreation. Indiscriminate salvage 
logging threatens these treasured forests.
  Additionally, the amendment limits judicial and administrative 
review. This is still a huge sticking point. Salvage logging is 
extremely controversial, and we shouldn't take away any tools available 
for the public to be able to weigh in on these critical decisions. 
Supporters of this amendment argue that the objection process is 
overused and abused, but it is there to make sure that everybody has a 
voice in the process.
  I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to oppose its 
adoption. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, if the opposition prevails, the Sierra, 
400 square miles of it anyway, will be consigned to scrub brush and 
disease for generations to come. We have bent over backwards with the 
opposition to work out this compromise, and their continued opposition 
is quite disappointing.
  I repeat that time is of the essence. I beg the Senate and the 
Democrats to take up these provisions without further delay. These 
provisions were developed with the full input of the administration and 
Democratic offices. But if they are still not acceptable, then tell us 
what is, but please don't just sit there and do nothing.
  The Forest Service estimates that 2.2 million board feet can be 
processed per day. That means every day we dither and delay, $250 
million of Federal revenue is lost. That is enough to reforest more 
than 1,000 every day. But every day we delay, we lose that revenue, we 
lose those jobs, the salvage value deteriorates with the wood, and that 
window will start to close even before the litigation begins under 
current law.
  The private lands destroyed by the fire will have been fully salvaged 
and replanted a few years from now. They are going to host a thriving, 
young forest. If we don't change current law now, the public lands will 
remain unsalvaged and the millions of dollars we could have raised for 
reforestation will have been forfeited. Dry brush and dead trees will 
be the legacy of the Sierra that we leave our children.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, the Forest Service, as we speak, is 
preparing to authorize salvage operations on 30,000 of the 154,000 
burned acres, and a decision is due as early as August. As I said 
earlier, salvage logging is not without controversy, and the decisions 
to authorize these activities need to be fully analyzed and fully 
transparent. Many ecologists believe that post-fire landscapes are an 
essential component of forest lifecycles that provide critical habitat 
for wildlife and other essential ecological services. Rushing to allow 
indiscriminate salvage operations, as this bill intends, threatens the 
overall health of the forest. The planning process is ongoing under 
expedited emergency provisions set out by CEQ.

[[Page 2620]]

  Our national forests are more than timber factories, and we have a 
public planning process that ensures all uses and benefits are 
considered. This bill ignores that process, and that is why I repeat 
opposition to it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McClintock).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1045


             Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in 
part A of House Report 113-340.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

               TITLE XI--ALASKA NATIVE VETERAN ALLOTMENT

     SEC. 1101. ALASKA NATIVE VETERAN ALLOTMENT.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Application.--The term ``application'' means the Alaska 
     Native Veteran Allotment application numbered AA-084021-B.
       (2) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means the 80 
     acres of Federal land that is--
       (A) described in the application; and
       (B) depicted as Lot 2 in U.S. Survey No. 13957, Alaska, 
     that was officially filed on October 9, 2009.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (b)  Issuance of Patent.--Notwithstanding section 41 of the 
     Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1629g) and 
     subject to subsection (c), the Secretary shall--
       (1) approve the application; and
       (2) issue a patent for the Federal land to the person that 
     submitted the application.
       (c) Terms and Conditions.--
       (1) In general.--The patent issued under subsection (b) 
     shall--
       (A) only be for the surface rights to the Federal land; and
       (B) be subject to the terms and conditions of any 
     certificate issued under section 41 of the Alaska Native 
     Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1629g), including terms and 
     conditions providing that--
       (i) the patent is subject to valid existing rights, 
     including any right of the United States to income derived, 
     directly or indirectly, from a lease, license, permit, right-
     of-way, or easement on the Federal land; and
       (ii) the United States shall reserve an interest in 
     deposits of oil, gas, and coal on the Federal land, including 
     the right to explore, mine, and remove the minerals on 
     portions of the Federal land that the Secretary determines to 
     be prospectively valuable for development.
       (2) Additional terms and conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require any additional terms and conditions for the issuance 
     of the patent under subsection (a) that the Secretary 
     determines to be appropriate to protect the interests of the 
     United States.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, the Alaska Native Allotment Act 
allowed Alaska Natives to acquire up to 160 acres of Federal land. 
Approximately 2,800 Alaska Natives served in the military during the 
Vietnam War, and because of their absence, they did not have an 
opportunity to apply for their Native allotment.
  In 1998, Congress passed a law that provided certain Alaska Native 
Vietnam veterans an opportunity to obtain an allotment.
  One of my constituents, Mr. William Alstrom, applied for an allotment 
in accordance with this law. During the war, he served honorably in the 
Air Force. Mr. Alstrom is a lifelong resident of St. Mary's, Alaska, a 
village of roughly 550 mostly Yup'ik Eskimo residents located on the 
Lower Yukon River in southwestern Alaska. His family has a long history 
in the region, helping to settle the area and operating the first 
general store. During World War II, Mr. Alstrom's father, Fred, was a 
member of the Alaska Territorial Guard, or the Eskimo Scouts, a 
military reserve component of the U.S. Army organized in 1942.
  Following a TB outbreak in 1954, Mr. Alstrom was sent to a boarding 
school in southeast Alaska with many other children from Alaska 
villages. As the Vietnam War was escalating, he graduated from one of 
these boarding schools and promptly enlisted in the U.S. Air Force, 
serving his country. Soon thereafter, he left his wife and two children 
stateside and headed to southeast Asia. During the war, the newly 
minted Sergeant Alstrom served in Thailand, preparing aircraft on their 
way to strike North Vietnam.
  On completion of his service, William and his family returned home to 
St. Mary's, where he invested himself in his village and continued to 
grow and raise his family. Today, William continues to serve--this time 
as mayor of his community and president of his village corporation.
  In 2002, William applied for the Alaska Native veteran's allotment he 
was entitled to by law. Following an extensive application and vetting 
process, in 2009, the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, deeded him two 
80-acre parcels located in the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge.
  With his deed in hand, William transported lumber and other supplies 
to one of his parcels on his skiff, spent countless hours clearing 
trees and brush, and finally built a small cabin and fish camp for him 
and his family to enjoy.
  Out of the blue a few years later, the Fish and Wildlife Service 
realized that errors had been made by the Fish and Wildlife Service and 
BLM personnel, both in the surveying and application approval process. 
Instead of being located on general refuge lands, the two allotment 
parcels were located within the congressionally designated Andreafsky 
Wilderness Area. Conveying allotments in wilderness areas is prohibited 
by law. Similarly, making improvements to the land, such as 
constructing a cabin, cutting trees, or clearing bush, is also 
prohibited. As a result, the BLM canceled the deed to the two parcels, 
plunging this Alaska Native veteran and the status of his allotment and 
cabin into a state of limbo.
  After this decision, William contacted me for assistance. To their 
credit, the BLM quickly admitted that both they and the Fish and 
Wildlife Service screwed up. Though, after looking into their options, 
they also admitted that they couldn't fix their mistakes 
administratively. In an attempt to resolve the issue, the BLM offered 
William two parcels of equal size elsewhere in the region. While he 
agreed to accept one of the replacement parcels, the second proposed 
parcel excluded his cabin.
  My amendment today would approve his application for the second 
original parcel, subsequently saving his cabin and fish camp from 
demolition.
  Though two Federal agencies are at fault, my Alaska Native 
constituent is the one being forced to bear the full cost of their 
errors. The purpose of my amendment is simply to allow a veteran to 
retain the 80-acre parcel with the cabin on it, at no cost to the 
taxpayer.
  An identical version of this amendment was adopted by voice vote when 
the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held their markup of 
the Green Mountain Lookout Heritage Protection Act, of which the House 
version is included in today's package.
  As you well know, I am no proponent of the fact that the Federal 
Government is the landlord of well over 60 percent of my State. Think 
about this: 60 percent. I generally oppose wilderness areas. I have 
often had an adversarial relationship with Federal land management 
agencies. All of that aside, this amendment is not meant to make a 
statement for or against wilderness designations, but rather to fix a 
unique issue for a truly deserving Vietnam veteran. At its core, fixing 
issues like this is what we do well when we are sent to Washington. Mr. 
Alstrom, like his father before him, served this country with honor and 
dignity, and he deserves similar treatment from this government in 
return.
  I hope you will join me today in fixing this unfortunate mistake and 
allow this gentleman and his family to move on with their lives by 
supporting this simple amendment to H.R. 2954.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. If no Member is seeking recognition in opposition, the 
question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young).

[[Page 2621]]

  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee 
do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Young of Alaska) having assumed the chair, Mr. Denham, Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2954) to 
authorize Escambia County, Florida, to convey certain property that was 
formerly part of Santa Rosa Island National Monument and that was 
conveyed to Escambia County subject to restrictions on use and 
reconveyance, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________