[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4871-4884]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 ENSURING PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN THE CREATION OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1459.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Denham). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 524 and rule

[[Page 4872]]

XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1459.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) to preside over 
the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1445


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1459) to ensure that the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969 applies to the declaration of national monuments, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Poe in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.

                              {time}  1445

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, President Obama has not been shy about his willingness 
or his desire to circumvent Congress and take unilateral action on a 
variety of issues. This lack of shyness includes the designation of new 
national monuments.
  In fact, during the President's first term in office, an internal 
memo was leaked that showed plans to potentially lock up more than 13 
million acres of Western land with the simple stroke of the President's 
pen.
  Major land use decisions such as this should not be made behind 
closed doors and should fully involve the local citizens whose 
livelihoods would be directly affected by such action.
  That is why, Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 1459, the Ensuring 
Public Involvement in the Creation of National Monuments Act, sponsored 
by our colleague from Utah (Mr. Bishop). This legislation would require 
public participation before a President can designate a national 
monument under the Antiquities Act.
  Mr. Chairman, let me repeat this last sentence that I gave because 
this is the heart of the legislation. This legislation would require 
public participation before a President can designate a national 
monument under the Antiquities Act.
  Over 100 years ago, the Antiquities Act was passed to allow a 
President to unilaterally designate national monuments without any 
input or involvement from the people, communities, or elected officials 
of the areas that would be directly impacted.
  However, this authority was intended to be used under narrow 
circumstances and in emergencies to prevent destruction of a precious 
place; but unfortunately, we have seen this power abused by Presidents 
of both parties. It has been used as a tool to score political points, 
rather than to protect areas facing imminent threat or harm.
  National monuments are one of the most restrictive of all land use 
designations. They can significantly block public access and limit 
public recreation and other job-creating economic activities.
  The American people and their elected leaders deserve to have a say 
in which of their lands deserve special protections as national 
monuments and which should, instead, be allowed to contribute to the 
full range of recreational, conservation, economic, and resource 
benefits that carefully managed multiple-use lands provide.
  H.R. 1459 would guarantee public involvement and ensure that the 
designation process is transparent by requiring all national monument 
designations made under the Antiquities Act to comply with the NEPA 
process.
  Most, if not all, major land use decisions are statutorily required 
to go through the NEPA process. Designations made by the President 
should be treated no differently than those other processes.
  I will openly state, however, that I--and many of my Republican 
colleagues--believe that NEPA is a law that should be streamlined and 
updated. However, this bill is about transparency and ensuring that the 
public has a voice.
  So let me ask the rhetorical question, Mr. Chairman: If my Democrat 
colleagues believe that the NEPA is a worthwhile law that works and 
that NEPA is important, why should they oppose making sure that 
Presidential designations should not go through the same process?
  This bill continues to uphold the original intention of the 
Antiquities Act, which is to allow the President to act in emergency 
situations. It protects the President's ability to act if there is an 
eminent threat to an American antiquity by allowing for a temporary 
emergency designation of 5,000 acres or less for a 3-year period.
  After that time, in order to ensure public participation in the 
process, the designation would be made permanent if the NEPA process is 
completed or if it is approved by Congress.
  The bill would also limit national monument declarations to no more 
than one per State during any 4-year Presidential term and prevent the 
inclusion of private property in monument designations without the 
prior written consent of the property owners.
  National monument designations deserve public input from the people 
and communities who are directly impacted. This bill is necessary to 
stop unilateral actions by the President and ensure participation by 
the American public.
  I commend subcommittee Chairman Bishop for his work on this bill, and 
I encourage my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this week, the majority advanced a bill that would 
block the administration from implementing a stream buffer zone rule 
intended to protect waterways from the impacts of mountaintop removal 
coal mining, adding to the list of their attacks on the environment.
  House Republicans ignore the fact that Americans want clean water, 
clean skies, and more--not less--national parks and national monuments 
because, now, they are forcing a vote on H.R. 1459, a bill that will 
make it harder for Presidents to create new national monuments, adding 
layers upon layers of duplicative oversight and unnecessary 
congressional review.
  This is not what our constituents are asking Congress to do. It is 
simply another attempt by the majority to stall the protection of 
Federal land.
  In its 100-year history, the Antiquities Act has been used by 16 out 
of 19 Presidents. In fact, Teddy Roosevelt used it to protect the Grand 
Canyon, and over half our national parks started out as national 
monuments.
  Congress should not be diluting this popular tool or making it more 
difficult for future Presidents to set land aside and honor our shared 
history, but that is exactly what this legislation is trying to do.
  There are two ways to create a new national monument. Congress can 
pass a law, or the President can use the Antiquities Act.
  As we all know, it is becoming increasingly difficult to pass a law, 
even for popular bipartisan conservation measures. Bills languish in 
Congress for years, and the Antiquities Act is often the only way to 
move some of these projects across the goal line.
  The majority will refute this by pointing the finger at the Senate, 
blaming the other side of the Hill for inaction, and highlighting their 
own track record of passing bills out of the House.
  That is a smokescreen. They have only moved a fraction of the 
conservation bills sitting before the House. Many do not even get a 
subcommittee hearing, and some of these proposals have been around for 
10 years.
  As Democrats, we are very pleased to create new wilderness in the 
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. Don't get me wrong. This is a 
good legislation; but passing one standalone wilderness bill, one 
national monument, and one new national park bill in 3

[[Page 4873]]

years is not proof that Congress can do the work of conserving land and 
creating national monuments.
  For example, I introduced a bill to establish a national monument in 
my district that would honor and recognize land considered sacred by 
Native American communities in the Southwest.
  It is an area full of ancient petroglyphs increasingly under threat 
for looting and vandalism. A national monument designation will ensure 
that these cultural treasures receive the level of protection that they 
deserve.
  This proposal is supported by the National Congress of American 
Indians and every tribe in Arizona. Like many of my colleagues with 
similar national monument proposals, I am unable to get even a hearing 
on that particular bill.
  If the majority is truly concerned about public input or 
congressional review of national monuments and conservation of Federal 
land, why don't they consider bills to establish new monuments, parks, 
heritage areas, or wilderness?
  Nearly 100 conservation designation bills have been introduced in the 
last two Congresses. Four have become law. This track record doesn't 
prove that we need more Congressional review. On the contrary.
  If the majority is so eager to apply NEPA to the Antiquities Act, why 
are they trying to limit its scope for other activities on public 
lands?
  In the Natural Resources Committee alone, the majority has considered 
and advanced measures to limit public review for timber operations, 
mining activity, and oil and gas leasing.
  Following this logic, there is too much review when foreign 
corporations want to extract American taxpayer-owned natural resources, 
but not enough when we set aside land for future generations.
  House Republicans have attempted to rewrite California water law, 
undermine the Endangered Species Act, blow up the Stream Buffer Rule, 
and encourage State and private takeover of Federal lands, a trust 
owned by all of the American people.
  Putting up barriers to Presidential proclamations of national 
monuments, as envisioned by H.R. 1459, is just another feather in the 
antienvironmental cap.
  H.R. 1459 will set up arbitrary per-State limits on Presidential 
monument designations and require congressional review of any monument 
under 5,000 acres. Monuments over 5,000 acres won't have to be approved 
by Congress, but they will be delayed by a process intended to evaluate 
the environmental impact on major Federal actions.
  I hate to break it to the majority, but conservation and the 
establishment of national monuments don't have the same footprint as 
open-pit mines and oil wells.
  Republicans want us to believe that this bill is about protecting 
private property. The Antiquities Act only applies to Federal land--let 
me repeat, only applies to Federal land.
  If there are some concerned about people who have inholdings within 
that Federal land, why are they standing in the way of Federal land 
acquisition and depriving those property owners who are willing sellers 
of the right to sell?
  H.R. 1459 is a wasteful and duplicative piece of legislation that 
will, like most bills passed out of this House, have no chance of ever 
becoming law.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1459, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the work of the gentleman from 
Washington and for his yielding time.
  You have just heard one view of what the bill does from our friends 
on the other side of the aisle. I would bring a different view.
  Just a couple of months ago, Secretary Jewell visited a city in my 
district, Las Cruces, with the full intent--my belief--to create a 
Presidential executive order creating a monument.
  Keep in mind, that monument bill could not be passed through this 
House under Democrat rule. It could not be passed through the 
Republican-controlled Senate with a Republican sponsor. It could not be 
passed through the Democrat-controlled Senate when they had a 
filibuster-proof majority.
  Now, then the President is going to come and unilaterally declare 
almost one-third of a county to be restricted. The West is starving 
education because of the public ownership of land. Any time you create 
a monument, you restrict the ability of local economies to survive.
  So the first monument--the first wilderness area that was created by 
Congress is in my district, the Gila National Wilderness, and they are 
starving for jobs in that entire region. They are asking: When can we 
have our jobs back?
  So the gentleman describes that it is somehow we, as Republicans, 
objecting. No. All we are saying is that the President needs to live by 
the same rules as everyone else. The President is not above the law; 
neither is his Secretary.
  This bill is very simple. It is transparent.

                              {time}  1500

  It says that the NEPA process is about public involvement. That 
public involvement is what has scared away both Democrats and 
Republicans trying to make this 600,000-acre wilderness happen in the 
2nd District of New Mexico.
  This bill needs to be passed because Washington needs to understand 
the people own the land.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member of the 
Natural Resources Committee.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank my friend and colleague for the time.
  Mr. Chair, since Congress passed the Antiquities Act in 1906, both 
Republican and Democratic Presidents have used the power granted under 
the act to protect some of our most recognizable, most beloved natural 
wonders: Grand Teton in Wyoming, Zion in Utah, Olympic in Washington, 
and the Statue of Liberty. That is a few.
  Last week, I had the opportunity to backpack for 7 days in what is 
the best known and most visited--4.4 million people last year--the 
Grand Canyon of the United States.
  In 1908, Republican President Teddy Roosevelt granted national 
monument designation for the Grand Canyon under the Antiquities Act, 
and all but two Presidents since then have used this authority.
  At that time, it was critical to protect the Grand Canyon because 
tremendous development was being proposed, both for tourism purposes 
and for commercial uses and mining and other issues, so that was an 
extraordinary step that that President took back then.
  Why would we turn back the clock? Why would we strip this President 
or future Presidents from having this authority to preserve and 
conserve national treasures when they are indefinitely stalled, as was 
the Grand Canyon, in the morass of Congress?
  It was dysfunctional for a different reason back then; but it is just 
as dysfunctional or more dysfunctional today as it was back then. There 
is going to be no protection passing this House easily or freely with 
this majority in charge.
  Now, it is true that there have been some controversial designations, 
one mentioned previously and earlier by Chairman Bishop; but I would 
also note that no one--no one--has proposed legislation to repeal that 
designation by President Clinton.
  If they are so aggrieved and it is so egregious, I wonder why they 
haven't done that. Perhaps because it enjoys tremendous popular 
support, except from among a few people.
  Now, they say this is about more control. Let's take a look at what 
they have done with control. Over the last 4 years, the Republican 
majority has proposed legislation to sell off public lands.
  They have passed multiple bills that would open our public lands, 
virtually unregulated, as of yesterday, to mountaintop removal, 
mineral, and energy extraction. They shut down access to our national 
parks because of their stupid government shutdown last fall, and they 
found out that wasn't too popular.

[[Page 4874]]

  Then they held a hearing to find out why the parks were shut down 
when the government was shut down. Look in the mirror, guys. That is 
why the parks were shut down. They found out that the parks and these 
monuments enjoyed tremendous support from the American people.
  There have been 89 conservation bills introduced from both sides of 
the aisle in this House in the last two Congresses, and only four of 
the 89 have become law. This Republican majority is genuinely openly 
hostile to conservation designations; yet, today, they are pretending 
that they actually really care about these iconic places, and they are 
just making a couple little changes to the law to include more public 
input.
  You know, I have an experience from the Clinton administration for 
the Steens Mountains in Oregon. We only got it done because President 
Clinton and Secretary Babbitt said: we are going to make that a 
monument.
  Now, we don't have as much flexibility in designation, but if you 
would legislate something, we will work with you.
  We had a meeting in my office with the Republican Senator, a 
Republican Member from Oregon, myself, a couple of other Members came 
in and out, and the Secretary, and we hammered out a bill to protect 
the Steens Mountains in Oregon, and it passed on a bipartisan basis in 
a Republican Congress, with a Republican House and a Republican Senate. 
Unfortunately, those are the old days.
  As I said earlier, 16 out of 19 Presidents have used this power. 
Teddy Roosevelt said it best, I think, about the Grand Canyon, that we 
should:

       Let this great wonder of nature remain as it now is. Do 
     nothing to mar its grandeur, sublimity, and loveliness. You 
     cannot improve on it, but what you can do is to keep it for 
     your children, your children's children, and all who come 
     after you, as the one great sight which every American should 
     see.

  Today, the majority here would undo the potential for future legacies 
under the Antiquities Act.
  Just one side note: Chairman Bishop made much of talking about, in a 
Dear Colleague letter, that there was a provision in legislation, of 
which I was a sponsor, critical and unique to my State, designating the 
O&C lands, and he said it precludes new monument designations.
  Yes, he is right. That was in there at the insistence of the 
Republican majority. I would have been happy to take it out, but I will 
cut him a deal. I would be happy to negotiate.
  He voted for that bill, but it also includes 1.2 million acres of old 
growth preservation, 90,000 acres of wilderness, 300,000 acres of 
riparian set-asides, and 150 miles of wild and scenic designations.
  If he will fully support those conservation provisions in my bill, I 
will, perhaps, negotiate with them, that they could say: well, we won't 
do any more monuments in that area because we have already had a 
massive conservation victory.
  But that is why it is in the bill. They insisted, not me. Let's not 
create phony arguments here.
  With that, I urge my colleagues to reject this horrible legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei).
  Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chairman, it is nice to see that the assault on the 
authority of this branch continues. It is sad that it continues from 
within, and it is interesting to hear westerners talk about issues that 
are particularly acute in Western lands.
  I happen to hail from a State that is 87 percent owned by the Federal 
Government. The key word there is ``owned.''
  If you want to protect natural resources that are Federal--which, by 
the way, this law takes into account--the Federal Government already 
owns them. You do not have enough authority by virtue of ownership 
interest over the last 110 years, almost, to protect things? Things 
have not changed.
  I have heard criticism about the mining reform law of 1874 from my 
colleagues. Here is something from 1906, and it is like, if you can't 
protect it by being the owner, as the Federal Government--under the 
land management auspices of multiple Federal land use agencies, I am 
wondering why--and I heard somebody say these areas enjoy tremendous 
support of the people--what is the problem with allowing the people to 
participate in the process of monument designation?
  Why is it awful for these people who want these areas, want to enjoy 
them, to say, hey, you know, we are thinking of making a monument of 
this, and even though you control it by virtue of ownership and 
countless regs? We want to use the regulation that applies to that, to 
let the people who enjoy them so much participate in the process. We 
want to cede all authority to the executive branch because we happen to 
disagree on some things?
  Let me tell you, as a member of the Republican side of the aisle who 
has been advocating for the creation of 96,000 acres of wilderness in a 
bipartisan context with my colleague from Nevada--which I can't get 
through yet. I am frustrated too.
  I fail to see the harm in allowing the people that so much appreciate 
these Federal lands to participate in their further designation, adding 
another layer of administration, as monuments.
  Let's, please, defend our authority as this branch, and let's support 
this bill.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Huffman), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1459. 
This bill is a solution in search of a problem. The reference to public 
participation in the name of the bill implies that there is a complete 
lack of public input in the process of designating these monuments, 
that these designations are dropping abruptly and arbitrarily out of 
the White House.
  I will tell you, as the Representative of the newest national 
monument in the country, that is just not the case.
  Before President Obama added Point Arena-Stornetta Public Lands to 
the California Coastal National Monument, literally, the entire 
community in that area that I represent, all of the interested 
stakeholders were not only engaged, they had been engaged for several 
years.
  That includes everyone from the business community, local tribes, 
conservation groups, and local governments, to schoolchildren in the 
area. There was no opposition to this proposal.
  People came out to public meetings, and that included a public 
workshop that Secretary Sally Jewell had herself. She came out to the 
area. I assure you, there was no shortage of public input, no shortage 
of public participation, so this premise that there is a lack--an 
absence of public participation is, at least in my experience, totally 
false.
  But so is the political narrative behind this bill, this idea that 
President Obama has somehow overreached in his exercise of executive 
authority. In fact, President Obama has been much more judicious than 
many of his predecessors in deciding when to designate these monuments.
  Prior to this President, 16 Presidents from both parties have used 
this authority under the Antiquities Act over the course of more than a 
century, and that ranges from President Roosevelt's designation of the 
Grand Canyon to 140,000 square miles of marine monument that were 
designated around Hawaii by President George W. Bush.
  By comparison to his predecessors, President Obama has been very 
sparing in using the Antiquities Act, and he and his Cabinet have been 
very careful to bring the public in and to be very transparent, so the 
narrative about executive overreach is also false.
  Limiting the Antiquities Act, as this bill would do--and I want to 
emphasize this--will harm jobs and economic growth; and in the case of 
my district, in Mendocino County, the community understood that one of 
the reasons for broad support of this monument designation is that the 
community understood it was good not just for the environment, but good 
for the economy.
  The travel and tourism industry is one of Mendocino County's biggest 
industries, bringing in over $300 million

[[Page 4875]]

annually, and everybody understood that this monument designation was 
going to significantly boost that part of our economy; and it is going 
to happen now, this summer, thanks to what President Obama did.
  So why should a community like Mendocino County wait on a monument 
designation, especially in a situation like this, where there was no 
opposition to the proposal? No one is saying that Congress shouldn't 
play a role in protecting our public lands.
  It is important to note that bills to protect this part of the 
Mendocino coast were introduced first more than 2 years ago, so the 
112th Congress had a full chance at it.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield the gentleman from California an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, we know that Congress can be slow, that 
there are uncertainties in the process of moving through Congress.
  The question is: Why, in the case of something like this, when there 
is no opposition, all these economic benefits, should my district or 
any other district have to wait for this critically important 
designation?
  I think we should be very careful about repealing a bill that has 
stood the test of time and worked well for both Democrats and 
Republicans for more than a century, and I request a ``no'' vote on 
H.R. 1459.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
2 minutes now to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart), a former member 
of the Natural Resources Committee.
  Mr. STEWART. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my good friend and, 
really, one of my heroes, Congressman Bishop of Utah, for bringing 
attention to, I think, this very important topic, especially one to my 
home State of Utah.
  To my friends across the aisle, I think you have to twist yourselves 
into pretzels in order to object to this bill. In 1996, nearly 2 
million acres in the heart of my district were locked up in the 
creation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument--nearly 2 
million acres.
  It was the largest national monument created in the history of the 
United States. This massive monument was created with a stroke of the 
President's pen, without any consultation, without even notice given to 
the local population, no phone calls, no conversations, nothing.
  The President didn't even have the courage to step into my State when 
he created this monument. He stood on the Arizona border and said: I 
create a national monument over there.
  If the President desires to create new large national monuments, 
surely he can believe that conducting a thorough environmental analysis 
is a good thing. NEPA was specifically designed to mandate that Federal 
agencies stop and think about proposed actions and make sure that those 
actions are appropriate.
  It also mandates that all of those who are impacted by that decision 
would have sufficient information and approval. If the creation of a 
national monument is a good idea, shouldn't the monuments have to 
undergo public scrutiny?

                              {time}  1515

  And if the President can take 5 years--5 years and counting--to 
approve, say, the Keystone pipeline, can't we take an appropriate 
amount of consideration before we create another massive monument? That 
is what democracy is all about. That is all that this bill asks for.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is reminded not to engage in personalities 
toward the President.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio), the ranking member.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. To the previous speaker and others who have complained 
about Grand Staircase-Escalante, you could introduce a bill to repeal 
it. Why don't you?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), one of my 
classmates.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I join in support of this bill not just 
because it is about amendments and the importance of public input, but 
ultimately because it is about two central tenets that the Founding 
Fathers laid out that I think are important to both Republicans and 
Democrats alike.
  Quite simply, their belief was that three, four, or five perspectives 
were always better than one. They didn't want to see unilateral action, 
they didn't want to see a king, and the idea of overstepping on that 
front was contrary to what they set up; and secondly, that the 
individual was to be the sole repository of power in our political 
system and that any government had legitimacy only inasmuch as there 
was consent by the governed. And what you see with many of these 
monument-type activities is no consent by the locally governed.
  So I very much believe in land conservation and have been an advocate 
for a long time, but I believe in a process that prescribes to that 
which the Constitution laid out necessary in that process.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Maryland (Ms. 
Edwards).
  Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to join my colleagues in opposition to H.R. 
1459, the Ensuring Public Involvement in the Creation of National 
Monuments Act. It sounds good, but it should be known as the 
``Preventing New Parks Act.''
  This bill would severely restrict this and any future President's 
authority to establish a national monument, eliminating a crucial part 
of our Nation's conservation strategy. In this current poisonous 
climate, the majority has made it nearly impossible for Congress to 
conserve land for future generations using the legislative process. 
This past Congress, in fact, was the first since World War II to not 
protect a single acre of land as a national park, monument, or 
wilderness area--not one single acre.
  Just last year, there was a significant bipartisan effort on the part 
of the President and others to designate the Harriet Tubman National 
Historical Parks Act, of which I am an original cosponsor, but that 
bill failed to even make it out of the committee--with public support 
and with family support, failed to make it out of committee. Just 
yesterday, we celebrated the first anniversary of the Harriet Tubman 
Underground Railroad National Monument located in my State of Maryland 
and designated as a national monument by President Obama using his 
authority under the Antiquities Act.
  I was in the Oval Office with the descendants of Harriet Tubman and 
the people of that community who had been working for years for this 
designation. I saw what it meant to the community. They believed that 
it meant economic development, also.
  Had H.R. 1459 been passed a year ago, this monument to a national 
hero would probably be stuck in the arbitrary hurdles and redundant 
research this bill proposes.
  National monuments are an important part of telling our American 
story, and yet, currently, only 26 of our Nation's 460 national parks 
have a primary focus on African Americans, and just eight are dedicated 
to women. That includes the Harriet Tubman Park.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Rather than rolling back the President's ability to 
preserve both our national history and our natural heritage, we should 
be encouraging this and future administrations to continue to work for 
the common good--for the public good--that this necessary preservation 
work entails.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this restrictive bill, and I urge a 
``no'' vote on the bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to my 
colleague from Wyoming, I want to address what the previous speaker 
mentioned. She was talking about the Tubman bill.

[[Page 4876]]

  Had this bill that we are debating here today been in effect, we 
wouldn't have had the problem with the Tubman issue right now. The 
Tubman issue was designated as a national monument, but it didn't go 
through the local process, and as a result--as a result of that--there 
are flaws in that designation. Thus, the bill that the gentlelady from 
Maryland is introducing is to correct the flaws that were put in place 
because of the monument designation.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, the State of Wyoming is exempt from the 
Antiquities Act. I don't know if you knew there is any State that is 
exempt from the Antiquities Act.
  In 1950, when Grand Teton National Park and the Jackson Hole National 
Monument were combined, lawmakers and President Truman exempted Wyoming 
from further congressional designations. Now 48 percent of Wyoming is 
Federal land. We have the first national park, the first national 
forest, and the first national monument. We have nine total national 
forests and one national grassland within our State borders. Yet, 
without having to comply with the Antiquities Act, we created the 
national migratory bird refuge in Wyoming, which is a massive area that 
happened with local input.
  You don't need the Antiquities Act as it exists to continue to create 
Federal designations. They can be done with local and State input, 
which is exactly what this bill will allow. If there are additional 
unique and special designations necessary, they should go through the 
congressional process and not be usurped by unilateral Presidential 
powers.
  This is 2014. We are not back in the era when Presidents needed to 
designate areas that were at risk of being degraded. The ethic of a 
nation for conservation has come far beyond that. Let's adapt our laws 
to the morality and the ethics of the times. Let's pass this bill and 
give people involvement in decisions that are made in their States.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Carney).
  Mr. CARNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to join my colleagues in opposition to H.R. 1459. This bill 
will clearly undermine the Antiquities Act, one of our country's most 
important environmental and historic preservation tools, and one that 
has been critical to protecting beautiful land in my home State of 
Delaware.
  Currently, Delaware is the only State in the Union without a national 
park. That means that every summer as families flip through the 
guidebooks of national parks and search through the Internet for 
outdoor vacation ideas, Delaware is not on the map, except, of course, 
for our beautiful beaches. The good news is that, last year, the 
Antiquities Act helped fix this problem. It allowed for the creation of 
the First State National Monument, including the historic Woodlawn 
property, through a process that involved broad public input and public 
participation.
  The Woodlawn property is 1,100 historic acres spanning the border of 
Delaware and Pennsylvania. It had been privately owned and used for 
public recreation for over 100 years and was about to be sold, 
potentially leading to extensive residential development. In response 
to considerable public outcry about the possible loss of this great 
property, a private foundation, the Mt. Cuba Center, stepped in with an 
incredibly generous donation of more than $20 million to protect the 
property for future generations. Given the various limitations related 
to the management and transfer of the property, the Antiquities Act 
provided the right path for us to move quickly with plenty of public 
input to ensure that the monument effectively represented our 
community's goals.
  As part of this process, we held over a dozen public meetings on the 
creation of the monument, including a hearing attended by the National 
Park Service Director Jon Jarvis and hundreds of Delawareans and 
Pennsylvanians who expressed strong support for the protection of the 
Woodlawn property. The First State National Monument continues to enjoy 
virtually unanimous, enthusiastic support from all stakeholders in our 
community, including colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
representing districts in Pennsylvania.
  The provisions in this bill under consideration today would have 
jeopardized this process, and we may not have been able to realize the 
tremendous gift.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. CARNEY. I thank the gentleman for the additional time.
  Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican President, a great outdoorsman, and a 
lover of nature, said this about the importance of protecting our 
national treasures. He said:

       It is not what we have that will make us a great nation; it 
     is the way in which we use it.

  Let's continue our Nation's tradition of protecting our public lands 
in a way that reflects the greatness of our Nation. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time 
remains on both sides?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 16 minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from Arizona has 9\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, at this point, I will 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to 
H.R. 1459, the ``No More National Monuments Act.'' I have experienced 
the Antiquities Act firsthand through my community's efforts and 
success in establishing Fort Monroe as a national monument in November 
of 2011.
  The history of Fort Monroe is older than the history of the United 
States, and the story of Fort Monroe is really the story of our Nation. 
Fort Monroe is also known as ``Freedom's Fortress,'' witnessing both 
the beginning and the end of slavery in our Nation, and it played a 
crucial role in nearly every military engagement right up to its 
closure in 2005. After its closure, the city of Hampton and the entire 
Hampton Roads region united in support for the inclusion of Fort Monroe 
in the National Park System.
  The creation of Fort Monroe National Monument was the culmination of 
years of hard work led by then-Hampton Mayor Molly Ward, the citizens 
of Hampton, conservation and historic preservation groups, Hampton's 
City Council, Virginia's Governor, and Virginia's congressional 
delegation. These parties worked together at the local, State, and 
Federal level to urge the President to use his powers under the 
Antiquities Act to take immediate action to establish Fort Monroe as a 
national monument.
  While I supported legislation introduced by my neighboring colleague, 
Congressman Scott Rigell, to enshrine Fort Monroe as part of the 
National Parks System, this bill stalled in committee and was never 
given a proper hearing. Without the President's statutory authority to 
protect this land, it is doubtful that Fort Monroe and the history of 
the site would be protected as it is today.
  Mr. Chairman, had the underlying bill been law in 2011 when President 
Obama designated Fort Monroe as a national monument, we would be 
nearing the 3-year approval deadline included in this bill, and the 
powerful role that Fort Monroe played in our Nation's history would be 
in danger of being lost to future generations as the legislation to 
authorize the President's designation lingered in committee.
  While this legislation has been introduced to promote more public 
participation in the designation process, in my experience, the 
administration, including the President and the Secretary of the 
Interior, both went to great lengths to make sure that public input was 
a top priority in the decision to designate Fort Monroe as a national 
monument. This legislation, should it become law, would jeopardize the 
ability of other communities to protect sensitive Federal lands in 
their areas the same way that my community was able to do.

[[Page 4877]]

  Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, I oppose the passage of H.R. 1459, 
and I hope other Members will oppose the legislation as well.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan).

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, it is with great 
disappointment that I come to the floor today in opposition to this 
attempt by my Republican colleagues to undermine the Antiquities Act, a 
law that has resulted in the protection and preservation of some of our 
Nation's most cherished lands. The Grand Canyon, Zion National Park, 
the Cesar Chavez National Monument, and many more have all been 
protected under the Antiquities Act by Presidents of both parties.
  This issue hits close to home for me and my constituents. Last March, 
President Obama designated the Rio Grande del Norte in northern New 
Mexico as a national monument under the Antiquities Act. The result was 
years of work and the community coming together to find consensus on a 
path forward that respects our traditions and respects our culture. 
Protecting the Rio Grande del Norte had broad support and a strong 
coalition worked with the administration and Secretary Salazar to show 
that protecting this land needed to be a top priority. Whether it is 
for recreation, farming, or sustaining a way of life, the Rio Grande 
del Norte impacts all those who visit and all those who live off the 
sustenance it provides.
  It is one of the crown jewels of our State, and if it were not for 
the Antiquities Act, this majestic land that represents our culture and 
drives the local economy would not have received the protections that 
will ensure its vitality for future generations. This attack on the 
Antiquities Act is an attack on the preservation of lands that are a 
part of who we are, our rich history as a diverse Nation, and our 
ability to enjoy these lands in the future. I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I ask my friend from 
Arizona how many more speakers he has.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I have one more speaker, and then I will close.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Payne).
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for allowing me the 
opportunity to speak.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1459 because it could have 
severe unintended consequences for the 10th Congressional District of 
New Jersey, which I represent.
  This is yet once again an attack on the President's authority, but in 
this case, H.R. 1459 would create unnecessary obstacles regarding the 
President's ability to conserve lands and protect our country's most 
notable destinations.
  The Antiquities Act has been used to protect a site in my district 
that commemorates the outstanding achievements of a great American 
inventor, Thomas Edison. This great innovator produced many of the 
inventions loved across the world--silent and sound motion pictures, 
the motion picture camera, phonographs, and the electric storage 
battery.
  For more than 40 years, Thomas Edison's laboratory complex located in 
West Orange, New Jersey, was cranking out innovation after innovation. 
The laboratory employed at one time over 100 people, working on various 
projects from chemistry to physics to metallurgy.
  In 1956, President Dwight D. Eisenhower used his authority under the 
Antiquities Act to establish the Edison Laboratory as a national 
monument. One year prior, in 1955, Congress had established Thomas 
Edison's home as a national historic site. Six years later, the Edison 
National Historic Site legislation combined the two into a unit of the 
National Park System.
  Recently, the laboratory complex underwent an extensive renovation 
and had a grand reopening in 2009 to welcome America to explore two new 
floors of the laboratory that were previously closed to the public. The 
museum collections at Thomas Edison National Historical Park are by far 
the largest single body of Edison-related material in existence, and it 
is the third largest museum collection in the National Park Service.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.
  Mr. PAYNE. I don't believe Thomas Edison would appreciate this 
partisan bill which could turn out the lights on our future national 
monuments that honor innovators such as him.
  I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1459.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
5 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), the sponsor of this 
legislation.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, as I said on the rule, sometimes I 
am amazed at the kind of misinformation and inaccuracy that is taking 
place about this bill. This bill does not stop parks. It does not stop 
monuments. We have heard about the Grand Canyon being made a monument 
under this act, under this power, but please realize it was a national 
forest before that, and it was made a park by Congress because only 
Congress can make parks.
  The gentleman from Delaware, I appreciate him being here, he still 
has his park because only Congress can go through that particular 
process.
  I also get somewhat confused when people talk about how this is a way 
of rolling back any kind of protection. Mr. Chairman, the Federal 
Government owns over 635 million acres. We already have 336 million 
acres that presently are in a protected status. There is no way they 
can be touched by anyone at any time for anything. And those that are 
for development are only 38 million acres. It is almost a 10 to 1 ratio 
between the two of them.
  I want you to think back on when the Antiquities Act was originally 
passed. It was 1906. The States of Hawaii, Alaska, New Mexico, Arizona, 
and Oklahoma did not exist. They were all territories. My home State 
had only been in the Union for a decade. There were very few 
environmental laws. Today, if you were to list all of the environmental 
protections that we have on the statutes, both by the Federal 
Government and by the States, it would take four or five pages, small 
type, just to list them all. There could have been a reason for doing 
this. This is back in the era when there was no Bureau of Land 
Management. There was not even a Park Service when this was being done. 
The majority of the designations Teddy Roosevelt made were in 
territories that were not States. Things have changed since that time. 
Unfortunately, this law hasn't.
  And if you don't allow the NEPA process to allow public input, you 
make mistakes. You made mistakes in Utah--and, yes, we have had bills 
that have been filibustered by the Senate to make those changes, but 20 
years later we are still trying to work through what ought to have been 
there.
  The gentlelady from Maryland was here, and I appreciate her concept. 
Her Harriet Tubman national monument is a good idea. The unfortunate 
thing is it was poorly done because you didn't take the time to go 
through the NEPA process and get some public input. It is still in 
draft status. This is the boundary within the green. The stuff with the 
stripes on it are private property they just kind of found within the 
boundary that now they have to try to get approval to try to acquire 
that property. The white is also other private property that right now 
they don't think they need to acquire.
  Now, how come we missed all that stuff? It is simply because the 
President decided to use the Antiquities power without taking the time 
to get public input to go through those situations.
  Yes, a lot of Presidents have used this stuff.
  One other thing, too. The proclamation that created Harriet Tubman 
said there would be 11,750 acres set aside. The Park Service says it is 
actually 25,000, and no one knows the difference--25,000 acres of 
Federal, State

[[Page 4878]]

and private lands. See, that is the problem. If you rush this stuff 
through without taking the time to get input from people, you make 
mistakes.
  Don't make mistakes.
  The National Resources Defense Council said that NEPA, the National 
Environmental Policy Act, which regulates the requirement to have 
public input before you go forward with that, held that the Magna Carta 
protects people from the dangers of monarchy, and NEPA protects people 
by providing transparency in Federal projects. Both the Magna Carta and 
NEPA espouse the ideals of public participation and democracy by giving 
citizens a voice in government decisions.
  Giving people the chance to have a voice in government decisions is 
the purpose of NEPA. Every Federal agency has to use NEPA. Congress has 
to do something very similar because everything requires some kind of 
hearing. The only person that doesn't have to do that is the President 
when he uses this archaic act, over 100 years old, in situations that 
have changed.
  Instead, what was said about this in some of the misinformation going 
out, they said if this bill is passed, it eviscerates one of the 
America's bedrock conservation laws. Look, you can't say it is good to 
have public involvement except here, in which it is bad to have public 
involvement. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the administration 
said. The administration said the President should not have to go 
through NEPA, should not have to get public input because he is only 
head of the executive branch, he is not an agency of the executive 
branch. That is intellectual gymnastics, and one of the reasons why we 
have problems.
  This bill doesn't stop anything. Any monument that was made could 
easily be made. This bill recognizes there may be an emergency 
situation, and anything less than 5,000 acres can be done.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, what I was trying to say was, this 
is a damn good bill. And there is a reason why it is a good bill: 
because it simply requires the President to have public information and 
get the input of people.
  If there is an emergency situation, it allows for them to create 
something under 5,000 acres on an emergency basis without doing NEPA, 
it is just that Congress has to respond within 3 years to validate it, 
otherwise it reverts back. Anything that he wants to do with NEPA, he 
can do it regardless of the size. It is the appropriate thing to do.
  This bill moves us forward and takes a bill that may have been 
appropriate in 1906--but we are certainly living in a different time 
and a different era, and we need to make sure that a President, before 
he puts his pen to a paper, has actually talked to local people, and it 
has not always happened.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me just say that at the 
direction of the Republican leadership, this House has approved a 
remarkable series of anti-environmental bills in this Congress. While 
conservation bills languish and are stalled in Congress, we have seen 
time and time again House Republicans vote to deregulate mining, make 
drilling on public lands less safe, prevent Federal regulation of 
fracking, open virtually the entire coast of the United States to 
unsafe drilling offshore, give away precious public lands, override 
State and local water laws, and just yesterday, weaken existing limits 
on dumping coal mining waste in streams and rivers.
  In the last 6 years, 7.4 million acres of public lands have been 
leased for oil and gas drilling; only 2.9 million protected for the 
future legacy and conservation, for the future use of the public and 
this Nation. That imbalance is directly the responsibility of a lack of 
action by this Congress.
  Each of these measures were not only poor public policy, but also 
poor use of our time. They were, thankfully, dead on arrival in the 
Senate. This bill, H.R. 1459, is simply another bill in this series of 
deeply flawed proposals, and it will rightly suffer an identical fate.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a couple of points. It is pretty 
hard to follow-up on what the author of the legislation did, talking 
about the history of this legislation and why there needs to be some 
changes. I thought he did that in a very, very good way.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle, at least the previous 
speaker, but also others, have mentioned about different pieces of 
legislation that we have passed out. I understand that they are 
probably in opposition to having more exploration, making us less 
energy dependent with offshore legislation, with onshore legislation, 
and so forth.
  But, Mr. Chairman, what wasn't said in that argument was that in 
every case, in every case the legislation that the gentleman lamented 
that we passed, we had a hearing in the committee. We had a hearing and 
went through the normal legislative process. When you look at what the 
intent of this legislation is all about, it is simply to have a hearing 
with consultation and transparency with those that are affected, 
nothing more. You may not like it, but at least you have that 
transparency.
  Several Members said we haven't passed national park legislation in 
several years, and that is true. There is some pending, and obviously 
we hope to have that done by the end. But this point needs to be made, 
too. The National Park Service, by their own admission, has over a $10 
billion backlog in maintenance. Shouldn't we, as the keeper of the 
taxpayers' purse, look at that and say before we rush on some of this, 
let's make sure that we can afford to maintain whatever is going to be 
ensuing next.
  Finally, let me make an observation about my colleague from 
California, from Mendocino County, Mr. Huffman. He was saying that his 
community was very in favor of that monument designation that is going 
to happen, I guess, later on this year.

                              {time}  1545

  I don't think the gentleman, however, mentioned that that precise 
piece of legislation, which was H.R. 1411, passed this House on a voice 
vote. In other words, there is no need to make a monument designation 
for that because this House had determined that it was the right thing 
to do.
  The problem is the Senate hasn't moved on that piece of legislation; 
so, on the one hand, they say we haven't passed legislation, and when 
we do, the President steps in and, I think, overstates his authority on 
the Antiquities Act.
  I am sorry. Before I close, I did have another speaker. I apologize 
to my friend. If the gentleman wants to take more time, I will give him 
more time.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend from Washington 
for yielding and for bringing this bill forward.
  We are seeing an abuse of the Antiquities Act where you have got a 
President using this law to shut off more areas of Federal land to 
things like energy exploration. That is not what this law was intended 
to do.
  In fact, I think, if you look at the reforms that are included in 
this law, they are very good and responsible in ensuring that a 
President still has the ability to designate monuments where 
appropriate, one in each State for a Presidential term.
  If there is some monument that warrants being designated a national 
monument, that opportunity is still there. You just have to come and 
talk to Congress.
  I know this President has a hard time working with Congress, but we 
are right here. He talks about he has got a pen and a phone. Pick up 
the phone, Mr. President.
  You can call us, and if it makes sense, we are going to work with you 
to get it done; but don't abuse the Antiquities Act to go and cordon 
off Federal land, so that we can't explore for energy and for other 
great resource needs.

[[Page 4879]]

  I think it is important that we finally put the brakes on this 
Presidential land grab that we are seeing.
  I encourage all my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I want to, 
again, make the point there of my colleague from California (Mr. 
Huffman). He had a bill that passed the House and is pending in the 
Senate.
  There is no need for the President to go through this. All you have 
to do is pass the legislation which, by the way, had a hearing and was 
marked up properly in our committee.
  This piece of legislation, I think, is a good piece of legislation. I 
think it corrects abuses that have happened by the way of Presidents in 
both parties over the years.
  I ask my colleagues to support the legislation, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, today I rise in opposition to 
H.R. 1459.
  Exactly one year ago yesterday, the President designated 970 acres of 
land in my district as the San Juan National Monument. This designation 
came after years of grassroots work and outreach to create a consensus 
plan to protect these critically important areas.
  It came only because Congress failed to act on that consensus. I 
know, because I tried to get Congress to act and it didn't happen.
  In both the 112th and 113th Congress, I introduced legislation that 
would have protected these lands in a nearly identical way to the 
National Monument designation. Unfortunately, those bills stalled 
because of ideological opposition to conservation.
  In the part of the country I represent, people know that conservation 
isn't just good for the environment, it's good for business. The San 
Juans and the water around them are home to diverse wildlife from the 
Island Marble Butterfly to the Southern Resident Killer Whales.
  Because of that diversity, they are an economic engine for Northwest 
Washington that attracts thousands of tourists each year. Every year, 
fishermen, hunters, tourists, boaters, hikers, snowboarders, and 
tourists spend millions throughout my state. They come for the natural 
beauty and abundant outdoor activities we have to offer.
  If we do not protect those resources, we lose that business. For many 
rural areas, outdoor recreation is the driver of the economy.
  Unfortunately, this Congress has handcuffed itself when it comes to 
protecting public lands. And this legislation would handcuff the 
President and prevent him from providing that protection. I suppose the 
idea is that the President should follow our bad example. I disagree 
with that.
  Instead of stopping the President from doing his job, we should start 
doing ours.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered as read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1459

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Ensuring Public Involvement 
     in the Creation of National Monuments Act''.

     SEC. 2. NEPA APPLICABILITY TO NATIONAL MONUMENT DECLARATIONS.

       Section 2 of the Act of June 8, 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431; 
     commonly known as the ``Antiquities Act of 1906'') is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``That the President'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(a) That the President'';
       (2) by striking ``discretion, to declare'' and inserting 
     ``discretion, subject to the National Environmental Policy 
     Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), to declare'';
       (3) by inserting before the final period the following ``. 
     No more than one declaration shall be made in a State during 
     any presidential four-year term of office without an express 
     Act of Congress''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) A declaration under this section shall--
       ``(1) not include private property without the informed 
     written consent of the owner of the private property affected 
     by the declaration;
       ``(2) be considered a major Federal action under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.), if it affects more than 5,000 acres;
       ``(3) be categorically excluded under the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 
     expire three years after the date of the declaration (unless 
     specifically designated as a monument by Federal law), if it 
     affects 5,000 acres or less; and
       ``(4) be followed by a feasibility study that includes an 
     estimate of the costs associated with managing the monument 
     in perpetuity, including any loss of Federal and State 
     revenue, which shall be submitted to the Committee on Natural 
     Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and made 
     available on the website of the Department of the Interior 
     not later than one year after the date of the declaration.''.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those 
printed in House Report 113-385. Each such amendment may be offered 
only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated in the 
report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time 
specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.


             Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
House Report 113-385.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, beginning on line 6, strike ``if it affects more 
     than 5,000 acres;'' and insert ``except if it affects 5,000 
     acres or less, in which case--
       ``(A) the declaration shall be categorically excluded from 
     the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969;
       ``(B) the declaration shall expire three years after the 
     date of the declaration; and
       ``(C) the declaration may become permanent if--
       ``(i) specifically designated as a monument by Federal 
     statute; or
       ``(ii) the President follows the review process under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; and
       Page 4, strike lines 8 through 13.
       Page 4, line 14, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(3)''.
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 3. USE OF EXISTING FUNDS.

       This Act shall not be construed to increase the amount of 
     funds that are authorized to be appropriated for any fiscal 
     year.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 524, the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, this amendment tries to clarify the 
process for monument designations of 5,000 acres or less, providing 
that they can become permanent if the President follows the regular 
NEPA public involvement process.
  There was a question on the clarity of the language in the underlying 
bill that is there.
  It also ensures that new taxpayer dollars are spent by requiring the 
use of existing funds to conduct any study or analysis that is in the 
bill or may be added by an amendment.
  With that, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I think his amendment adds to this legislation, and I support his 
amendment.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, we are not really sure what this 
amendment is trying to achieve. If the underlying goal of the bill is 
to make sure that every national monument designation goes through a 
NEPA process or is approved by Congress, this amendment makes things 
more confusing.
  The amendment states that all monuments established through the use 
of the Antiquities Act shall expire after 3 years. It goes on to say 
that they may become permanent if the President follows the review 
process under NEPA.
  Does this mean the President could declare the designation a 
categorical exclusion? If so, what is the point of the amendment? Does 
that mean the administration has to file an environmental assessment or 
an environmental impact statement? Can they just issue a finding of no 
significant impact?

[[Page 4880]]

  Again, the amendment does nothing to fix or clarify the underlying 
bill. I oppose the legislation and the adoption of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, just to respond one more time, the 
purpose of this is to make sure that it was very clear on those 
emergency situations that were 5,000 or less. If, indeed, the President 
uses the NEPA process, that 3-year clock does not tick on all those 
parcels of property. Anything that he does NEPA process, that is okay.
  It was not clear in the underlying bill. This attempts to make it 
clear.
  With that, I encourage adoption of the manager's amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Barber

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
House Report 113-385.
  Mr. BARBER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, line 17, after ``revenue,'' insert ``and the 
     benefits associated with managing the monument in perpetuity, 
     including jobs created and tourism dollars associated with 
     managing the monument,''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 524, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Barber) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. BARBER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 
1459, the Ensuring Public Involvement in the Creation of National 
Monuments Act.
  Under this bill, national monument declarations must include a 
feasibility study that assesses the costs to the Federal Government to 
manage the monument in perpetuity. However, costs of managing the 
monument are only one side of the equation.
  As all Arizonans know well, national monuments, like Chiricahua and 
the Casa Grande Ruins, also bring significant benefits, such as tourism 
dollars, that create jobs and stimulate local economies. These benefits 
are real.
  Travel and tourism is a major economic driver in Arizona, bringing in 
millions of dollars to the part of the State that I represent--southern 
Arizona--and billions of dollars in direct spending statewide.
  The same is true for national monuments all across the country. 
Communities near national monuments would testify to the economic 
benefits of their national monuments.
  My amendment is simple and straightforward. This amendment says that, 
in addition to assessing the costs associated with managing a monument, 
we should also look at the many benefits that result from the 
establishment of a national monument.
  Doing so will ensure that Congress and the American people have a 
thorough and complete picture of how a monument will impact local 
communities.
  This is a commonsense amendment that will not add additional costs to 
the bill.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I wish to claim the time in 
opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I think what the Barber amendment 
does is reemphasize the fundamental purpose of this bill, which is to 
ensure there is transparent public participation and input in making 
these types of designations.
  I appreciate the addition he has made as to what should be studied 
and what should be encompassed. I think it an addition to the bill. I 
think it is a good amendment. I would urge its adoption.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Barber).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Tsongas

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
House Report 113-385.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

     02  At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY.

       The amendments made by this Act shall not apply to any use 
     of section 2 of the Act of June 8, 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431; 
     commonly known of as the ``Antiquities Act of 1906'') the 
     purpose of which is the protection or conservation of 
     historic or cultural resources related to American military 
     history.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 524, the gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill presented before us 
today is problematic for many reasons, as my Democratic colleagues on 
the Natural Resources Committee have very clearly outlined on the floor 
this afternoon.
  The Antiquities Act has served our country for well over 100 years 
and has been used by 16 Presidents to designate over 140 national 
monuments, many of them protecting American military heritage.
  To date, Presidents and Congress have designated 22 military sites as 
national monuments. One of the many unintended consequences of this 
legislation is that it would prevent the President from protecting 
important military cultural and historical sites under the Antiquities 
Act.
  As someone who grew up on military bases both across the country and 
overseas, I know firsthand the tremendous sacrifices that our 
servicemembers and their families make on behalf of our Nation.
  My father was a survivor of the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the World 
War II Valor in the Pacific National Monument is just one example of a 
monument that was designated by Presidential authority under the 
Antiquities Act.
  My amendment preserves the ability of the President to declare as 
national monuments those that provide for the ``protection or 
conservation of historic or cultural resources related to American 
military history,'' regardless of their size.
  I urge adoption of this amendment to maintain the President's ability 
to honor our military and military families and fix one small piece of 
this misguided legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I claim opposition to the misguided 
amendment to the well-proportioned bill that is under there.
  I appreciate what the gentlelady from Massachusetts is trying to do. 
I am an old history teacher, so these sites are important to me.
  But as well-intended as this amendment may indeed be, it still 
undermines the intent of the legislation, which is to make sure that 
any designation that is at large has public transparency, and you allow 
the local people to do it, whether it is a military site or not.
  This would create a very large loophole that is unnecessary because 
the provisions of the bill provide for that. If something is smaller 
than 5,000 and in immediate jeopardy, it can be handled.
  If it is larger than that and goes through the NEPA process, it is 
handled. There is no problem that could develop from this particular 
piece of legislation.
  I might also add that, in the Antiquities Act, any harm to anything 
that is an antiquity of element on a public property already is subject 
to fine and imprisonment.

[[Page 4881]]

  This amendment was attempted in committee--I appreciate the 
sentiment--but it was also defeated in committee by a vote of 24-13. It 
is the same amendment here.
  I would urge my colleagues to also defeat it, simply because it 
undermines the very purpose of this bill, and it does not lead to the 
public process.
  With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for his remarks, but 
I respectfully disagree.
  As we know, yet again to reiterate, the Antiquities Act has served 
our country well for over 100 years, has been used by Presidents, both 
Democratic and Republican, to designate over 150 national monuments.
  It was created to allow swift action to conserve high priority public 
lands when Congress is unable to act. It was not the intention of the 
Antiquities Act to let Congress dictate which national monuments the 
President can and cannot create.
  We have heard from our colleagues from Delaware and New Mexico the 
robust public input around designating the Antiquities Act. 
Presidential actions taken under the Antiquities Act are, like all 
other Presidential actions, exempt from the NEPA process.
  It would be a radical departure from long practice to subject 
Presidential action to NEPA. A significant change like this should not 
be considered on the fly in a manager's amendment without prior debate 
in the House.

                              {time}  1600

  Again, the underlying intent of this amendment was to protect 
military monuments. I respectfully disagree with my colleague across 
the aisle.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Massachusetts will be 
postponed.


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments printed in House Report 113-385 on which 
further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 3 by Ms. Tsongas of Massachusetts.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Tsongas

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. 
Tsongas) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 197, 
noes 223, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 145]

                               AYES--197

     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--223

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Amodei
     Campbell
     Cardenas
     Courtney
     DelBene
     Duckworth
     Frankel (FL)
     Hinojosa
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Schwartz

                              {time}  1628

  Messrs. RYAN of Wisconsin and LaMALFA changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Mr. PETERSON, Mrs. NEGRETE McLEOD, Messrs. DANNY K. DAVIS of 
Illinois, HANNA, and CLEAVER changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page 4882]]

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Duncan of Tennessee). Under the rule, the 
Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Nugent) having assumed the chair, Mr. Duncan of Tennessee, Acting Chair 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
1459) to ensure that the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
applies to the declaration of national monuments, and for other 
purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 524, he reported the bill 
back to the House with sundry amendments adopted in the Committee of 
the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the 
Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.

                              {time}  1630


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan). Is the gentleman opposed to the 
bill?
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Rahall moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1459 to the 
     Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith, with the following 
     amendment:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 3. PROVIDING A WAGE INCREASE FOR AMERICA'S WORKERS.

       This Act shall not take effect until the hourly wage for 
     the lowest 10th percentile of workers for all occupational 
     codes reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics under the 
     Occupational Employment Statistics survey is no less than 
     $10.10 an hour.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill. It 
will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If the amendment 
is adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as 
amended.
  My amendment is quite simple. It raises the minimum wage to $10.10. 
My amendment assures that, in America, if you work hard, you will not 
be forced to live in poverty.
  In this era of stagnant and falling wages, of a widening gap in 
inequality between the haves and the have-nots, we must ensure that the 
promise of the American Dream remains a reality for all Americans, not 
just the wealthiest among us. We can't just say it. We have to act to 
make it possible.
  Today, the minimum wage is 22 percent below its peak level in the 
1960s. It has not increased since July 2009, when it reached $7.25 per 
hour. It has not been raised in five long years.
  It has not increased since the near bottom of the Great Recession, 
when working Americans were walloped by the greed and reckless behavior 
of the privileged and the elite on Wall Street.
  We like to think that, if you work hard, if you earn calloused hands, 
you can rise to the heights of success in America. The reality is that, 
by not raising the minimum wage, we are condoning--we are endorsing a 
pay cut for the very hardworking Americans that we speak about in such 
glowing terms whenever we talk about working our way--working your way 
up the ladder. Such doublespeak makes a mockery of the American Dream.
  This is the House of the people, not the House of the 1 percent. Ours 
is a government of, for, and by the people and not a government of, 
for, and by the billionaires, at least not yet. Heaven help us.
  As Representatives of the people, we have a constitutional obligation 
to look after the interests of all of our citizens, but more 
fundamentally, we have a moral obligation to ensure that opportunity is 
available to all and not reserved only for the most well-to-do among 
us.
  Each and every year, minimum wage workers face a pay cut as inflation 
eats away at their earnings. Each and every year, this House, the 
people's House, sits inactive. It sits silent. It sits shamefully moot.
  As the House of the people, we have a moral obligation to do what we 
can to help boost the paychecks of hardworking Americans. There should 
be outrage. There should be contempt for our inactivity on this issue.
  I am talking about the 3.6 million American workers whose salaries 
are at or below the current minimum wage, more than three-quarters of 
whom are adults, nearly two-thirds of whom are female, more than one-
third of whom are full-time workers, and nearly three-quarters of whom 
have graduated from high school.
  These are real people--real people, Mr. Speaker, husbands, wives, 
fathers, mothers. Every day, they must make hard choices to provide for 
their families. Every day, they look to this body, this House of 
Representatives, the House of the people, they look to us for help; and 
every day, this body has nothing to say, nothing new to offer.
  Introduced in 1938, the minimum wage has been increased 22 times, by 
both Republican and Democratic Congresses. It was even raised in the 
hyperpartisan Congress of the Gingrich impeachment era twice--twice; 
but it has not been raised in this Congress, nor the last. That is more 
than shameful. It is immoral.
  In running against the do-nothing Republican-controlled House of 
Representatives in 1948, Harry Truman spoke of the gluttons of 
privilege, of cold men, of cunning men who were curiously deaf to the 
voice of the people, but who also were curiously able to hear even the 
slightest whisper from Big Business.
  Here is a case where the government must be an advocate for the 
people and for the working men and women of this Nation and for the 
forgotten man, as another great President once said, those at the 
bottom of the economic pyramid upon which everything else is built.
  Vague promises of hope are not sufficient. Economic excuses are not 
enough. We must act, and we must act now, and we can. Vote for this 
amendment to increase the minimum wage for the working men and women of 
this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion 
to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am still having a difficult time 
trying to grasp the concept that my good friend, the gentleman from 
West Virginia, would be opposed to such a brilliant bill in its current 
form in the first place; but with that, I appreciate his efforts and 
his concept dealing with this MTR.
  I just want to remind of you of one element. If you pass this motion, 
you don't raise the minimum wage, and you don't bring about any of the 
consequences CBO or other organizations talked about, that concept.
  All this amendment does is delay the bill. It doesn't raise anything. 
It simply delays the bill.
  This bill, the underlying bill, tries to take an act that is 108 
years old and modernize it, so that the American people are given the 
right to be heard before the President takes his pen and signs his name 
to a piece of paper and a proclamation.
  This bill simply says let Americans have the chance to talk about 
this before the President acts, like every other element of government 
has to do.
  With that, I urge your rejection of this MTR. I urge you to favorably 
vote for passage.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.

[[Page 4883]]

  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 5-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-
minute votes on passage of H.R. 1459, if ordered, and agreeing to the 
Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 193, 
noes 227, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 146]

                               AYES--193

     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--227

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Becerra
     Campbell
     DelBene
     Graves (GA)
     Hinojosa
     McCarthy (NY)
     McIntyre
     Miller, Gary
     Olson
     Roe (TN)
     Schwartz

                              {time}  1647

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222, 
noes 201, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 147]

                               AYES--222

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf

[[Page 4884]]


     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--201

     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Campbell
     DelBene
     Duncan (SC)
     Hinojosa
     Johnson (GA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Schwartz

                              {time}  1656

  Mr. CONYERS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 147, I 
missed the vote on final passage of H.R. 1459, the Public Involvement 
in the Creation of National Monuments Act. I supported this bill in the 
Natural Resources Committee and would have voted in favor of it on 
final passage. Unfortunately business on the Senate side of the Capitol 
prevented me from voting before the rollcall ended. Had I been present, 
I would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________