Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
RATES, WHERE THE SURVIVABILITY
OF THE SPECIES CAN BE WITNESSED
AND DETERMINED.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD BACK THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEWOMAN'S
TIME HAS EXPIRED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM IDAHO RISE?
SIMPSON
I MOVE TO STRIKE
THE LAST WORD.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
I APPRECIATE THIS
DISCUSSION ON WOLVES BECAUSE IT
IS SOMETHING THAT IS NEAR AND
DEAR TO THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO.
I WAS THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
IN IDAHO WHEN THE GENTLEMAN
FROM WASHINGTON SUPPORTED WOLF
REINTRODUCTION IN WASHINGTON --
IN YELLOWSTONE AND IDAHO AND
MONTANA AND WYOMING.
SOMETHING THAT IDAHO, WYOMING
AND MONTANA FRANKLY DIDN'T
WANT.
BUT NEVERTHELESS, FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE SAID THAT'S
WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO AND
THAT'S WHAT THEY DID.
IDAHO AND WYOMING AND MONTANA
HAVE DONE THE RIGHT THING IN
RESTORING THESE WOLF
POPULATION.
THEY CAME UP WITH A WOLF
MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT WAS
APPROVED BY FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE.
IT WAS APPROVED.
BUT THEN IT WAS TAKEN TO COURT
BECAUSE IT DIDN'T INCLUDE
WYOMING, AND THE JUDGE SAID,
NOT BASED ON SCIENCE, WE'RE
TRYING TO GET BACK TO SCIENCE,
BUT THE JUDGE SAID YOU CAN'T
JUST DELIST IN IDAHO AND
WYOMING MONTANA.
SINCE THAT TIME I UNDERSTAND
YOU HAVE TO INCLUDE WYOMING.
THAT FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
IN WYOMING HAVE COME UP WITH A
PLAN IN PRINCIPAL AND THEY'RE
STILL WORKING OUT THE DETAIL
BUT I BELIEVE THEY WILL HAVE A
PLAN BY THE END OF THIS YEAR TO
DELIST IN WYOMING.
ALL WE'RE SAYING IS WHEN
THEY'RE DELISTED BY FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE, THEY HAVE AN
APPROVED PLAN, THEN IT IS NOT
SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW.
BECAUSE FRANKLY THERE ARE
PEOPLE WHO DON'T THINK WE OUGHT
TO HAVE ANY WOLF MANAGEMENT
PLAN THAT WOULD INCLUDE, GUESS
WHAT, HUNTING WOLVES.
I KNOW THE GENTLEMAN FROM
THAT.
WASHINGTON IS ASTOUNDED BY
OUR GOVERNOR HAS INDICATED HE
LIKES TO HUNT WOLVES.
THE PROBLEM IS WOLVES HAVE NO
NATURAL PREDATOR OUT THERE
EXCEPT HUNGER.
WHEN THEY'VE DONE AWAY WITH THE
FOOD SUPPLY, SOME WOLVES DIE.
OTHERWISE THEY JUST CONTINUE TO
GROW IN POPULATION.
ANYBODY THAT THOUGHT WE WERE
GOING TO REINTRODUCE WOLVES
INTO THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS AND
THERE WASN'T GOING TO BE SOME
TYPE OF CONTROL, A HUNT OR
WHATEVER, WERE LIVING ON A
DIFFERENT PLANET.
NOW THE PEOPLE THAT OPPOSE ANY
TYPE OF WOLF MANAGEMENT AND
WANT THEM INTRODUCED GO TO
COURT TO TRY TO STOP THE
DELISTING.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WASHINGTON
HAS EXPLAINED THE PROBLEM THAT
EXISTS WHEN YOU HAVE MIXED
MANAGEMENT OF WOLVES THAT GET
CONFUSED.
THEY DON'T FOE WHICH SIDE OF
THE LINE THEY LIVE ON, WHETHER
THEY'RE PROTECTED OR WHETHER
WE'RE NOT PROTECTED, WHETHER
THEY CAN GO OUT AND EAT YOUR
PUPPY DOG OR NOT SO THEY'RE
CONFUSED WOLVES.
FOR THEM.
WE'RE TRYING TO CLEAR THAT UP
AND IN THE GREAT LAKES, THE
GREAT LAKES HAVE HAD A
POPULATION THAT IS GREATER THAN
IN THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS AND HAVE
BEEN DESERVING OF DELISTING FOR
A NUMBER OF YEARS BUT JUST HAVE
NOT GOT IT DONE.
AND CONTRARY TO WHAT THE
GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA SAID, I
ACTUALLY THINK THE SECRETARY OF
INTERIOR'S DOING A GOD JOB.
THERE ARE MANY THINGS I AGREE
MANY OF MY WESTERNERS WOULD
WITH HIM ON.
DISAGREE WITH THAT.
I HAPPEN TO THINK HE'S DOING A
GOOD JOB AS SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR.
I DON'T AGREE WITH EVERYTHING
HE DOES, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT,
WHEN I CALL HIM UP AND SAY, WE
HAVE SOME PROBLEMS WITH THIS,
HE LISTENS.
HE MAY NOT AGREE WITH IT AFTER
HE LISTENS BUT HE LISTENS TO
US.
AND THAT'S ALL I ASK FROM THE
GENTLEMAN IN THAT POSITION.
SO DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE ARE
CRITICAL OF THE SECRETARY.
I KNOW HE WORKS IN AN
ADMINISTRATION THAT MAKES IT
DIFFICULT FOR HIM SOMETIMES.
HE'S FROM COLORADO.
HE HAS WESTERN ISSUES.
I ENJOY WORKING WITH HIM AND I
TRUST THE FLIFE -- FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE BETTER THAN I
DO A JUDGE.
HERE.
THAT'S WHY THIS LANGUAGE IS
WOLVES WILL STILL BE PROTECTED
IN IDAHO, MONTANA, WYOMING,
WASHINGTON, OREGON, UTAH WHERE
THEY'VE EXPANDED TO AND IN THE
GREAT LAKES.
WILL THE GENTLEMAN
YIELD?
I'LL BE HAPPY TO
YIELD.
AS I RECALL, THE
FACT IS THAT MONTANA AND IDAHO
HAD PLANS THAT WOULD PROTECT
THE WOLVES IF THIS -- THEY WERE
DELISTED AND AT SOME POINT THEY
WOULD TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF
NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE
WOLVES, IF TOO MANY OF THEM
EXACTLY.
WERE KILLED.
THE PROBLEM IS
LACK CREDIBILITY.
WYOMING, WYOMING'S PLAN DIDN'T
NOW, I UNDERSTAND IT DOES, BUT
WHAT THE JUDGE IS SAYING, YOU
HAVE TO PROTECT THE WOLF
THROUGHOUT THE AREA WHICH
INCLUDED WYOMING.
THAT'S WHY THEY COULDN'T --
THAT'S WHY THEY COULDN'T DELIST
IT WITHOUT DEALING WITH WYOMING
AND WYOMING WASN'T READY.
SO I HOPE THAT WYOMING WILL
COME UP WITH A CREDIBLE PLAN AT
THE STATE LEVEL TO KEEP THE
WOLF GOING.
RECLAIMING MY
TIME.
IF WOLF POPULATION GETS BELOW
CERTAIN LEVELS, IT GOES ON AN
ENDANGERED LIST.
IDAHO AND WYOMING AND MONTANA
WILL NOT LET THAT HAPPEN.
I THINK THIS IS A GOOD WAY TO
GO FOR PROCEEDING WITH THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT AND
MAKING SURE IT DOES WHAT --
WITH THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
AND MAKING SURE THAT IT DOES
WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO DO.
WITHOUT OBJECTION,
THE GENTLEMAN FROM IDAHO IS
I YIELD.
YIELDED FOR TWO MINUTES.
THIS IS WHAT THE
DEBATE THAT THE ENDANGERED
SPECIES ACT IS HAVING.
IF YOU RECALL IN THE C.R., THE
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT WAS
ALLOWED TO -- WAS ABLE TO ALLOW
IDAHO AND MONTANA TO DELIST.
NOBODY COULD MANAGE.
THAT WAS THE FLAW AND THAT'S
WHAT WE'VE BEEN SAYING WHY, AS
WE HAD LAST NIGHT, PROBABLY
HAVE OTHER DISCUSSIONS ON IT,
WHY S.E.A. NEEDS TO BE LOOKED
AT -- WHERE E.S.A. NEEDS TO BE
LOOKED AT IN A COMPREHENSIVE
WAY.
IT'S CLEARLY A FLAW.
I'M GLAD THE C.R. AMENDED THE
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT TO TAKE
CARE OF THIS PROVISION.
THIS IS A COL KEY WE HAD
REGARDING WASHINGTON, OREGON
AND UTAH WAS SIMPLY TO --
COLLOQUY WE HAD REGARDING
WASHINGTON, OREGON AND UTAH WAS
SIMPLY MOVING IN A DIRECTION TO
MANAGE THE POPULATION.
I YIELD BACK TO THE GENTLEMAN.
I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN FOR HIS COMMENTS.
I'D JUST SAY TO THE GENTLEMAN
FROM WASHINGTON THAT WAS
SUPPORTIVE OF REINTRODUCTION OF
WOLVES IN MONTANA, IDAHO AND
WYOMING THAT PUT US IN THIS
SITUATION, SEVERAL WOLVES --
I WANT TO SAY TO THE
GENTLEMAN IF YOU YIELD, I TRIED
TO INTRODUCE THE WOLF IN
WESTERN WASHINGTON BUT THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE INTERIOR
COMMITTEE IN THE OTHER BODY
RECLAIMING MY
DISAGREED WITH ME.
TIME.
WESTERN WASHINGTON.
I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THERE
HAVE BEEN SEVERAL WOLVES THAT
HAVE COME TO MY HOUSE AND THEY
PRESENTED ME WITH A PETITION
THEY WOULD LIKE TO VISIT THE
CASCADES.
WE'D LIKE TO HAVE
THEM.
YOU'RE WELCOME.
THE GRAY WOLVES
ARE SHOWING UP IN THE CASCADES
NOW, EASTERN SIDE OF THE
CASCADES.
I YIELD BACK.
YOU'LL GET THEM.
THE OLYMPIC TOO.
THE QUESTION IS ON
THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM WASHINGTON.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR,
THE NOES HAVE IT.
MR. CHAIRMAN.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
WASHINGTON.
I ASK FOR A RECORDED
VOTE.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 6
OF RULE 18, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
ON THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY
OFFERED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM
WASHINGTON, MR. DICKS, WILL BE
POSTPONED.
THE CLERK WILL READ.
PAGE 60, LINE 6,
TRAILING LIVESTOCK OVER LAND.
MR. CHAIRMAN.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE
DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM
WASHINGTON RISE?
I HAVE AN AMENDMENT
AT THE DESK.
THE CLERK WILL
REPORT THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY
MR. DICKS OF WASHINGTON.
PAGE 60, BEGINNING ON LINE 6,
STRIKE SECTION 120.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
FIVE MINUTES.
WASHINGTON IS RECOGNIZED FOR
SECTION 120 PROVIDES
THAT FOR 2012 THROUGH 2014 THE
MOVEMENT OF LIVESTOCK ACROSS
PUBLIC LANDS SHALL NOT BE
SUBJECT FOR NEPA REVIEW.
PROPONENTS OF THIS PROVISION
SAYS THAT MOVING CATTLE FROM
ONE LOCATION TO ANOTHER SHOULD
NOT HAVE A NEPA REVIEW.
HOWEVER, MOVEMENT OF THIS
CATTLE COULD TAKE WEEKS AND NOT
JUST DAYS.
THE IMPACT ON WATER, PLANT AND
OTHER WILDLIFE SPECIES,
BE SIGNIFICANT.
INCLUDING BIG HORN SHEEP, CAN
SO I WOULD LIKE TO YIELD TO THE
RANKING MEMBER TO FURTHER
DISCUSS THIS AMENDMENT.
I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN.
SOME ON THE OTHER SIDE MAY BE
THINKING, WELL, WHAT'S A GUY
FROM A HEAVILY RESIDENTIAL
SUBURBAN AREA IN THE WASHINGTON
AREA WITH NO CATTLE IN HIS
DISTRICT KNOW SO I WOULD HAVE
THOUGHT THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN A
PERFECTLY FINE AMENDMENT.
WHAT DO YOU NEED TO HAVE
RESTRICTIONS FOR LIVESTOCK, YOU
KNOW, MOVING FROM ONE PLACE TO
ANOTHER?
BUT UPON FURTHER INVESTIGATION,
WHAT IS NOT IMMEDIATELY
APPARENT BECOMES VERY
IMPORTANT.
AS THE GENTLEMAN HAS SAID,
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT VERY WIDE
SWATHS OF LAND THAT ARE COVERED
BY THESE LIVESTOCK MOVEMENTS,
AND THEY DON'T JUST TAKE, YOU
DAYS.
KNOW, A FEW HOURS OR A FEW
SOMETIMES THEY COULD TAKE
WEEKS.
AND WHEN YOU GOT VERY LARGE
HERDS OF CATTLE, YOU CAN CAUSE
QUITE SOME DESTRUCTION TO THE
SOIL, TO THE BRUSH, TO
WATERWAYS, TO ANY NUMBER OF
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES IN THE
PROCESS OF MAJOR TRANSFERS FROM
ONE AREA TO ANOTHER OF VERY
LARGE HERDS OF CATTLE.
SO THERE CAN BE VERY
SUBSTANTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL
DESTRUCTION.
THAT'S WHY THOSE WHO ARE
INVOLVED IN THIS FEEL THERE
OUGHT TO BE SOME APPEAL TO THE
JUDICIAL SYSTEM IF YOU'RE GOING
TO DO THIS, AND THE ONLY WAY WE
HAVE, REALLY, IS TO HAVE A NEPA
REVIEW.
THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT WILL REVIEW IT.
THEY'LL TELL US WHAT THE
RAMIFICATIONS WILL BE, WHAT ARE
THE CONSEQUENCES AND THEN BASED
UPON THAT INFORMATION IN THOSE
THAT HAVE LAND OR INTEREST THAT
WOULD BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY
LARGE MOVEMENTS OF CATTLE FROM
ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER.
SO THAT'S WHY THE NEPA REVIEW
HAS AN APPROPRIATE PLACE TO --
AND ROLE TO PLAY IN THIS, AND
THAT'S WHY I THINK THE
GENTLEMAN'S AMENDMENT MAKES A
LOT OF SENSE AND I WOULD
SUPPORT IT.
I YIELD BACK THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM IDAHO.
STRIKE THE LAST
WORD.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I
REFER MY REMARKS TO THE
CHAIRMAN.
I WANT TO GET THE GENTLEMAN
FROM VIRGINIA OUT ON A HORSE
AND MOVING SOME CATTLE.
MOVING FROM ONE GRAZING AREA TO
ANOTHER, IT GENERALLY DOESN'T
TAKE WEEKS, IT CERTAINLY DON'T
TAKE WEEKS IN THE SAME LOCATION
YOU'RE MOVING FROM ONE
HOECATION TO ANOTHER.
TRAILING HAS NO SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT.
IN THE PAST IT HAS GENERALLY
BEEN CONSIDERED -- IN THE PAST
IT HAS GENERALLY BEEN
CONSIDERED GRAZING ON PUBLIC
LANDS.
THE B.L.M. HAS ISSUED PERMITS
FOR TRAILING ITSELF, FOCUSING
INSTEAD ON THE IMPACTS OF
GRAZING.
FOCUSING ON THE IMPACTS OF
GRAZING INSTEAD.
PROBLEM AND THIS IS WHY THIS
RECENTLY, AND THIS IS THE
AMENDMENT IS BEFORE US.
THIS IS WHY THIS AMENDMENT IS
BEFORE US.
RECENTLY ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTIVISTS THAT WANT TO GET
CATTLE OFF OF PUBLIC LANDS, AND
THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO TRY TO DO
THIS.
I DISAGREE WITH THEM, BUT THEY
HAVE FOCUSED THEIR ATTENTION ON
TRAILING AS A WAY TO SHUT DOWN
GRAZING ON PUBLIC LANDS.
CONGRESS, NOT THE COURTS, HAS
THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE
PUBLIC LAND POLICIES AND TODAY
RESPONSIBLE GRAZING IS AN
IMPORTANT AND LEGITIMATE USE OF
PUBLIC LANDS.
UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE THE
ACTIVISTS HAVE TIED LOCAL
B.L.M. OFFICES UP IN KNOTS WITH
LITIGATION, JUDGES ARE NOW
DETERMINING HOW PUBLIC LANDS
CAN BE USED IN THE WEST.
THIS PROVISION, AND IN THE SRNT
PART, THIS PROVISION ATTEMPTS
TO GET AHEAD OF THIS ISSUE BY
EXEMPTING TREALING FROM NEEPEA
-- TRAILING FROM NEPA
REQUIREMENTS FROM 2012 TO 2014.
I HOPE THE GENTLEMAN'S
LISTENING.
IT EXEMPTS THE TRAILING FROM
NEPA REQUIREMENTS FROM 2012 TO
2014.
IT REQUIRES PERMITS ON
TRAILING, FOREST SERVICES.
THE B.L.M. HAS NOT IN THE PAST.
BUT INSTEAD THESE LITIGATIONS
ARE TYING THIS UP IN KNOTS.
THE B.L.M. IS GOING THROUGH A
PROCESS TO INCLUDE TRAILING
WHEN THEY ISSUE THEIR GRAZING
PERMITS SO THAT IT WILL BE THE
NEPA PROCESS ON TRAILING WILL
BE INCLUDED.
THE PROBLEM IS BETWEEN NOW AND
WHEN THEY GET THAT COMPLETED
WE'RE GOING TO BE IN COURT
SPENDING ALL OUR MONEY IN COURT
RATHER THAN GETTING THIS
PROCESSING -- MOVING THIS
PROCESS MOVING FORWARD.
WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO REQUIRING
NEPA PROCESS ON TRAILING
PERMITS JUST LIKE THE FOREST
SERVICE DOES, BUT LET'S -- BUT
WHAT THIS DOES IS EXEMPT THIS
THROUGH 2014 WHILE B.L.M., FOR
LACK OF A BETTER WORD, GETS
THEIR ACT TOGETHER.
THAT'S ALL THIS DOES.
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLELADY FROM WYOMING RISE?
MOVE TO STRIKE THE
LAST WORD.
THE GENTLELADY IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
I RISE TO OPPOSE
THE AMENDMENT AS WELL, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
THERE'S A GENTLEMAN WHO IS A
WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST BY THE NAME
OF ALLEN SAVORY.
AND ALLEN SAVORY STUDIED THE
WAY BUFFALO GRAZED ON THE
SWEEPING LANDSCAPES OF THE
AMERICAN WEST.
AND BUFFALO GRAZED IN A MANNER
THAT CUT WIDE SWATHS OF
CONCENTRATED NUMBERS OF BUFFALO
THAT WOULD MOVE THROUGH AND
GRAZE LITERALLY EVERYTHING DOWN
TO THE NUBS.
BOTH THE WEEDS, THE BUFFALO
GRASS AND ALL OF THE VERY
NUTRITIOUS HARD GRASSES AND THE
GRASSES OF THE SAND HILLS IN
NEBRASKA, VERY DIFFERENT, VERY
NUTRITIOUS GRASSES THAT WE CALL
HARD GRASSES.
SOME SHORT HARD GRASS AND OTHERS
THE TALL GRASS.
BUT THEY'D TAKE EVERYTHING OUT.
AND THEY WOULD AT THE SAME TIME,
THROUGH THEIR SPLIT HOOVES,
KNEAD THE SOIL IN WAY THAT
ALLOWED THOSE LANDS TO -- IN A
WAY THAT ALLOWED THOSE LANDS TO
GROW MORE HEALTHY, MORE GROWN IN
PRIOR TO THIS INTENSIVE
SHORT-TERM GRAZING.
THAT'S HOW BUFFALO GRAZED, THE
-- GRAZED THE PLAINS OF THE
UNITED STATES BEFORE PEOPLE WERE
HERE.
SO, ALLEN SAVORY TOOK THOSE SAME
PRACTICES TO RODESIA AND STUDIED
THE MANNER IN WHICH GRAZING
OCCURRED THERE AND CREATED
SOMETHING CALLED THE SAVORY
SYSTEM, THE SAVORY GRAZING
SYSTEM IS NOW USED IN A NUMBER
OF PLACES THROUGHOUT THE WEST
AND IT ACTUALLY EMULATES THE WAY
THAT BUFFALO GRAZED.
AND THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN
YOU TRAIL CATTLE AND SHEEP
ACROSS PUBLIC LANDS IN A MANNER
IN WHICH KEEPS THEM CONCENTRATED
FOR VERY SHORT PERIODS OF TIME,
WHERE THEY DO VERY INTENSIVE
GRAZING FOR A VERY SHORT PERIOD
OF TIME AND THEN GET OFF THAT
LAND QUICKLY SO THAT GRASS CAN
REGENERATE, SO YOU DON'T HAVE
THE TYPE OF RUNOFF THAT HAPPENS
WHEN YOU HAVE SOME CHARISMATIC
MEGAPHENOMENAA OVERGRAZING DAY
AFTER DAY AFTER DAY IN THE SAME
PLACE.
THAT'S WHY THESE GRAZING
PRACTICES ARE APPROPRIATE, THESE
TRAILING PRACTICES ARE
APPROPRIATE AND ACTUALLY GREAT A
HEALTHIER GRAZING SITUATION THAT
CARRIES A LONG-TERM, STURDIER,
STRONGER, HEALTHIER GRASS
RESOURCE TO BE USED BY WILDLIFE
AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS.
THAT IS WHY ON A SCIENTIFIC
BASIS THERE IS GREAT RATIONALE
FOR RELIEVING PEOPLE WHO TRAIL
LIVESTOCK ACROSS PUBLIC LANDS
FROM THE ONEROUS EXPENSIVE
OBLIGATIONS OF THE NEPA PROCESS.
I APPEAL TO THE DESIRE TO USE
SOUND SCIENCE IN THE MANNER IN
WHICH WE APPROACH THESE ISSUES
AND NOT THE TYPE OF EMOTIONAL
ARGUMENTS THAT ARE RAISED BY
PEOPLE WHO ARE JUST
PHILOSOPHICALLY OPPOSED TO
GRAZING.
AND I YIELD BACK, MR. CHAIRMAN.
THE GENTLELADY YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HER TIME.
THE QUESTION IS ON THE AMENDMENT
OFFERED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
WASHINGTON, MR. DICKS.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR, THE
NOES HAVE IT.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WASHINGTON.
I'M WAITING FOR THE
--
IN THE OPINION OF THE
CHAIR, THE NOES HAVE IT.
THE AMENDMENT IS NOT AGREED TO.
THE CLERK WILL READ.
PAGE 60, LINE 15,
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS --
MR. CHAIRMAN.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES
RISE?
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WASHINGTON
I HAVE AN AMENDMENT
AT THE DESK.
THE CLERK WILL REPORT
THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY
MR. DICKS OF WASHINGTON.
PAGE 60, BEGINNING ON LINE 15,
STRIKE SECTION 121.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
FIVE MINUTES.
WASHINGTON IS RECOGNIZED FOR
SECTION 121 REQUIRES
THE BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY
MANAGEMENT, REGULATION AND
ENFORCEMENT TO KEEP DETAILED
RECORDS AND PROVIDE QUARTERLY
REPORTS ON ANY OIL AND GAS
PERMIT OR PLAN THAT WAS NOT
APPROVED BY THE AGENCY.
THEY DON'T ASK FOR THE ONES THAT
WERE APPROVED, JUST THE ONES
THAT WERE NOT APPROVED.
THIS IS THE MAJORITY'S ATTEMPT
TO TRY TO SPEED UP THE APPROVAL
OF OIL, GAS PERMITS AND PLANS
AND I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THAT.
HERE WE ARE 16 MONTHS AFTER
DEEPWATER HORIZON AND THE
CONGRESS HASN'T ENACTED A SINGLE
SIGNIFICANT SAFETY REFORM.
DESPITE THE SERIOUS SAFETY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SHORTCOMINGS FOUND
AS A RESULT OF THE DEEPWATER
HORIZON TRAGEDY, THE MAJORITY
WANTS BOEMRE TO RETURN TO THE
GOOD OLD DAYS OF LAX REVIEWS AND
QUICK APPROVAL OF OIL AND GAS
PERMITS AND PLANS.
I THINK THIS AMENDMENT SHOULD BE
STRICKEN AND I YIELD TO THE
RANKING MEMBER FOR HIS COMMENTS
ON THIS AMENDMENT.
THIS PROVISION.
I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN.
NOT SURPRISINGLY I FULLY AGREE
WITH THE GENTLEMAN THAT THIS
LANGUAGE AGAIN IS INAPPROPRIATE
IN HERE.
IT'S PUNITIVE.
IT REQUIRES EXCESSIVE RECORD
KEEPING AND IRONICALLY, BECAUSE,
YOU KNOW, NORMALLY WE'RE GETTING
COMPLAINTS THAT THIS IS
REQUIRING TOO MUCH RECORD
KEEPING.
WELL, NOW WE -- WHAT WE DO IS
REQUIRING IN THIS BILL EVEN MORE
DETAILED RECORDS THAT ARE NOT
NOW REQUIRED AND IT'S GOING TO
EXPAND THE BUREAUCRACY, THEY
HAVE TO PROVIDE QUARTERLY
REPORTS ON ANY OIL AND GAS
PERMIT OR PLAN THAT WASN'T
APPROVED BY THE AGENCY.
SO IN OTHER WORDS THE INTENTION
IS TO DISCOURAGE THE AGENCY FROM
NOT APPROVING ANYTHING, EVEN IF
THEY FEEL THAT THE OIL AND GAS
DRILLING OPERATION MIGHT NOT BE
A SAFE ONE, THAT THEY DON'T HAVE
THE REQUISITE RULES IN PLACE TO
PREVENT A DEEPWATER HORIZON
TRAGEDY.
IT SAYS, FROM EACH SUCH DOCUMENT
THAT THE BUREAU RECEIVES THEY
HAVE TO HAVE THE DATE THE
DOCUMENT WAS RETURNED, THE DATE
THE DOCUMENT IS TREATED BY THE
BUREAU, THE DATE OF FINAL AGENCY
ACTION BY THE DOCUMENT AND ON
AND ON.
MORE AND MORE RECORDS THAT ARE
NOT NECESSARY.
WE KNOW WHAT THE INTENT OF THIS
IS.
IT'S TO TELL THE NEW OCEAN
ENERGY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, IT'S
IN YOUR INTEREST, JUST SPEED
THESE ALONG.
DON'T HOLD UP ANY OF THESE
PERMITS BECAUSE IF YOU DO,
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THIS VERY
BURDENSOME REQUIREMENT ON YOU.
HERE 16 MONTHS AFTER DEEPWATER
HORIZON AND THE CONGRESS HASN'T
ENACTED A SINGLE SIGNIFICANT
SAFETY REFORM AND THE MAJORITY
WANTS US TO RETURN TO THE GOOD
OLD DAYS OF VERY LAX REVIEWS,
QUICK APPROVALS OF EVERY OIL AND
GAS PERMIT AND PLAN AND IF YOU
DON'T THEN WE'RE GOING TO IMPOSE
THIS BURDENSOME REQUIREMENT UPON
IT.
THAT'S JUST NOT IN THE INTERESTS
OF SAFETY, IT WORKS AGAINST OUR
RESOLVE, NOT TO LET A DEEPWATER
HORIZON TRAGEDY OCCUR AGAIN.
I'M USING THIS ACRONYM, FOR
THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW WHAT IT
MEANS, IT'S THE BUREAU OF OCEAN
ENERGY MANAGEMENT, REGULATION
AND ENFORCEMENT.
IT'S THE NEW AGENCY THAT WAS SET
UP TO PREVENT ANY FUTURE
DEEPWATER HORIZON TRAGEDIES.
SO HERE WE ARE, LANGUAGE THAT IS
INTENDED TO MITIGATE AGAINST
BOEMRE BEING ABLE TO DO ITS JOB
SO I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE
INTENTION OF THE RANKING MEMBER
OF THE FULL COMMITTEE IN
STRIKING THIS BURDENSOME
LANGUAGE.
I YIELD BACK THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO RISE?
I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST
WORD IN OPPOSITION TO THE
AMENDMENT.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
MR. CHAIRMAN, IF A LITTLE
GREEN MAN FROM OUTER SPACE CAME
AND LAND AND WATCHED THIS
DEBATE, THEY'D BE PUZZLED.
AND IF THE GENTLEMAN ON THE
OTHER SIDE WERE SO CONCERNED
ABOUT THE AMENDMENT, I'M PUZZLED
RECORDED VOTE IN THE COMMITTEE.
WHY THEY DIDN'T REQUEST A
THIS WAS ADOPTED
IN THE COMMITTEE, THE FULL
COMMITTEE MARKUP BY A VOICE
VOTE.
BUT THEN BEYOND THAT NOBODY
WANTS ANOTHER DEEPWATER HORIZON,
BUT THIS LANGUAGE THAT THAT THE
GENTLEMEN ARE OBJECT -- THAT THE
GENTLEMEN ARE OBJECTING TO SAYS
THIS NEW AGENCY WILL REPORT
QUARTERLY TO CONGRESS ON THE
STATUS OF PERMITTING AND WHY
PERMITS WERE REJECTED.
NOW, WHY WOULD THE GENTLEMAN NOT
WANT TO HAVE TRANSPARENCY AND
OVERSIGHT OVER AN AGENCY TO
WHICH WE APPROPRIATE DOLLARS?
NOW, THIS WOULDN'T PUZZLE ME IF
WE JUST HADN'T COME OFF OF FOUR
YEARS OF A MAJORITY THAT WAS
PREACHING TO US ABOUT
TRANSPARENCY AND OVERSIGHT AND
OPENNESS.
WHY WOULDN'T YOU WANT SOME
REPORT ISSUED BY THE AGENCY THAT
TELLS YOU WHAT THEY'RE DOING
WITH THE MONEY THAT WE
APPROPRIATE TO THEM AND WHAT'S
THE STATUS AND WHY A PERMIT WAS
REJECTED?
THAT'S A REASONABLE QUESTION.
JUST TO MOVE TO A DIFFERENT
AGENCY, I HAVE -- YOU MAY NOT
KNOW THIS, MR. MORAN, AND I'VE
BEEN INTRODUCED TO KNOW THAT I
LIVED IN MR. MORAN'S DISTRICT
FOR A PERIOD OF TIME WHEN I'M
HERE IN WASHINGTON, D.C., AND
NEVER SAW ANYBODY GRAZING AND
NEVER SAW ANYBODY MOVING
LIVESTOCK, BUT IN MY AREA, IN MY
AREA I WILL TELL YOU THAT WE'RE
THE NURSERY CAPITAL OF THE
WORLD.
AND WE ARE VERY MUCH CONCERNED
WITH THE GUEST WORKER PROGRAM
AND UNDER THIS ADMINISTRATION
APPLICATIONS FOR GUEST WORKER
APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN DENIED AT
AN ALARMING RATE.
BUT WHEN WE ASKED THE DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR HOW MANY HAVE BEEN
DENIED AND HOW MANY HAVE BEEN
APPEALED AND HOW MANY APPEALS
HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL, THEY KEEP
THOSE RECORDS.
YOU KNOW WHY?
BECAUSE THAT'S A REASONABLE
INQUIRY BY A MEMBER OF CONGRESS,
A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, A GUY
WHO'S GROWING SOMETHING IN OHIO
AND SO TO DESCRIBE THIS AS
SOMEHOW BURDENSOME AND CRIPPLING
AND SOMEHOW GOING TO LEAD TO
ANOTHER HORIZON DEEPWATER
DISASTER IS JUST RIDICULOUS.
NOW, YOU GUYS, EXCUSE ME, THE
GUYS ON THE OTHER SIDE, MR.
CHAIRMAN, ARE GREAT MEMBERS AND
GREAT ADVOCATES FOR A LOT OF
THINGS.
BUT THIS ARGUMENT DOESN'T EVEN
PASS THE STRAIGHT FACE TEST AND
I WOULD RESPECTFULLY URGE THAT
IT BE DEFEATED.
WOULD THE GENTLEMAN
--
I'D LOVE TO
YIELD TO MY FORMER CONGRESSMAN.
WELL, THANK YOU.
BECAUSE YOU HAD THIS DEEP-SEATED
CONCERN, I KNOW, ABOUT WHY WE
DID NOT ASK FOR A VOTE SO I CAN
CLARIFY THAT.
GOOD.
THE REASON IS WE WERE
WLOMED WITH MORE THAN 40
AMENDMENTS -- OVERWHELMED WITH
MORE THAN 40 AMENDMENTS AND WE
WERE TRYING TO LOOK TO THE
WELFARE OF THE REST OF THE
COMMITTEE, I MEAN, THERE'S ONLY
SO MANY OF THESE ISSUES THAT YOU
CAN CALL A ROARED VOTE ON.
SO WE -- A RECORDED VOTE ON SO.
WE TRIED TO BE --
RECLAIMING MY
TIME.
WILL THE GENTLEMAN
YIELD TO ME?
MR. LATOURETTE:KY APPRECIATE THE
PRESSURE THE GENTLEMAN FOUND
HIMSELF UNDER.
THERE ARE 200 AMENDMENTS, WE'RE
APPROACHING 200 AMENDMENTS ON
THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION, AND I
REMEMBER SITTING ON ANOTHER FULL
COMMITTEE MARKUP WHEN THE
GOVERNMENT ASKED FOR A RECORDED
VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN
USE STYROFOAM CUPS IN THE CALF
TEARIA.
THE GENTLEMAN HAS TO BE AS
CONCERNED ABOUT KNOWING WHAT
THIS AGENCY IS DOING AS HE IS
ABOUT STYROFOAM CONTAINERS IN
THE CAFETERIA.
HAPPY TO YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN.
THIS YEAR, I'M SURE
THE GENTLEMAN HAS NOTICED, WE'VE
BEEN TRYING TO ESTABLISH REGULAR
ORDER.
HAVING A SUBCOMMITTEE MARKUP AND
A FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP AND
AMENDMENTS ON THE FLOOR WHICH IS
WELCOME BY OUR SIDE.
SO WE HAVE TO KIND OF MAKE A
DECISION, ARE WE GOING TO ASK
FOR A VOTE ON EVERY SINGLE
ISSUE?
WE NEVER DO THAT.
WE TRY TO COOPERATE.
THIS IS COMITY, SOMETHING THAT
THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO
UNDERSTANDS QUITE WELL.
SO I WOULD JUST REMIND HIM THAT
WE'RE TRYING TO GET THROUGH
THESE BILLS AND THAT THAT'S WHY
WE TRY TO NOT ASK FOR A VOTE ON
EVERYTHING AND WE WANTED TO SAVE
THIS ONE FOR THE FLOOR SO THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE WOULD HEAR ABOUT
WHAT'S GOING ON.
JUST RECLAIMING
MY TIME.
I APPRECIATE IT AND I KNOW THE
GENTLEMAN SAID COMITY NOT COMEDY
BUT I THINK THAT IT'S COMEDY
WITH A D THAT REIGNS HERE AND I
TRUST THE GENTLEMAN HAD HIS
TONGUE FIRMLY PLANTED IN HIS
CHEEK WHEN HE MADE THAT
OBSERVATION.
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM LOUISIANA RISE?
TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I HAIL FROM LOUISIANA WHICH OF
COURSE IS A VERY BIG PART OF
WHAT THIS SECTION 121 IS ABOUT.
AND CERTAINLY WHAT
THE AMENDMENT IS ABOUT.
JUST BRINGING EVERYONE BACK, WE
HAD THE DEEP HORIZON SPILL WHICH
IS A TRAGIC SITUATION WHICH HAS
HURT LOUISIANA IN SEVERAL WAYS,
ONE BEING OF COURSE OIL IN THE
WATER, THAT'S OBVIOUS, BUT THEN
OF COURSE THE MANY JOBS THAT
HAVE BEEN LOST.
BUT, YOU KNOW, GOING BACK OVER
HISTORY, WHAT WE FOUND IS THAT
IN RESPONSE TO THIS THE
PRESIDENT BROUGHT TOGETHER 10
EXPERTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR
NOT DRILLING SHOULD BE STOPPED
IN DEEPWATER, OFF THE SHORES OF
LOUISIANA.
AND THE GULF OF MEXICO, IN FACT.
THIS BOARD OF EXPERTS CAME
TOGETHER AND SAID, NO, THAT
SHOULD NOT HAPPEN.
WE SHOULD CONTINUE FORWARD, WE
CAN SOLVE THIS PROBLEM, WE CAN
PREVENT IT FROM HAPPENING.
NONETHELESS THE PRESIDENT CAME
OUT AND SAID, NO, LET'S SHUT
DOWN DRILLING.
WELL, WHEN THAT DIDN'T WORK THE
PRESIDENT SLAPPED A MORATORIUM
AND SECRETARY SALAZAR ON
DRILLING.
THEN THERE WAS LAWSUITS, THEN WE
HAD A DE FACTO MORATORIUM, THEN
WE HAD A PERMER TOUM AFTER THERE
WAS A STATEMENT PLACED BY THE
JUDGE AND TODAY WE HAVE WHAT I
WOULD CALL A SLOWITORIUM ON
PERMITS AND LEASING IN THE GULF
OF MEXICO.
SO IT'S VERY CLEAR WHAT'S GOING
ON IS THE FACT THAT EVEN THOUGH
THE ADMINISTRATION CAN'T GET THE
COURTS TO STOP DRILLING IN THE
GULF OF MEXICO, EVEN THOUGH THE
OTHER SIDE CAN'T ADVANCE
LEGISLATION, THEY'RE TRYING TO
DO IT ADMINISTRATIVIVELY BY
SLOWING THE PROCESS DOWN.
SO ALL WE ASK THE PEOPLE OF
LOUISIANA IS SOME TRANSPARENCY
IN THIS ISSUE AND THIS SECTION
120 DOES, 121 DOES SOME VERY
SIMPLE THINGS.
IT JUST SAYS THE SECRETARY OF
THE INTERIOR SHALL LOG AND TRACK
THE SPECIFIC REASONS FOR BOEMRE
RETURNING ANY APPLICATION,
DEVELOPMENT OPERATION,
COORDINATION DOCUMENTS OR
APPLICATION, ETC., ETC.
WE'RE GETTING REPORTS
CONTINUOUSLY FROM DRILLERS, FROM
CONTRACTORS WHO ARE OUT THERE
TRYING TO DRILL, THAT THEY PUT
IN APPLICATIONS WEEKS, MONTHS GO
BY, THEY HEAR NOTHING.
FINALLY THEY GET IT BACK AND AN
I WAS NOT DO THED.
PROCESS OVER AGAIN.
SO NOW THEY HAVE TO START THE
ALL WE'RE ASKING IS THAT
INTEGRITY BE BROUGHT BACK INTO
THIS PROCESS, THAT THERE BE
ACCOUNTABILITY BACK INTO THIS
PROCESS AND YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY --
THE GENTLEMAN IS ABSOLUTELY
RIGHT.
WE DO WANT TO GET DRILLING BACK
UP IN THE GULF OF MEXICO, WE
WERE AT A PEAK OF $1 -- 1.7
MILLION BARRELS A DAY BEFORE
THIS INCIDENT.
IT DROPPED TO $-- 1.59 MILLION
BARRELS A DAY AND IT'S GOING TO
CONTINUE TO DROP BECAUSE WE
HAVE A PROCESS IN WHICH PERMITS
AND LEASING ARE STILL WAY OFF
TRACK.
THEY ARE NOT BACK TO THE LEVELS
THEY WERE, AND PRODUCTION IS
GOING TO NET DOWN.
AND AS A RESULT OF THAT WE'RE
GOING TO CONTINUE TO SEE OIL
AND GAS PRICES GOING UP.
DESPITE WHAT'S GOING OUT OF THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR,
DRILLING AND PRODUCTION IS NOT
UP, IT'S DONE, AND IT'S
CONTINUING DOWN AND WILL
CONTINUE TO DO FOR THE
FORESEEABLE FUTURE UNTIL WE GET
THE PERMITS AND LEASES BACK UP.
SO I CERTAINLY SUGGEST, MR.
CHAIRMAN, THAT MY COLLEAGUES
AND I SHOULD OPPOSE THIS
AMENDMENT.
WE DO NEED TO HAVE TRANSPARENCY
AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN BOEMRE
WHEN IT COMES TO OFFSHORE
DRILLING.
WILL THE GENTLEMAN
YIELD?
I WILL.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
QUITE RIGHT.
THERE ARE NOW 1.6 MILLION
BARRELS PER DAY BEING DRILLED,
BUT TO DATE 67 UNTIL SHALLOW
-WATER WELL PERMITS HAVE BEEN
ISSUED SINCE THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF THESE NEW STANDARDS, AND
THEY'RE AVERAGING SIX PER
MONTH.
THE AVERPBLG BEFORE THE
DISASTER HAD BEEN EIGHT, SO
THEY'RE CATCHING UP.
JUST THREE OF THESE PERMITS ARE
CURRENTLY PENDING.
EIGHT THIS ASKED FOR MORE
INFORMATION.
HAVE NOT BEEN DENIED.
TERMS OF DEEP WATER, 75 PERMITS
HAVE BEEN ISSUED.
THERE ARE 25 PENDING, 22 HAVE
BEEN ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION.
AND MOSTLY THAT INFORMATION IS
-- WITH REGARD TO CONTAINMENT
WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT WE
INSTRUCTED THE BUREAU OF OCEAN
AND ENERGY MANAGEMENT TO DO.
CAN THEY ASSURE US THAT THEY
CAN CONTAIN ANY SPILL?
SO, YOU KNOW, THINGS ARE NOT
QUITE AS DIRE AS YOU MIGHT
BELIEVE.
RECLAIMING MY TIME
BRIEFLY, I WOULD JUST SUGGEST
WE'RE STILWELL OFFPACE.
ACCOUNTABILITY IS NOT BEING TO
BE A FACTOR.
THE TIME OF THE
GENTLEMAN HAS EXPIRED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS RISE?
TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
IN THE SEVEN MONTH BELOW THE
BLOWOUT THERE WERE NINE
DEEP-WATER PERMITS AND SINCE
THE MORATORIUM WAS LIFTED THERE
WAS SEVEN DEEP-WATER PERMITS
ISSUED.
AND IN THE COMMITTEE WE OFFERED
THIS AMENDMENT SIMPLY TO SHINE
SUNLIGHT ON THE PROCESS.
ALL THE LANGUAGE IN THIS BILL
REQUIRES IS THAT THE AGENCY
REPORT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
AND REPORT TO CONGRESS THE
REASONS WHY A PERMIT FOR
EXPLORATION OR FOR DRILLING HAS
BEEN SLOWED DOWN OR DELAYED.
WE'RE ALL COMMITTED TO
TRANSPARENCY.
WE WANT TO KNOW
HOW AND WHERE OUR TAX DOLLARS
ARE BEING SPENT.
AND THE SLOWDOWN AND DRILLING
IN THE GULF OF MEXICO HAS HAD A
CATASTROPHIC EVENT.
SINCE 2008 OVER 60,000 JOBS
HAVE BEEN LOST IN THE GULF OF
MEXICO AREA.
IF WE GET BACK TO THE LEVELS OF
DRILLING, OF PERMITTING, BOTH
SHALLOW AND DEEP WATER, THAT WE
WERE BEFORE THE BLOWOUT, IT'S
ESTIMATED THAT AS MANY AS
190,000 JOBS COULD BE CREATED
IN THE GULF OF MEXICO IN ABOUT
18 MONTHS WITH ABOUT 400,000
INDUSTRY-SUPPORTED JOBS ACROSS
THE UNITED STATES SUPPLYING
EQUIPMENT TO THE OFFSHORE OIL
INDUSTRY.
NO ONE HAS A STRONGER STAKE IN
PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT THAN
THOSE WHO LIVE THERE.
THOSE FOLKS WHO GREAT FOR THESE
COMPANIES ARE MY FRIENDS AND MY
NEIGHBORS.
I'M PROUD TO REPRESENT SO MANY
OF THESE COMPANIES.
HOUSTON, TEXAS, IS TO THE OIL
INDUSTRY WHAT SILICON VALLEY IS
TO THE COMPUTER INDUSTRY.
THESE ARE SCIENTISTS, THESE ARE
PEOPLE WHO LIVE AND WORK IN THE
GULF OF MEXICO.
WHO FISH THERE.
WHOSE KIDS PLAY ON THE BEACHES.
BEING A HUSTONIAN IN THE GULF,
TAR BALLS WERE COMMON ON THE
BEACH.
YOU JUST DON'T SEE THEM
ANYMORE.
WILL THE GENTLEMAN
YIELD?
I WILL.
THE GENTLEMAN AND I
WORK TOGETHER.
I HAVE GREAT REGARD WITH THEM.
I JUST WANT TO MENTION A COUPLE
OF FACTS AND IF WE HAVE TIME I
WILL TRY TO GET YOU MORE TIME.
67 NEW WATER WELL PERMITS HAVE
BEEN ISSUED SINCE THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW SAFETY
AND ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS ON
JUNE 8, 2010.
PERMITS HAVE AVERAGED MORE THAN
SIX PER MONTH OVER THE LAST
EIGHT MONTHS.
COMPARED TO AN AVERAGE OF EIGHT
PER MONTH IN 2009.
JUST THREE OF THESE PERMITS ARE
CURRENTLY PENDING WITH EIGHT
HAVING BEEN RETURNED TO THE ON
RATOR FOR MORE INFORMATION.
-- OPERATOR FOR MORE
INFORMATION.
WHY CAN'T WE ASK THEM, ON THE
ONES THEY'RE DOING THE REPORT,
BUT THE ONES THEY HAVE
APPROVED, WOULDN'T THE
GENTLEMAN HAVE ALL THAT
INFORMATION?
WELL, THE
PERMITS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED
ARE A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD.
IF -- THE ONES THAT HAVE NOT WE
WANT TO SEE THAT LANGUAGE AND
WHY IT'S BEEN DENIED.
IT SHINES SUNLIGHT IN MANY OF
THE CORNERS OF THIS PROCESS.
FOR MANY OF THESE PERMITS HAVE
BEEN REJECTED FOR REASONS THAT
ARE NOT DIRECTLY TIED TO THE
SUBSTANCE OF THE APPLICATION.
I'VE SEEN PERMITS THAT ARE
REJECTED BECAUSE THE TYPE FACE
WASN'T IN THE OPINION OF THE
PERMITTER CORRECT.
IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE'S BEEN A
SLOWDOWN.
THAT THIS ADMINISTRATION
OVERREACTED TO THE SPILL AND IS
DELIBERATELY SLOWED DOWN THE
PERMITTING PROCESS AND HAS MADE
IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR AMERICANS
TO FIND AMERICAN OIL AND GAS.
AND WE'RE -- WE'RE COMMITTED TO
DRILL HERE AND DRILL NOW IN A
WAY THAT'S SAFE AND CLEAN, THAT
PROTECTS THE ENVIRONMENT BUT
YET TAKES ADVANTAGE OF THE
NATURAL RESOURCES THAT GOD HAS
SO ABUNDANTLY BLESSED THIS
CONTINENT WITH.
WE HAVE HAD -- IN THE GULF OF
MEXICO DEMONSTRATED IT CAN BE
DONE CLEANLY AND SAFELY AND
THERE'S NO QUICKER WAY TO
GENERATE HIGH-PAYING JOBS THAN
TO OPEN UP DRILLING IN THE
CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES,
MEXICO.
PARTICULARLY IN THE GULF OF
THOSE RIGS ARE GONE, BY THE
WAY, MR. DICKS.
ONCE THOSE RIGS LEAVE THE GULF
OF MEXICO, THEY DON'T COME
BACK.
I WOULD BE HAPPY TO YIELD TO MY
FRIEND FROM OHIO.
SOMETIMES
DURING THE COURSE OF A VERY
INTELLIGENT DISCUSSION, THE
TRUTH THEN AND FACTS COME OUT.
NOW, BOTH THE GENTLEMAN FROM
WASHINGTON AND THE GENTLEMAN
FROM VIRGINIA HAVE BEEN ABLE TO
CITE CHAPTER AND VERSE OF HOW
MANY APPLICATIONS HAS BEEN
APPLIED FOR, WHAT HAPPENED TO
THEM.
TO SUGGEST THAT SOMEHOW THIS IS
GOING TO CREATE SOME ADDITIONAL
BURDEN, YOU HAVE TO ADD A LINE.
WE DENIED IT BECAUSE.
SO I TRUST BASED UPON THE
SUNSHINE THAT'S NOW BEEN
BROUGHT FORTH BY THE GOOD FACT
OF THE RANKING MEMBER, PERHAPS
WE COULD GET PASSED THIS
AMENDMENT WITHOUT A RECORDED
VOTE IN THE INTEREST OF COMITY.
WILL THE GENTLEMAN
YIELD?
I YIELD.
NOW WE GET TO DEEP
WATER.
SINCE IT HAD CONTAINMENT
CAPABILITIES IN MID FEBRUARY OF
THIS YEAR, THEY HAVE APPROVED
75 PERMITS FOR 21 UNIQUE WELLS
WITH 25 PERMITS PENDING AND 22
PERMITS RETURNED TO THE
OPERATOR WITH REQUEST FOR
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
CAN I HAVE ONE ADDITIONAL
MINUTE?
IS THERE OBJECTION?
WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE
GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS IS
RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE
ADDITIONAL MINUTE.
IF THE GENTLEMAN
WILL YIELD.
PARTICULARLY REGARDING
CONTAINMENT.
NOW, WE WANT TO DO THIS SAFELY.
WE DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH
WHAT WE WENT THROUGH.
OF COURSE.
CLEANLY, SAFELY.
BUT I JUST HOPE WE
CAN HAVE REPORTS THAT NOT ONLY
-- ABOUT THE ONES THAT ARE
TURNED BACK, AS YOU SAY, MAYBE
THE OTHER ONES ARE PART OF A
PUBLIC RECORD.
I THINK THE REPORT SHOULD COME
BACK WITH BOTH OF THESE, IF
IT'S GOING TO COME TO THE
CONGRESS, YOU KNOW HOW THIS
PLACE WORKS.
NOT EVERYBODY SEES THESE PUBLIC
RECORDS.
IF THESE REPORTS ARE GOING TO
BE USED BY THE COMMITTEE, WE
OUGHT TO HAVE BOTH SIDES OF THE
EQUAGS.
-- EQUATION.
WE AGREE THAT
SUNSHINE IS A PERFECT THING.
WITH RESPECT, IT'S IMPORTANT
THAT THE HOUSE REJECT THIS
AMENDMENT SO WE CAN HAVE
SUNLIGHT IN EVERY CORNER OF THE
PERMITTING PROCESS AND THE
PUBLIC AND THE CONGRESS CAN
KNOW WHY THESE PERMITS HAVE
BEEN DELAYED OR DENIED SO WE
CAN OPEN THE GULF OF MEXICO TO
DRILL HERE AND DRILL NOW
CLEANLY AND SAFELY.
AND I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF
MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLELADY FROM FLORIDA RISE?
STRIKE THE LAST
WORD.
THE GENTLELADY IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
I FEEL LIKE A LOT OF AMERICANS,
AS USUAL.
I JUST CAN'T ACT LIKE BUSINESS
I'M VERY UPSET THAT THE F.A.A.
IS SHUT DOWN.
AND LET ME JUST TELL EVERYONE
THAT HOUSE BILL 2644 BY
COSTELLO WAS FILED YESTERDAY.
IT IS A CLEAN RE-AUTHORIZATION
OF THE F.A.A. BILL.
SATURDAY MORNING AT MIDNIGHT
FILING 20 PREVIOUS CLEAN
EXTENSIONS FUNDING FOR THE
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
HAS EXPIRED.
WHY DID THIS HAPPEN?
SIMPLY BECAUSE THE REPUBLICAN
PARTY'S LACK OF LEADERSHIP OVER
THE DEBT CEILING DEBATE IS THE
SAME AS THIS POSITION WITH
F.A.A.
BUT OVER 4,000 PEOPLE HAVE BEEN
LAID OFF AND OVER 3,000 IN
FLORIDA.
GOOD CONSTRUCTION JOBS.
JUST LAST NIGHT I SPOKE WITH A
SINGLE MOTHER FROM KANSAS WHO
HAD TO GIVE TWO CHILDREN
EVICTION NOTICE TO HER
APARTMENT BECAUSE SHE'S NOT
GOING TO BE ABLE TO PAY HER
BILLS BECAUSE OF THIS IMPASSE.
THIS -- THESE ARE REAL PEOPLE,
AND I REPEAT, THE REASON THAT
THE F.A.A. EXTENSION LAS NOT
BEEN RENEWED IS BECAUSE THE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
INSERTED LANGUAGE IN THE F.A.A.
BILL EXTENDING THE BILL THAT
WOULD END THE PROGRAM THAT
PROVIDES RURAL AREA AIRPORT
SUBSIDIES.
SO, YES, THIS IS ANOTHER
EXAMPLE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
, IF YOU DON'T DO IT MY WAY
THEN WE'LL JUST SHUT IT DOWN,
SHUT IT DOWN.
BUT LET ME BE CLEAR.
THERE ARE PEOPLE HERE IN THE
CAPITOL THAT FLEW UP AND THEY
PAID, LET'S SAY $500 FOR THEIR
TICKET, WELL, THE AVIATION
STILL CHARGED THE $500 BUT THE
MONEY THAT GOES TO FIX UP THE
AIRPORT, THAT MONEY IS GOING
NOW TO THE AIRLINE INDUSTRY.
AND IN FACT, THEY HAVE RAISED
THE TICKET PRICE.
SO THIS IS AN EXAMPLE THAT WE
DON'T DO OUR JOB THE PEOPLE GET
HURT.
AND THAT GOES BACK TO WHAT
EVERYBODY IS SO NERVOUS ABOUT
AS FAR AS WHAT WE SHOULD DO
ABOUT RAISING THE TAX -- DEBT
CEILING.
I SPOKE TO THE LONGSHOREMEN ON
MONDAY AND ASKED THEM, HAVE YOU
EVER HEARD IT BEFORE?
NOT ONE PERSON.
WELL, DID YOU KNOW I VOTED FOR
BUSH?
IT SEVEN TIMES UNDER PRESIDENT
THEY DIDN'T KNOW THAT.
FOUR TIMES UNDER PRESIDENT
CLINTON AND 19 TIMES UNDER
RONALD REAGAN.
BUT YET WE GOT PEOPLE THAT WERE
-- WILL BRING DOWN THE UNITED
STATES GOVERNMENT IF THEY DON'T
HAVE THEIR WAY.
IT'S OUR WAY OR NOT AT ALL.
YOU KNOW, I WAS HERE UNDER
PRESIDENT BUSH WHERE WE HAD
EIGHT YEARS OF WHAT I CALL
REVERSE ROBIN HOOD.
ROBBING FROM THE POOR AND
THE RICH.
WORKING TO GIVE TAX BREAKS FOR
DECEMBER.
WE DID THE SAME THING IN
$70 BILLION WE GAVE, $70
BILLION TO THE MILLIONAIRES AND
BILLIONAIRES AND NOW PEOPLE ARE
CALLING MY OFFICE WANTING TO
KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE
GOING TO GET THEIR SOCIAL
SECURITY CHECK.
THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH
THAT.
THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG IN THE
PEOPLE'S HOUSE THAT WE ARE
HAVING SENIORS AND -- SENIOR
CITIZENS WORRYING ABOUT WHETHER
THEY'RE GOING TO GET THEIR
SOCIAL SECURITY CHECK OR
WHETHER THEY ARE GOING TO GET
THEIR VETERANS CHECK BUT YET WE
CAN'T INCLUDE THE MILLIONAIRES
AND BILLIONAIRES.
AND WE GOT PEOPLE OVER HERE
FROM LOUISIANA THAT WE'VE GIVEN
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, BUT YET WE
WANT TO CLOSE THE OPPORTUNITIES
TO HELP OTHER AREAS WHEN WE
HAVE DISASTERS.
WELL, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT A
BUDGET IS ABOUT.
THE BUDGET DETERMINES YOUR
PRIORITIES, AND IT'S A SAD DAY
IN THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE THAT WE
HAVE PEOPLE IN THIS HOUSE THAT
DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE.
THEY ONLY CARE ABOUT THE NEXT
ELECTION.
WELL, I CAN TRULY SAY THAT YOU
CAN FOOL SOME OF THE PEOPLE
SOME OF THE TIME BUT YOU CAN'T
FOOL ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF
THE TIME.
AND SO THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE
LOST THEIR JOBS AT THE F.A.A.
BECAUSE OF POLITICS, WAKE UP.
THE PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT IT'S
OK TO ROB SOCIAL SECURITY,
MEDICAID, MEDICARE, WAKE UP.
EDUCATION.
YOU KNOW, ELECTIONS HAVE
CONSEQUENCES, AND WE ARE GOING
TO HAVE ANOTHER ELECTION AND
THE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY ARE
GOING TO WAKE UP AND THEY'RE
GOING TO REALIZE THAT WE'RE
GOING TO MOVE FORWARD OR MOVE
BEHIND AND CLEARLY WE GOT
PEOPLE IN CHARGE THAT'S ONLY
INTERESTED IN PUSHING US
BEHIND.
SO WITH THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I
YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM
FLORIDA WREELEDS BACK HER TIME.
WHO SEEKS -- YIELDS BACK HER
TIME.
WHO SEEKS RECOGNITION?
I MOVE TO STRIKE
THE LAST WORD, MR. CHAIRMAN.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
I FIND IT VERY
AMUSING THAT THE GENTLEMAN FROM
VIRGINIA, THE GENTLEMAN FROM
WASHINGTON WOULD USE AN
ARGUMENT THAT WE ARE
OVERBURDENING A FEDERAL AGENCY
WHEN IT IS THAT SIDE OF THE
AISLE THAT HAS THE TENDENCY TO
OVERBURDEN AND OVERREGULATE AND
OVER-- AND DEMAND REPORTING
FROM OUR PRIVATE SECTOR.
THEY HAVE NO PROBLEM ASKING THE
PRIVATE SECTOR TO REPORT THINGS
TO THE GOVERNMENT SO THAT THEY
CAN DISCERN WHETHER OR NOT THE
PRIVATE SECTOR IS CONDUCTING
ITS BUSINESS ACCORDINGLY.
WHEN THIS AMENDMENT COMES UP AND
WE'RE SIMPLY ASKING FOR
TRANSPARENCY, IN ORDER TO SEE
WHETHER OR NOT MY CONSTITUENTS
ARE BEING DISINGENUOUS OR
WHETHER IT IS THE GOVERNMENT
THAT IS BEING DISINGENUOUS IN
THE PERMITTING PROCESS.
THAT IS SIMPLY ALL WE'RE ASKING
HERE.
THIS ALLOWS US TO HELP SEPARATE
FACTS FROM FICTION.
AS TO WHETHER OR NOT BOEMRE IS
REJECTING PERMITS FOR RIDICULOUS
REASONS OR LEGITIMATE REASONS.
AND SO, AGAIN, IT JUST AMAZES ME
THAT WHEN WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY
TO SHED A LITTLE LIGHT ON A
FEDERAL AGENCY THAT THE PARTY
WHO HAS CLAIMED THAT IT'S ALL
ABOUT TRANSPARENCY AND OPEN
GOVERNMENT IS NOW TRYING TO
SHIELD THAT AGENCY AND SO
THEREFORE, MR. CHAIRMAN, I
BELIEVE THIS AMENDMENT SHOULD
FAIL.
DOES THE GENTLEMAN
YIELD BACK HIS TIME?
I YIELD BACK.
THE QUESTION IS ON
THE AMENDMENT BY THE GENTLEMAN
FROM WASHINGTON.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR, THE
NOES HAVE IT.
THE AMENDMENT IS NOT AGREED TO.
THE CLERK WILL READ.
PAGE 61, LINE 18,
LEASE AUTHORIZATION, SECTION
122, THE SECRETARY MAY LEASE TO
THE SAVANNAH BAR PILOTS
ASSOCIATION NO MORE THAN 30,000
SQUARE FEET OF LAND WITHIN THE
NATIONAL MONUMENT.
SELF-DETERMINATION DEMONSTRATION
PROJECT, SECTION 123, THE
DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF INDIAN
AFFAIRS SHALL REINSTATE THE
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FOR THE
INDIAN TRIBES.
WILD LANDS FUNDING PROHIBITION,
SECTION 124, NONE OF THE FUNDS
MAY BE USED TO IMPLEMENT
SECRETARY AL ORDER NUMBER 3310
ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR ON DECEMBER 22, 2010.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES
THE GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA
RISE?
MR. CHAIRMAN, I RISE
WITH AN AMENDMENT AT THE DESK.
THE CLERK WILL REPORT
THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY
MR. MORAN OF VIRGINIA.
PAGE 64, BEGINNING ON LINE 15
STRIKE SECTION 124.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
MR. CHAIRMAN, AS THE AMENDMENT
STATES, I SEEK TO STRIKE SECTION
124 OF THIS BILL.
BECAUSE SECTION 124 PROHIBITS
EXPENDITURES FOR THE BUREAU OF
LAND MANAGEMENT TO CARRY OUT ITS
LAWFUL DUTIES UNDER THE FEDERAL
LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT
OF 1976.
SECRETARY SALAZAR ISSUED AN
ORDER APPROPRIATELY, IT WAS
CALLED 3310, AND IT STATED A
POLICY THAT B.L.M., THE BUREAU
OF LAND MANAGEMENT, SHOULD ACT
CONSISTENTLY WITH THE LAW.
SECTION 201 OF THE LAW, THE
FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND
MANAGEMENT ACT, REQUIRES THAT
THE INTERIOR DEPARTMENT MAINTAIN
A CURRENT INVENTORY OF LAND
UNDER ITS JURISDICTION AND THAT
IT IDENTIFY WITHIN THAT
INVENTORY OF LAND THE RESOURCE
VALUES INCLUDING WILDERNESSES OF
THOSE LANDS.
NOW, SECTION 101 OF THE FEDERAL
LAND POLICY ACT ALSO SAYS THAT
CERTAIN PUBLIC LANDS SHOULD BE
MAINTAINED IN THEIR NATURAL
STATE AND I QUOTE, NOW THAT'S
THE LAW.
IT'S BEEN LAW SINCE 1976.
SECRETARY SALAZAR IS SIMPLY
ATTEMPTING TO IMPLEMENT THAT
LAW.
NOW, DESPITE WHAT SOME HAVE
CLAIMED, SECRETARY SALAZAR'S
ORDER DOES NOT CREATE ANY DE
FACTO WILDERNESS.
THE REASON THAT I WOULD STRIKE
SECTION 124 IS THAT IT WILL THEN
RETURN B.L.M. WILDERNESS POLICY
TO THE WAY THAT IT HAS OPERATED
FOR 27 YEARS.
UNTIL IT WAS UNILATERALLY
CHANGED BY THEN INTERIOR
SECRETARY NORTON IN 2003 IN THE
BUSH ADMINISTRATION.
NOW, THE ORDER THAT SECRETARY
SALAZAR HAS ISSUED DIRECTS
B.L.M. TO DEVELOP
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CONGRESS
REGARDING WILDERNESS LAND
DESIGNATIONS AND IT DIRECTS
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE
RECOMMENDATIONS.
NOW, WHAT COULD BE WRONG WITH
THAT?
MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE
CONGRESS AND HAVE PUBLIC
INVOLVEMENT.
BUT SECTION 124 OF THIS BILL
REMOVES THE REQUIREMENT FOR
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT.
WHY ARE WE AFRAID OF PUBLIC
INVOLVEMENT?
AND IT ALSO REMOVES THE
REQUIREMENT FOR THE BUREAU OF
LAND MANAGEMENT TO PROVIDE
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CONGRESS.
NOW WHY DOES THIS BILL WANT TO
PREVENT THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR FROM MAKING
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CONGRESS
AND FOR HAVING PUBLIC
INVOLVEMENT?
NOW, IT'S NOT GOING TO PREVENT
THE CONGRESS FROM DESIGNATING
WILDERNESS.
WHAT IT DOES DO IS TO PREVENT
THE CONGRESS FROM BEING PROPERLY
INFORMED BEFORE WE CAN CONSIDER
THOSE DESIGNATIONS.
SO THE SECRETARY'S ORDER IS THE
KIND OF GOOD GOVERNMENT PROCESS
THAT ENCOURAGES PUBLIC
.
INVOLVEMENT AND FORWARD THINKING
AS A DEMONSTRATION OF THAT
FORWARD THINKING SECRETARY SL
CZAR REACHED OUT TO THE CONGRESS
-- SECRETARY SALAZAR REACHED OUT
TO THE CONGRESS IN JUNE, JUST A
SHORT WHILE AGO, AND ASKED FOR
MEMBERS' INPUT INTO THE
WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS OF
LANDS WITHIN THEIR DISTRICTS.
ISN'T THAT WHAT WE WANT HIM TO
DO?
REACH OUT TO THE CONGRESS, ASK
FOR OUR INPUT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT MORE WE CAN
ASK FROM THE SECRETARY OR FROM
THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
BUT AN OPEN, PUBLIC PROCESS WITH
CONGRESSIONAL INPUT.
BUT THIS SECTION THAT I THINK
SHOULD BE STRUCK, THIS SECTION
124, WANTS TO FORECLOSE THAT
PROCESS, FOR CLOSE THAT OPEN
PUBLIC PROCESS WITH
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CONGRESS.
NOW, IT WAS A PROCESS THAT THE
MAJORITY IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT
APPLAUDED.
LET ME SAY FURTHER THAT WILD
LANDS DO HAVE REAL BENEFITS.
THEY HAVE ECONOMIC, THEY HAVE
ENVIRONMENTAL AND THEY HAVE
AESTHETIC BENEFITS.
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE PROTECT
NOT ONLY PUBLIC LAND AND ITS
NATURAL STATE BUT THAT WE
PROTECT OUR ABILITY TO MAKE
INFORMED DECISIONS ABOUT WHICH
AREAS SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE
DESIGNATED AS WILDERNESS AREAS.
DO I THINK WE NEED THE SECRETARY
ORDER SO THAT WE CAN BE
INFORMED, SO WE CAN MAKE THE
RIGHT DECISIONS WITH REGARD TO
THOSE DESIGNATIONS.
WILDERNESS AREAS ARE IMPORTANT
BUT IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT THAT WE
MAINTAIN OUR RESPONSIBILITY,
THAT THE SECRETARY MAKES
RECOMMENDATIONS TO US, FOR US TO
MAKE THE DESIGNATION AND THAT IT
BE A PUBLIC PROCESS.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
WHO SEEKS RECOGNITION?
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM UTAH RISE?
STRIKE THE LAST
WORD.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
UTAH IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE
MINUTES.
I APPRECIATE VERY
KINDLY THE GENTLEMAN FROM
VIRGINIA AND HIS EXPLANATION OF
THIS PARTICULAR PROVISION THAT'S
IN THE BILL.
UNFORTUNATELY IT'S NOT QUITE
THAT WAY.
YOUR RECOMMENDATION OF THIS IS
THAT IN JUNE THE SECRETARY ASK
FOR OUR INPUT AS TO WILDERNESS
WHICH IS INDEED EXACTLY WHAT HE
SHOULD DO IF HE WANTS TO OBEY
THE LAW.
THAT IS THE PROPER COURSE.
ONLY CONGRESS HAS THE ABILITY TO
DESIGNATE WILDERNESS AREAS.
YOU SAID THAT THE PROVISION
THAT'S IN THE BILL WOULD
FORECLOSE THAT PROCESS.
IN FACT, YOU'RE ARGUING THE
EXACT OPPOSITE.
THIS PROVISION IN THE BILL DOES
NOT ALLOW THE SECRETARY TO GO
AROUND THAT PROCESS BUT INSISTS
THAT HE DOES COMAND WORK WITH
CONGRESS -- COME AND WORK WITH
CONGRESS TO DO ANY KIND OF LAND
DESIGNATION AS IT IS WRITTEN IN
THE LAW.
SECRETARY SALAZAR AND DEPUTY
SECRETARY HAYES AND B.L.M.
DIRECTOR HAVE ALL ASSURED US
THAT THEY HAVE NO PLANS TO
IMPLEMENT THIS ILL-ADVISED
POLICY THEY ESTABLISHED JUST
BEFORE CHRISTMAS, A SECRETARY
AUTHORITY AND CONGRESSIONAL
ORDER THAT USURPED CONGRESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY.
I'M GOING TO TAKE THEM AT THEIR
WORD.
UNFORTUNATELY, THOUGH, THE ORDER
HAS NEVER BEEN WITHDRAWN
OFFICIALLY.
IT HAS BEEN SUPERSEDED.
A PROMISED SOLICITOR GENERAL'S
OPINION TO CLARIFY THE LEGAL
STATUS OF THAT SUPERSEDING OF
THE OPINION HAS BEEN PROMISED
US, IT WAS PROMISED TO THE
CHAIRMAN, PROMISED TO THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE AUTHORIZING
COMMITTEE, YESTERDAY AT A
HEARING WE ASKED WHERE THAT WAS
AND WE WERE TOLD ONCE AGAIN THAT
IT'S ON ITS WAY.
WHAT WAS SAID AT THAT HEARING
OBVIOUSLY IS WHAT THEY WILL DO
IS NOTHING CONTRARY TO THE
PROVISION THAT WAS PLACED IN THE
C.R..
THEREFORE IF WE'RE GOING TO TAKE
THEIR WORD FOR IT IN THE FORM,
TRUST BUT VERIFY, CONTINUE THIS
LANGUAGE IN HERE AND MAKE SURE
THAT WHAT THEY CLAIM THEY WILL
DO WILL BE DONE AND THERE IS NO
LEGAL WAY OF GETTING AROUND IT.
NOW, I SAY THAT LEGAL PROCESS
FOR A PURPOSE.
EVEN IF I TRUST THE WORD OF THE
SECRETARY AND I DO, IF THIS
PROVISION IS IN SOME WAY LEGALLY
IN DOUBT, NOW, ONCE AGAIN, THE
OPINION IS CLEAR WITH US, IT IS
IN DOUBT, IN A LITIGATION-PRONE
SOCIETY LIKE WE HAVE, ANY KIND
OF RADICAL ACTIVIST MAY ASK A
RENEGADE JUT JUDGE FOR POLITICAL
PURPOSES TO -- A RENEGADE JUDGE
FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES TO
INTERVENE.
THAT'S WHY I SUPPORT CONGRESSMAN
LUMMIS' INCLUSION OF THIS
LANGUAGE IN HERE.
IT WOULD OPPOSE ANY KIND OF A
ROUND-ABOUT PROCESS OF GOING
AROUND CONGRESS AND ALLOWING THE
ADMINISTRATION TO GO AROUND NEPA
AND AROUND WHAT THE ORIGINAL
ORDER DID.
IT IS NOT THAT WE DON'T ARE HAVE
CONFIDENCE IN THIS PROCESS --
IT'S NOT THAT WE DON'T HAVE
CONFIDENCE IN THIS PROCESS, IT'S
SIMPLY THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT IT'S VERY CLEAR.
IF WE AGREE AND BELIEVE WHAT THE
SECRETARY'S SAYING, THEN THIS
LANGUAGE IN HERE HAS NO IMPACT
WHATSOEVER.
IT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED BY ALL OF
US.
IF, THOUGH, YOU WANT TO TRY AND
HAVE SOME KIND OF DANGLING
ASPECT OUT THERE SO THAT
SOMEBODY CAN SUE SOMEONE
SOMEWHERE AND MAYBE CHANGE THE
ENTIRE PROCESS, THEN CREATE
DOUBT AND ACTUALLY WITHDRAW
LANGUAGE THAT WAS IN THE C.R.,
THAT WAS APROVED BY THE HOUSE
AND THE SENATE AND SIGNED BY THE
PRESIDENT.
WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS
CONSISTENCY SO THAT WHAT THE
GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA SAID
WILL INDEED HAPPEN.
THAT IF WILDERNESS IS DESIGNATED
IT WILL BE DONE BY CONGRESS, IT
IS OUR LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY TO
DO IT.
AND THAT NO ONE CAN DO THESE
EVALUATIONS, WHICH ARE LEGAL
UNDER FIP MA, -- WHICH ARE
LEGALLY DONE, THAT THAT IS NOT
THE WAY THE LAW IS WRITTEN AND
INDEED IF YOU DO THAT, THAT IS
AN ABROGATION OF THE LAW.
NOW, ONCE AGAIN, YOU HAVE THE
PROCESS HERE, YOU LEAVE THE
LANGUAGE IN THERE, IT'S NO HARM,
IT'S NO FOUL, IT IS CONSISTENT
WITH THE LAW AND IT IS
CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR SAID
THEIR POLICY WILL BE.
YOU TAKE THIS LANGUAGE OUT AND
ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU HAVE CREATED
A DOUBT, FIND SOMEBODY WHO HAS A
GOOD ATTORNEY AND ALL OF A
SUDDEN THAT DOUBT CREATES A
MAJOR PROBLEM FOR THE DEPARTMENT
OF INTERIOR AND ESPECIALLY FOR
US IN CONGRESS.
THANK YOU AND I YIELD BACK.
WOULD THE GENTLEMAN YIELD?
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
WHO SEEKS RECOGNITION?
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA RISE?
STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA IS RECOGNIZED FOR
FIVE MINUTES.
THE AMENDMENT
THAT'S BEING OFFERED IS
PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE.
IT'S THE DUTY OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF INTERIOR TO CARRY OUT THE
LAW.
THE LAW REQUIRES THE SECRETARY
TO REVIEW FROM TIME TO TIME THE
STATUS OF PUBLIC LAND.
ALL TOO OFTEN I HEAR MY
COLLEAGUES ON THE REPUBLICAN
LAND.
SIDE SAY THAT THIS IS GOVERNMENT
NO, NO, NO, THIS IS NOT
GOVERNMENT LAND.
THIS IS OUR LAND.
THIS IS THE LAND OF THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE.
OWNED IN COMMON FOR THE COMMON
GOOD.
AND THE SECRETARY CARRYING OUT
THAT RESPONSIBILITY REVIEWS THE
ART BEAUTS OF THE LAND --
ATTRIBUTES OF THE LAND.
IS IT GOOD FOR OIL?
HOW ABOUT GAS DEVELOPMENT OR
COAL DEVELOPMENT?
OR MAYBE IT'S USEFUL AS GRAZING
LAND.
OR PERHAPS IT SHOULD BE WILD AND
SCENIC LAND AND PRESERVED FOR
THAT PURPOSE OF REMAINING IN ITS
MOST NATURAL STATE.
SO, MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES
COME UP AND SAY, NO, YOU CAN'T
LOOK AT THE LAND, YOU CAN'T
STUDY THE LAND, WE JUST WON'T
WANT TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE
LAND.
EXCEPT TO ALLOW FOR THE
DESTRUCTION OF THE LAND.
THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT
DOESN'T COME IN A VACUUM.
THIS AMENDMENT FALLS OR ACTUALLY
LEADS TO THE HOUSE FLOOR ANOTHER
BILL THAT IS LIKELY TO MOVE OUT
OF THE RESOURCES COMMITTEE AND
SOON BE ON THE FLOOR.
WHICH WOULD TAKE THE PREVIOUS
WORK DONE OVER THE LAST 30 YEARS
THAT WOULD QUANTIFY THE VALUES
OF THE LAND, SCENIC, NATURAL,
WILDERNESS, AND PUSH ALL OF THAT
ASIDE AND SAY, OPEN ALL THE LAND
, ALL THE LAND TO WHAT WAS
CALLED MECKNIESED CONSERVATION.
-- MECHANIZED CONSERVATION.
SOUNDS TO ME LIKE BULLDOZERS,
DRILLING RIGS, STAMPEDE OF
CATTLE AND THE LIKE OVER ANY AND
ALL LAND.
UNDERSTAND THAT THIS PARTICULAR
LINE IN THIS APPROPRIATION BILL
GOES HAND IN HAND WITH A PIECE
OF LEGISLATION THAT WENT THROUGH
THAT WAS HEARD IN THE RESOURCES
COMMITTEE JUST YESTERDAY.
THAT WOULD TAKE ALL OF THE LAND
THAT'S BEEN DESIGNATED AS WILD
AND SCENIC, SOME 30 YEARS AGO,
SOME OF WHICH HAS SAID, NO, IT'S
NOT PERFECT FOR A WILD AND
SCENIC DESIGNATION, AND TAKE ALL
OF THAT LAND AND OPEN IT FOR
DEVELOPMENT.
WE OUGHT NOT DO THAT.
AND THEREFORE THIS AMENDMENT HAS
BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD BY THE
RANKING MEMBER, IT IS
APPROPRIATE IN THAT IT ALLOWS
THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR TO
UPGRADE SOME 30-YEAR-OLD
STUDIES, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT NEW
SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION, NEW
INFORMATION ABOUT THE LAND AND
MAKING THAT INFORMATION
AVAILABLE TO US IN CONGRESS SO
WE CAN MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION
ABOUT WHETHER LAND SHOULD OR
SHOULD NOT BE WILD AND SCENIC OR
WHATEVER DESIGNATION MIGHT BE
APPROPRIATE.
INCLUDING OPENING SOME LAND FOR
DEVELOPMENT.
BUT I SUPPOSE IT'S BEST TO KNOW
NOTHING.
I WOULD LOVE TO YIELD BRIEFLY
AND IF I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME
TO RESPOND, PERHAPS YOU COULD
YIELD TO ME.
I APPRECIATE THE GENTLEMAN
YIELDING.
I THINK -- I UNDERSTAND THE
GENTLEMAN'S COMMENTS AND I KNOW
THE HEARING YESTERDAY ADDRESSES