bird habitat investment enhancement extra consideration today due to the large number of amendments filed by the minority this morning we need time to analyze them properly i would now recognize the ranking member for any opening remarks you may care to m had disagreements on and we'll go through the regular order to work those out we think that the three bills that were initially scheduled could be better by having our amendments and least offered hopefully adopted but with that you're you have the option of putting the so there and and we'll take up those two bills under regular order in the other man's consent and look forward to this market him for the purposes of explain the bill thank you mr chairman and thank you for being on the original co sponsor of this legislation which was introduced in march to help repair and restore our nation's public lands while employing and training thousands of young americans and promoting a culture of public service in one thousand nine hundred three when the public lands corps was established through the good work of our late colleague bruce lentil of minnesota there was a huge backlog of labor intensive work a national park land for us to wildlife refuges historic sites and indian lands unfortunately we still face those challenges and more years of inadequate funding have put these agencies further behind on vital maintenance work while infrastructure continues to crumble despite the best efforts of these underfunded agencies natural and cultural resources have been neglected and in many places the effect of climate change are magnifying earlier problems such as fire damage by insects and invasive species coastal erosion and fragmented habitats we have started to attack this problem with the recently passed immune legislation but this is only a start much remains to be done on our public lands h r sixteen twelve will expand and the existing program of the public lands corps by street running its management modernizing the school and providing new tools to help the program accomplish its mission the legislation not only takes a decisive step toward forward in finishing desperately needed work on our national park lands forest refugees historic sites and indian lands but also recognizes the importance of our coastal and marine systems and our national marine sanctuaries this expanded public service an initiative will introduce people from a greater diversity of social ethnic and cultural backgrounds to our nation's parks and public lands dot only as a possible future employees but also as lifelong enthusias the legislation takes advantage of an opportunity to provide meaningful employment and training to young people who need it while also improving the condition of our prices natural and cultural resources president obama and interior secretary have made national service a priority and have graciously supported this legislation i'm also proud to have the support of the preeminent conservation corps groups as well as leading national parks advocacy groups that are not appropriate times chairman i will thank you chairman this particular bill makes several improvements to the public was public lands job corps program doesn't hants the ability of the secretary to recruit young people prove alive living conditions for the participants in the program i think our site supports the cons ups of this particular program welcome the opportunity encouraging americans to take part in answering our public lands and we'll be looking towards trying to improve this bill even further but  you didn't do a bad start i'm done sir you know what i yield back usually when i quit speaking it means i have nothing more to say no not usually usually means you have much more to say this  administration and other supporters of the bill at the request of the department of interior we have clarified the authorities granted in this bill in this bill apply department why this involves a series of technical amendments throughout the bill guidelines also at the request of the administration the substitute alters the cost sharing language for resources assistance and consulting in turn the other changes are best described as technical and clarifying the conforming support of the young people on to our public lands and into the outdoors it's very consistent with other initiatives underway in the house no child left inside and other efforts of those of that kind and i just wanted to indicate my very very strong improvements to the original legislation we support what they are doing with the nature of substitute makes a good bill better there are a few amendments i think should be added to this to make it a great bill but right now we support this amendment any further to create a new generation of land managers who were who had proper training to understand how to prevent catastrophic wildfires it was understood that this was best done by implementing the program known as the healthy forest restoration act that healthy forest restoration that restoration act was passed with a bipartisan support putting support from many of the democrats were sitting on this committee day and five current chairman unfortunately  at a time when we face a grave threat about fire season the amendment substitute's seeks to strip out any reference to the healthy forest restoration act in this particular legislation the original bill actually put a cap on how much money would be sound on this program and that three fourths of that money would be spent on the healthy forest restoration restoration act this takes a cap off that particular money and i think also would be would be helpful if we would put back the reference to the healthy for restoration act as well as saying a minimum fifty percent of the funding whatever that level would be would be for the promotion of the health of our public land as i said originally the act had two thirds of the money going to healthy forest restoration  but that was also a cap i think about twelve million dollars was the cap on this particular program or saying now if there is no limit on what it is at least fifty percent should go back to that we want specific reference to the healthy forest restoration act as there was in the original opposition to the amendment what we're trying to do with this legislation is created broad flexible programs and this amendment would leave us with a very narrow and rigid one the underlying bill that defies the kinds of projects eligible for core program for any cultural resource protection trails work and the list is quite extensive under the bill individual superintendents for supervisors another land managers would have the ability to assign projects as needed for their for their particular resource that they are managing the measurement however this amendment would fence off half the projects half half the money in this bill for the healthy forest projects i see no justification in limiting the program that way and colleagues that fifty percent of the most important most educational more pressing projects over the life of the corps program will be specifically authorized in healthy forests legislation i don't think i don't even think the sponsor anyone of this amendment to promise that either i would note that the list of project categories in the bill includes almost everything in the healthy forest legislation anyway meaning those kinds of projects would receive funding without resorting to an artificial fifty percent rule their members would have a micromanager of this program from washington when what should happen is a professional resource manager working out in the field with educators and young people should manage the program for those reasons disaster erosion control those are all part of the areas that are covered under the legislation and for those reasons i would urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment for their discussion on the the very purpose of this program was to make sure the help before us had a significant role that is why when the program was established in the way is run today three fourths of the money is supposed to go to healthy forest restoration all the list that you have in there right now can or cannot be used it seems it seems fair and equitable rather than just to take it all out to maintain the original purpose for the original act and a lease allow fifty percent to make sure that we are still dedicating it to that particular role that is that was the original purpose of this particular act it has functioned well if we're going to expand it to at least make sure that we maintain the significance of the healthy forest restoration act which those of us in the west who recognize how how significant that is that needs to be and there have been so i mean haven't served we would never want to micromanage government from washington but indeed we mean to maintain the very essence and purpose of this act that was originally stablish there if you don't do that you have a chance of losing the scope of what we're trying to do as we may talk about in some of the other amendments that are that are coming up here reclaiming my time and i i would just make this observation because it specificity of this amendment goes to healthy for us and this is a policy statement that the federal government made as to treating our forests a little bit different from the standpoint of  managing them in a in a way that they become healthy and so it seems to me if you're going to have a youth corps if you will they should be involved in those areas where polic has made by this congress that we're going to actually manage our force in a healthy way and i might add the healthy forest process is small and should be expanded i hope this committee will take that up in the future but i legislation and its dealings with the hell it healthy forest act i just would remind my colleagues at the public lands core act was passed in one thousand nine hundred three it did not incorporate the healthy for sac which was not passed until it's not a good decision for don't change it now well i agree with made a good decision in zero four even though you voted against it no i voted against  it but again was not part of the original intent of the legislation passed in ninety three is a further discussion if not to questions on the gentleman from gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain as was explained mr chairman this program is designed to provide opportunities for youth around the country by exposing them to unique work projects and training this bill modifies  program creates and creates hiring preferences for kids who are in a quote economically physically or educationally disadvantaged end quote while it may be appropriate appropriate to emphasize that the secretary reach out to under served communities we really can improve this legislation by expanding the preferences to serve kids who have been directly and negatively impacted by federal management of land policies and example a good example of that of course is a secure schools program is the knowledge but of the devastating impact of federal government's destruction of the timber basic on in the west the federal policies leading to the lost of thousands of timber jobs many of those  parents struggle or unable to and their kids to college and their face frankly in these rural communities with grim economic prospects because we don't do the commercial activity that we should of when we scale back logging on on the national lands so what my amendment would simply do then is expand the current categories of preferred participants in this program to include young men and women who live in counties that receive the security school payments is directly targeted at young people whose families and communities and futures have been affected negatively in this case by federal policies and while this amendment will not repair the damage to their communities eases during kids then will have access to job opportunities created by this program i cannot think of a better group of youth to get involved in federal lands and those that have been somewhat displaced by federal policies not only would it is cissy's young people but perhaps their artwork at these federal agencies will give some perspective to career employees learning could be in this case really a two way street so with that mr chairman i individuals who are economically physically educationally disadvantaged this important language designed to encourage the secretary to expand participation to this valuable program to people who are  left out left behind and not fully integrated into the into the workings of our national treasures the parks and public lands the amendment that the ranking members of promoting the would add to the list of disadvantaged people anyone who lives in that county elegy but for county payments now the bill is trying to encourage outreach to people struggling with real disadvantage is and this amendment wants to i believe water it watered down by adding a private preference for anyone living near a fourth amendment fundamentally misunderstands what i believe it is to be disadvantage many counties in washington state as in arizona are eligible for county payments but i reject the idea that every resident in those counties is disadvantage furthermore the bill says that there could be a preference for anyone with legitimate educational or economic disadvantage of so who would this amendment add to the preference list it must refer to people with no educational or no economic disadvantage because they are not covered so amendment would expand the provision to allow the creation of a preference for for well educated well off physically able people who live near for us there was no need for this preference the language in the legislation dealing with this issue and the authority given to the secretary would address many of the young people living in in county payment in county eligible county payment counties to have the opportunity to be part of the corps they would that would it as as the r mentioned they have been economically hit hard they would certainly follow didn't fall into the categories of young people that need to be integrated into the court i see no need for this preference and adding such language shows  that we are we don't understand the intent of this provision and i believe that this amendment to should be defeated and i believe there's a great difference between a kid in a wheelchair and someone would be who that you're hoping to include would not already be uncovered be covered under the definition that's currently there economically physically or educationally disadvantaged well deals the purpose of this i don't know if you're familiar with the secure schools act but the that act was passed because of federal policies that essential eliminated commercial logging in rural areas and as a result the unemployment rate went up very high because of that in number of families were displaced this amendment simply says to add another preference to those families or those children  those families that were affected so the answer to your question if i understand your question are the kids live in these these counties that are heavily impacted and they tend by the way to be small counties throughout the west with a gentleman you know would they not be covered already under the economically disadvantaged then they could oh you know oh yes no i don't i i acknowledge that part i just simply saying that we ought to we ought to put also as a preference those that are affected by that of those counties that receipt receive these secure real school payments oh i acknowledge that they are covered by that this indeed as i mentioned i over mark adds one more element to it need now to label another priority when that's the economic disadvantage does cover them well it's a jell o deal as i mentioned and i acknowledge that they would be covered broadly but this this whole act is designed to expose kids if you will to our public lands and to our natural resources i think that is the the reason for this legislation nationally in the first place this bill then acknowledges this amendment then a knowledge is that those counties that receive this the secure rule school funds were are by definition counties that had abundance of natural resources but because of federal policies i e the reduction of of commercial activity on those on those federal lands they are impacted and these kids ought to have i think some sort of preference of getting into this program not withstanding the fact that they would qualify otherwise so i might simply add another category because these counties by the way ten as i mentioned to the gentleman from maryland tend to be small counties not all of them but they tend to be small counties and i have one for example in my district that is heavily impacted that way i think all of us agree that more kids should be exposed and i think under economic disadvantage the criteria it does cover and here again we would be labeling to create tyria that's already included in it without specifically naming that one criteria then what happens to be other criteria other individuals do even begin to label that process as well to make sure that they're all logical or to make sure that it's covered under disadvantages well it's a general i mean i'm not i'm not disputing that they may be colored another another covered under another part of this i'm just simply saying preference ought to i have a couple counties in my district that are counties that receive county payments pocahontas county greenbrier county and pocahontas county i have a constituent who happens to be the junior senator from my home state of west virginia his last name is rockefeller now are we going to say that he is economically disadvantaged under the gentleman's amendment i have in another county they receive county industry in alaska they killed in the industry is alive and we've lost about fifty thousand jobs including families that were deprived and have that massive national force there and not  have people to remain given the opportunity ahead of someone else out of san francisco or l a or someplace like that is wrong we have now people that are destitute come in a retirement community because people out of california went out and bought say it's covered but that's up to the secretary he may not have anybody from alaska employed any young person given the opportunity that's what he's trying to do and so you know we can say well it's covered secondary doesn't that descriptor the gentleman gladly wouldn't this then overregulate because we always talk about regulations this would then put into the regulation in place and we're always talking about regulations and mandates and funding and this gives a total discretion to the sector and i'm saying do what you want to do but at least give an opportunity to those young people that have no opportunity now with the force on their back yard they have a job being employed to be  those counties receive a secure what are you intending to cover people that economically put physically or educationally are not disadvantaged but would that be a discretion of the secretary but the preference here would be those counties and those children that live in the counties that are impacted by federal policy would the gentleman to consider language that said something along these lines those disadvantaged in the economically physically or educationally disadvantaged individuals whose legal residence is in other words including saying including economically physically or educationally disadvantaged individuals whose legal residence is a county in other words including them specifically drawing attention to it but still requiring that they be economically physically or educationally disadvantaged i'm not opposed to where you're you're trying to go and maybe we could ask the chairman to postpone this and see if we could work something out but  but i think what you're saying is is is frankly of a bit redundant because what you're doing is may is make a description implying that the script ascription to secure to those counties i'm simply saying that those counties ought to be  that would include individuals that are not disadvantaged if you allow the language that said including those that are disadvantaged to live within those areas i think it draws particular attention to the group that you want to draw particular attention to but it still requires that they be disadvantaged which addresses the issue that mr  qualified youth or consulate corps located in a specific area that have substantial portion of the members who are economically disadvantaged to carry out projects within that area i understand the point mr ranking member and  i would be willing to work with you to add some definition because i think that's where we're at loggerheads on that and so if you're willing to address the amendment i would be more than glad the gentleman with  gentleman who absolutely i am joe i'm sorry generally to have to deal with your intentions to work this before before i want to and the answer is yes i would be willing to do that  but i want to make the point the legislation as we are currently amending does not make a carve out if you will for disobey so you're adding something and i'm just adding another element i think that i think we're trying to do the  and certainly agree to that and work with both gentlemen as well is there objection to the gentleman from washington withdrawing his amendment if not to mammon is withdrawn are there further specific purposes for this particular amendment to make sure that our investment goes where the investment needs to be gone and the return is done on federal property this program is purported to put kids to work to improve trails to reduce fuels and other tangible benefits on public land recently however the park service in the forest service bankrolled what they call the utah legacy bus tour on this one they put college kids on a diesel bus and sent them to visit twenty six cities where they supposedly were going to educate people about community service they kids had a great time as some of these pictures do because one of the great services they did was testing and promoting microbrew beers in all the cities as they put it the microbrews have less food food per mile and therefore they produce less c o two it's not clear that the job corps actually funded this but i want to make sure the possibility does not take place from this program or it may be manipulated that way in fact in the two thousand and seven audit they did find that the job corps service program that had been contracted with the park service i have three million dollars in misreported costs and two hundred thousand dollars in inappropriate charges by the national park service the goal of this amendment is to simply say that the work will be done on federal lands it will be to produce a benefit to federal lands and therefore we will not have tenancy of maybe coming up with other programs that don't necessarily benefit federal land this type of program would be specifically eliminated i have no problem that's why i said this is a good bill we can make it better this is one of those things that can make it better to make sure that all the projects go to  back if the gentleman is willing to withdraw his amendment would be glad to work on the language before the bill proceed further of the issue on the question of defining physical improvement and defining federal property out of the two definitions that we have a problem with other than that we would be willing to work on that with the gentleman yield absolutely if i can just make sure i understand exactly what you're saying if th issue is how to define physical improvement if our goal is still to make sure that the money spent is going to be spent on developing a federal lands that we have more than happy to work with the gentleman how we define physical improvement ok with that i will i will heinie conservation stamp act it will not be considered today due to the large number of mamet's that were filed by the minority just this morning and so in order for us to have time to analyze them properly we will not be considering that  will be offering them a nature that i now recognize to explain the legislation thank you very much mr chairman today we are marking up congressman sam far southern water recovery and research act a char five five six growth of the southern sea otter population has been slow over the last decade because of high mortality rates authors die from many causes including disease and parasites nutrition and entanglement in fishing gear additional action is needed to ensure the recovery of these animals is a success h r five five six has been substantially revised since it was introduced in the one hundred tenth congress largely to address concerns on the part of coastal fishing interests the bill would direct the u s fish and wildlife service to implement a program assessing important aspects of southern sea water population demographics health mortality and life history param it matters to develop measures to reduce or eliminate factors related to marine eco system health or human activities that limit sea otter populations and to do so in accordance with consensus made by the service's published southern sea otter recovery plan the bill mr chairman is necessary to provide a stable and reliable source of funding for critically needed research monitoring and implementation of recovery actions its provisions would apply directly to see authors but because the authors are a keystone and a sentinel species h r five five six would also benefit the california coastal eco system as a whole at the appropriate time mr chairman i will offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute but i five five six reflects extensive collaborative efforts with the minority and a wide range of interest groups over the past year as i mentioned earlier mr chairman the bill has introduced made significant concessions to address concerns that ha been raised by the minority and the fishing industry in the last congress still at the request of the minority we have made additional substantial changes to the bill via this amendment in the nature of a substitute the amendment eliminates the sea otter scientific advisory committee and instead directs the u s fish and wildlife service to utilize its existing authorities under the endangered species act to reappoint a southern sea otter recovery implementation team and to utilize peer review panels as necessary to provide scientific advice and guidance in prioritising grant proposals in response to concerns about the authorization of appropriations we included in this substitute a provision requiring the secretary of interior within two years and every five years thereafter to recommend funding for further activities to implement the southern sea otter recovery and research act these changes mr chairman combined with the many changes that were made before reintroduction introduction this year reflex a great deal of compromise in collaboration so i urge my colleagues to support consent for a mini in my amendment and i do believe we have agreement on that we do have the amendment abjection will be considered right now mr chairman i was here in congress when the southern sea otter was listed as threatened under the endangered species act the concern is that time of listing was the population was so small and confined to one area that could be devastated by katrina five with the fish and wildlife service defined as an oil spill the fish and wildlife service developed a recovery plan for the sea otter that included moving part of the sea otter population to san nicholas island congress passed public law ninety nine sixty five to authorize a service to undertake this translocation program at the time the fishing industry brought into the program because the service had committed to return se to as a management area back to the st nicholas island translation location area away from the fisheries the industry depended on as usually the case that they got the short end of the stick with regard to the implication of the translocation program the population recovers this legislation no longer be in effect mr chairman i don't like study so i'm going to ask unanimous consent right now to modify amendment to strike everything before the second reference and at the laid on the table the final order of business is consideration of the ten measures are referenced earlier under unanimous consent does any member seek recognition prior to the consideration of these ten m general a from maglev is right now thank you mr chairman just for the record i do have a statement in support of h r ninety three four and i wish it to be entered into the record that objection a general a statement will be made part of the record young  r seven six two period jackson the so order without objection emotions to reconsider are laid upon the table there's no further business any further comments i wish to thank members yes twelve bills in less than an hour and i do wish to thank members on both sides of the hour and their staff as well for their work and cooperation in participation in this