resources will come to order committees meeting today for consideration for measures h r ten sixty one h r seven one five h r thirteen seventy six and h r eleven twenty one in consultation with a gentleman why ms travel congress and the ranking member mr hastings or committee will justice today i am unaware that the administration has expressed any views on this bill i have seen reports that president obama supports native hawaiian recognition notwithstanding the fact that the u s commission on civil rights and department of my side of the aisle had been informed of what those changes are perhaps if we had had a witness from the administration we had testimony that could have been alleviated so i would hope that a markup of this bill would be held off until such time  all members of the committee are well acquainted with administrations views and recommend recommendations again i commend you for not calling the bill up today back to rule three  on the coast of washington state it's coastline is situated sex that is subject to frequent flooding and is located in a tidal wave in short the tribe is in a losing war with the elements which are eroding the land available to the tribe in order to rectify th situation a tribe has acquired a profit two hundred sixty acres of land from private sources and a hundred sixty acres from the d n r located government offices and tribal members h r to answer if they want to transfer approximately thirty seven acres of land from the olympic are there any endangered species present it does contain however the only road into or out of the whole reservation and not much else the bill would also place a newly acquired land into trust for the tribe no gaming may be conducted on any lands placed in the trust pursuant to this act recognize the ranking member mr hastings for his remarks thank you mr chairman mr chairman based on the testimony that we heard on the hearing on a chart and sixty one i am satisfied that the whole tribe has made a compelling case for a need to add lands to his reservation the tribes reservation receives one hundred forty inches of rain per year and is within this tsunami zone on the pacific ocean mr chairman those some believe otherwise congress has no control over the climate i think you would i think you and i would probably agree on that but we do have control over federal lands emplacing lands in trust for indian tribes the tribe seeks to expand the eastern side of his reservation a little further away from the coast and outside the zone this will enable the tribe to construct housing and other facilities to make allies dismembers safer and easier to accomplish his purpose h r ten sixty one places interest several tracts of land for the tribe most of these lands are currently owned by the tribe in fee these additions to the reservations are created from the existing reservation by a thirty seven acre parcel of federal land that is part of the olympic national park one of the most beautiful and pristine parks in the united states h r ten sixty one transfers ownership of this thirty seven acre parcel of elliptic national park to the tribe without consideration the lands will be subject to restrictions on hunting and logging and to the preservation of tree uses the transfer of ownership of the truck park lanes to the whole tribe creates a contiguous intact reservation with full access across the reservation assured in the form of the road to highway one hundred one i are stand them in the nature of the substitute that you mr chairman are going to offer clarifies that if the existing road is washed out a new one can be rebuilt i plan to support this i also support a provision allowing the tribe in the park service to construct a multi purpose non motorized trail linking the highway one hundred one to the pacific ocean while the pacific coast is beautiful i can think of some beautiful scenery within my own district w improved public access will enhance the public's appreciation of and recreation in the lands that they own bill such as this sets a precedent and is a precedent that i strongly support the president we are setting is to transfer thirty seven acres of national park to a non federal owner to meet a legitimate need without the need for a land exchange or payment to the federal government that can generate delays i mention this because i want the members of this committee to recognize that there are instances where federal land should be transferred to state tribal or private owners there are also instances where roads should be repaired in a rebuilt when they are located in otherwise protected areas the sponsor of this bill my colleague from washington mr dix has correctly judge that the needs of his constituents a requirement for an exchange or compensation for parklands importantly the national park service says expressed support in transferring lands from the limbic that park to the tribe without the need for a land exchange or compensation i note by the way the absolute silence and hence implied support from environmental and public  lands advocacy groups to give away this thirty seven acres of national park lands to the tribe i happen to have mr chairman a bill h r twenty eight zero six to address a similar issue in my own district in this case a road within the north cascades national park that has been washed out and needs to be moved further away from the river my bill shifts the road corridor without resulting in a net loss of land to either the park or the adjacent wilderness area i trust the park service and the committee recognizes the precedent set today and will be equally supported of the needs of my constituents again this is chairman i believe the whole tribe has made a strong case for adding lands to its reservation because there are there are instances as i mentioned i don't state where they need to be land transfer and for reasons that you said health and safety that's precisely an issue that i allude to the legislation introduced on another issue that this committee will of the federal lands to be preserved and protected as well as authorizing routine maintenance of the existing road prohibiting widening or expansion of the road rather than congress urging cooperative efforts between the secretary and the tribe the amendment requires a secretary in the tribe to enter a cooperative agreements related to mutual foreign aid opportunities to learn more about travel culture and traditions and on other issues of mutual concern and finally various technical amendments are also made is a further discussion  a minute clarifies that such actions must occur without any further action by the secretary except for required to check for and remediate any has just materials on the private lands thus the bill exempts the land transfer from the national environmental policy act which wisely prevents unnecessary red tape this also is a useful precedent for future land conveyances and i support the need exemption with this  minute and i do support them in the underlying bill any other members which recognition are there any aeration i'm sorry gentleman from washington thank you mr chairman or committee rule five c i give notice of my intention to file additional or dissenting views on the bill just considered and i ask unanimous consent that this notice be extended to all members of the committee in to apply to all legislation thank you mr chairman h r seven fifteen which i introduced january twenty seventh will expand the boundaries of so why don't actual park in in my district for many people the giants a lot of silhouetted against  sky or a dramatic sunset as much as a much below symbol of the american west so why don't actual park protect our nation's most impressive strands of these giants but there is much more to the national park than just cacti and desert within the park i phone six different plant and animal communities including a great variety of unusual animals some of which can only be found in southern arizona so it was made up of two districts there in khan mountain district in the tucson mountain district one in each side of  my hometown of tucson the park provides a vital open space in the midst of a busy and growing urban area and protect the watershed for this area as well the seven fifteen would allow the national park service to start acquiring as money as appropriated three tracks on the southern side of the rink on mountain district and the tracks along the east side of the tucson mountain district each of the each of the landowners concerned of expressed their willingness to have their property added to the park some of some of those landowners have indicated they might be willing to donate their property my bill calls for a study of possible future boundary adjustments the study will look at but potential additions but also several areas that are currently inside the parks and perhaps should be removed the administration testified in support of h r seven fifteen that are here in march the bill is important to the district as a strong local support and i urge my members to support it without any amendment thank you very much and i yield back testify that additional acreage may provide wildlife corridors between other public lands and will discourage development around the park we were provided with signed letters from the private landowners stating their willingness to and be included in this new boundary  however the signatures were collected by a third party environmental group not national park service and there is really no way of knowing if the signatures represent informed consent based on all the information of the documents will be presented to us these property owners will face new limitations on their property specifically though the secretary of interior will have condemnation authorities take private land if you determines the owner's use of the land is detrimental to the park or any other reason or lack of saying that notwithstanding these owners have signed off and they're responsible for what they actually sign i'm also concerned the cost of legislation that park services well publicized backlog and these expansions could cost as much as thirty million dollars if they are not donated now is the time to show some restraint take care the land we have all finding other ways yep yep is recognized i mean mr bishop is recognized thank you mr chairman let me do unless you have a preference in the order in which we take please let me do number three first which is found in the packets well you know my preference for that order designee designed to guarantee that law enforcement agencies can do their jobs effectively within the park and its surrounding areas while this national park is undoubtedly qualified as a national park and a beautiful one the fraternal order police have named this is one of the top ten most dangerous parks in the country they stated that this park is the home and i'm quoting here to body dumping smuggling and poaching after the rangers go home at night on the national park service web site it alerts visitors to be on the lookout for arson vandalism sect theft of cactus poaching dumping of they breed marijuana cultivation or drug labs unfortunately we have seen not here but in other areas that have wilderness designation where the park designation handcuffs law enforcement personnel and the tactics they need to deploy to keep people safe this amendment simply says that law enforcement will not be limited by the designation itself and the park and the visitors will be thank you mr chairman i think the issue of georgia jurisdiction and cooperation between law enforcement agencies and officials at different levels is a very very important one not just national parks but communities across this country  like most units of the national parks that were so what all has existing policies memorandum of understanding with other local enforcement agencies in the area would spell out how and under what circumstances agency will accomplish have not read these agreements i suspect none of us have but they are negotiated by relevant agencies on the ground and i have significantly more faith in them than i do in this amendment does this amendment change in terms of these existing agreements arizona has raised unfortunately the memos of understanding on this syria and other areas and i have read them have not solved the existing problem they have failed they failed here they failed in other areas along the border we have anecdotal evidence in which the park service and the border patrol have not been able to come to an understanding and agreement and one of the things we must do if we are truly are serious about the problems of this country has is make sure that these designations do not hamper the safety of our citizens when they are entering into these public lands right now that is happening this is not the only place that this type an amendment should be in place it should be in place on every kind of public lands we have along the border and it's one of the most important elements that we can go into and we need to start somewhere this is the first opportunity this is the place to make that beginning and then expand it to other areas i have seen those memos of understanding they are not effective they are not working and we need to do more and we need to do now now this is an important element for this particular bill and it's one of those elements we're going to be pushing and every other piece of legislation we have that comes in the similar area to this country thank you mr chairman for their discussion  and i would agree with the gentleman from utah that this is an important area and representing much of the border glance in the state of arizona and other members who represent the border lands we are very concerned not only about the health and safety of visitors but the overall security issues that are bound to these public lands i think what is needed there and we have urged the previous homeland security administration and we are urging this could be the administration  has to be comprehensive that it has to involve local communities that it has to be buying the memorandum of understanding that protect and enhance security and i think that a broad amendment without the input of the professional on the ground people homeland security border patrol local sheriffs park rangers is an amendment that we're doing in haste without actually knowing understanding or looking at this whole issue in a comprehensive way is a complex it is a difficult issue and i think it merits more attention by this committee than under amendment and i hastily put together an amendment on a piece of legislation with however this man's the national park establishment act of one thousand nine hundred four which creates a spark and it does contain in the base bill broad condemnation authority on private property that this legislation would now make subject to property owners the ninety four x states the secretary of interior may require land without consent of the owner if he determines that the private land is being developed in a manner detrimental to the integrity of the park to the best of our knowledge the landowners have expressed their willingness to be included in this expansion but are not aware as to whether or not they have consuelo are not aware as to whether or not they have consented to this new land use restriction my amendment will provide a small degree of protection to the land owners by removing the struggle some language from the original ninety four act as a minimum we need to take steps as a good faith effort to the property owners that are opening up their property for the country to enjoy the federal government already has more land than it can adequately manage and the congress expanding borders and boundaries and providing endless funding mechanisms to acquire even more under these circumstances there is no reason to continue providing the national park service with a hammer of actual condemnation or to use a threat to create so called willing sellers this is once again an issue that we have in the base and it's one of things that was wrong to put in there in ninety four now's the time to correct that i just yelled back sir thank you  right but it was strike is not in the bill but it is in the original part of nine hundred ninety four the provision allows the park to stop development that would be detrimental to the integrity of the park in other words of this amendment were adopted with one  hand we will allow boundary expansion to benefit the park and with the other hand we would rob the park of the ability to stop harmful development given that where these parks are located in tucson and in the valley cement i appreciate the arguments mr hall the made which are exactly on point of what i'm talking about fifteen years ago when we gave the power to the secretary of interior sitting here in washington to be able to make determinations on local lands and land use it was wrong and it's about when we start making those things correct here biskra oliver and mr young are both right if there's going to be decisions on those boundaries should be made by local authorities not the secretary of interior sitting here in washington or should be made by the private property owners who own those lands not the secretary of interior here in washington what we're talking about is the power of the secretary to to control development outside his area of responsibility outside the boundaries of the parks that was wrong it was wrong fifteen years ago it's wrong today we need to finally make a statement that says we need to turn back and allow local officials and private property owners to control their own lands that's the only way we can do it and not give that power to the secretary interior sitting in some air conditioned washington building postpone this job and have additional members not i will draw a number to let me withdraw number two number two deals with the concept of gun ownership and gun use in national parks we have handled that on the floor supposedly although there is a nine month implementation waiting period and there's been some statements made from the ministration of how they will implement that this amendment would deal with how we implement how we deal with this policy now until the full and for the implementation is in there i'm willing to postpone discussion of that toll later in the day until we have conducted business on the ad legislation so with that having been said and the chair moves that we now recess for the long voting on the floor of the house it will resume its sitting we will now proceed to with the next scheduled bill and then come back to vote on amendments on h r seven one fattened with final passage on the bill next for consideration is h r thirteen seventy six the national monument to protect the burial site a large number of mammoths in waco texas research is it concluded the site contains of the remains of several herds of mammoths which appeared to have died together in one or more floods some sixty thousand years ago the site offers a unique opportunity to understand and interpret the behavior and ecology of an extinct species according to the national park service one hundred seventh congress authorized a study of the site in a chart thirteen seventy six implements the results of the study specifically the bill provides that the one hundred nine acre site be managed under a cooperative agreement among the national park service baylor university and the city of waco the administration says in testified in support of a chart thirteen seventy five and our hearing in april i urge members to support the bill and the technical amendment that i will offer shortly and with that mr chairman i yield back gentleman from u thank you in the hole the substance of this bill is something i think is positive we can support but i do have some serious concerns about the creation of this money may affect private property owners adjacent to the proposed monument also have questions on whether some benefit unfairly of tax payers expense by selling donated lands of the park service and i have intentions of addressing these concerns in greater detail as we move into the mammoth phase and you'll back any other members were scratch and if not now recognize  thank you and i do not know in which number these are in the packets as well i don't know if they are specifically numbered land one first which is number number one number one requires that any land the state of texas or a political subdivision the state of texas donates for the congress creation of this monument must be used the wrong verb too soon that anything the state of texas or political subdivision gives for this monument will be donated to the park service i think that's appropriate it's a very sensible requirement made by the park service simply because the feasibility study indicated that several parcels of this property were given by private citizens to the city in the form of a donation therefore the city should pass them on in a form of a donation the city of waco should not have a big win at the expense of taxpayers in selling these lands to the park service my amendment adds bailey university to this consideration baylor university like the city of waco has received numerous parcels of land from private citizens by donation for the purpose of preserving the site baylor university should not also have a windfall tax payers expense by then flipping these lands they have received by donation to the park service for a price by the university is game it will continue to gain greatly from this particular site but they like the city waco should gain through the lands through should not gain through financially through lands donated to them so this amendment applies to university as the base bill applies to the city and other political subdivisions you know back i think it was chairman sponsors office and also we  it limits the park service to regulating only the lands the park service owns the lands within the boundaries of their monument over the decades we have seen the national park service slowly invent concepts as buffer zone soundscapes few scapes even smell scapes in order to control private and local lands not within the park boundaries this kind of stealth encroachment on private property rights has continued on in the national park service on feasibility study of the waco monument they leave open the option of getting involved in local zoning and use restrictions on adjacent land in the future this poses a serious threat since lance adjacent to the monument have multiple landowners with differing interest such as the universe baylor and local farmers this amendment simply says the park service can control whatever it wants to within the boundaries of this park but they are going to be limited to control there they may not be involved in making zoning ordinances on areas that surround the park i must admit  respect this is not my own idea i stole it i'm very bipartisan person as you know this particular provision he stole from represented cost in his sequoia and kings canyon wilderness bill he introduced the same concept of allowing park service to control park service land but not be in the business of trying to control lands around their areas so i want to salute the good work of my friend at and democrat who is not here to hear this this glowing remarks of what he has done but i assure you nobody will tell him  gentleman you i would gladly old you mention our colleague mr costin did he offer that in a minute on the earlier bill and amendment was adopted by this committee and the policy was adopted interesting question yes he did school for us public land wildlife refuge or anything else actually has a buffer zone i'm unaware of a single piece of legislation other than the cost of the even designated a buffer zone and i think in that legislation it specifically and i stand to be corrected the buffer zone issue was not part of it that being the case so adopted an amendment stating that we are not creating a buffer sewn in a chart thirteen seventy is completely unnecessary it's like amending the bill to make clear that we are not creating a protective bubble or an invisible shield furthermore it's section two of the amendment raises serious questions about the authority of the city of waco and the state of texas to control their land use as one of the state or the city would prohibit certain activities because they might harm the monument would this then that federal law trump their and thank you if there is indeed a problem with section two because our goal is to make sure that waco has the ultimate responsibility and flexibility to work on the floor with that particular concern but the idea of a buffer zone does exist and it does exist in law the painted picture rock national seashore in michigan does indeed include the concept of the buffer zone it's there it's defined and that is the reference to which we are making here i don't want that same thing happening in waco and once again the idea revolutionaries maybe people at the park service deal with park service lands don't give them the authority to pull around in areas outside their boundaries questions on a mammoth or the gentleman from utah mr bishop  once again in here which i have proposed i'm going to pull back for the same recommendation same reasons we did on the earlier one this still deals with the second amendment concept which hopefully will be finally solved in nine months when the  goes into effect this language may be introduced again in the future if we have some doubts as to the efficacy of what will happen but as for now it's smart to be there on the table but i had no intentions of actually proposing it so with specifically withdraw number three before i have a chance to propose number press an amendment to require all part visitors to carry concealed weapons that's not being the case and i might be giving you an idea on second hand that case i yield back i will now proceed with the next scheduled below and come back to vote on the member states are thirteen seventy six and with final passage bill the next item for consideration is h r eleven twenty introduced by our colleagues virginia foxx would authorize the exchange of approximately twenty acres of land within the blue ridge containing the blowing rock reservoir for approximately one hundred ninety two acres of nearby land owned by the town of blowing rock north carolina the land exchange is supported by both the town and the national park service the approximately two hundred ninety two acre parcel to be acquired by the national park service is undeveloped land owned by the town it is desirable to the national park service as a buffer between the blue ridge parkway and a nearby developed area that will protect scene and enhance recreational opportunities along the parkway the bill does not authorize any expenditure of funds  so the land exchange the federal government trains the right of first refusal in the event the town desires to dispose of the acquired land environmental complaint must be completed other laws regulations and policies applicable to the national park service land exchanges must be followed the administration has provided support of h r eleven twenty one and at the appropriate time i will offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute making some technical changes requested by the administration the minority thank you i generally support this bill as well although i do have an amendment to this same time the reservoir that supplies the water to the town of blowing rock north carolina is on land that was donated to the blue ridge parkway over fifty years ago and the park service when the choir this land by donation continued to the reservoir work in operation under an informal agreement with the city unfortunately recently the park service decided to impose issuing an annual special use permit for the site and impose water rights fees for the value of the water taken from this particular site this park service pronouncement of the city faced the prospect of branding its only source of water year after year and being charge for that water so i want to compliment mrs fox and the rest of the north carol delegation who worked on this particular legislation for coming up with a solution to this particular problem her bill will allow blowing rock to own and manage the twenty acres for its only supply of municipal water rather than having to access it through a yearly permitting process i am dismayed or discourage it somewhat though the price extract by the park service was getting a hundred ninety two acres in exchange for the twenty where the water is certainly i hope we have learned from mr dix this morning when the park service was willing to give without restriction and without compensation lands of the indians in the proper way to solve a problem this should have been what happened in this situation as well having said that though with the exception of a potential amendment i have we leased compliment  sponsors of this legislation for finding a solution and i am appreciative that the committee and the subcommittee are moving this legislation forward brothers question if not to questions on the i'm sorry first the gentleman from arizona  well once again we had an amendment under my name in the book which is the similar to the other ones that i did on the two bills we had previously talked to and one make sure that i'm doing these amendments in a bipartisan way and withdrawing them in a bipartisan way at the same time the record was so clearly states are there any member would you mr duncan mr mr flake mr volume of data mr henry b mr miller mr young mr mar as have it in the opinion chair and the bill is favor reported to the house of representatives that a motion without objection a motion to reconsider is laid on the table the question is now an amended offer about mr bishop amendment number two h r thirteen seventy minutes not agreed to the question is now in favor of reporting the bill as amended to the house of representatives all those in favor signify saying those postings have a say no in your chair the as have it the as have it in the bill is failure report the house representatives as amended with abjection motion to reconsider is laid on the table final i am a business i ask unanimous consent to call up committee resolution number two and ask for a meeting consideration by the committee with abjection so order it without objection resolution it considers read i reckon him as myself for five minutes to speak of the resolution the purpose of this resolution is to honor the legislative council of the united states house of representatives and pope barrow upon his retirement where as a stand up pope there you are can forward serving nearly forty years with the office of legislative counsel pope is out a number of positions of increasing responsibility including council senior counsel deputy legislative counsel and lastly legislative counsel his service to the house has thirty three year member of the natural resources committee mass staff have called upon pope numerous times numerous times to draft important and complex natural resource legislation i am especially grateful for pope's efforts in drafting legislation that led to the designation in my home state of west virginia of the gully river national recreation area and the blue stone wowed and seanie graver legislation i know that my colleagues will be able to elaborate on po legislative efforts but i want to make note of his skills outside the legislative workplace some of my colleagues may not be aware that pope is an accomplished kayaker on more than one occasion when i was in my district i would run into pope while he was in west virginia to catch our beautiful and challenging white water found in my home state but members did not have to go to west virginia to find pope on the water is a well known fixture on the local kayaking scene and could  found challenging the white water rapids of the great falls of the potomac river that's a challenge well i have noted pope's legislative and kayaking prowess i would be remiss if i did i did not mention his greatest attribute is generally generally a nice guy fair levelheaded not not open to emotions or to rattling swords he is a proof that nice guys do not always finish last so on behalf of myself pope on behalf of james all you ricky we have our committee staff and our many natural resource committee members and the staff with pope has worked with for so many years i know i want to wish you all the best and your retirement now i thank you again for the many many services that you provided to the members in our staff for so many years we thank you and you're always welcome to kayak on our beautiful rivers in west virginia and with that i'm going to read ok before i read the resolution i will recognize your ranking minority member mr right thank you mr chairman and i too want to add my congratulations on retirement if that's the right word to retire congratulate i don't know that when you started then got assigned to the business under the jurisdiction of this comm that you would have that much work with i suppose that's the nature of this committee because this is the nature of this committee is turns out a lot of work and we appreciate it certainly on the republican side when we're a majority and almost i'm echoing what mr young would say we're here that  would ask if the pope be allowed to sit right there to witness table make any comments he wishes to make mr chairman yes yes i want to invite pope to come out to hawaii where there where there where there are no white water rapids of any kind but plenty of kayaker leisurely pacing their way along calm cool waters the gentle lady from garmisch with you mr chairman i'd like to invite only american outpost solve the equator in the middle of nowhere in the south pacific more they're welcome to take you fishing somewhere watching whatever you want to do please do come and i mean thank you ok i think you've got enough invites now pope to actually more than your years of service here in the house of representatives any other comments of now i will recognize both yes ok california thank you thank you so much for the all those gracious statements and i have to say that i've enjoyed very much in my career working with this committee it's it has the most exciting jurisdiction for a person like me who loves the outdoors and so i've been enjoying every moment i've worked with this committee over the years i haven't been doing the work of this committee recently since i've been appointed late save council because i have too many henri lawyers to manage over there and i have to spend my time with that but back in the in the years when i did work on the legislation for this committee when motor you'd always chairman and the other chairman even prior to that i worked on the legislation here at the alaska lands act and all the other great bills that have come out of this committee and it's been a real honor and privilege to serve with the congress in that capacity looks like i have a lot of travel in store for me from the invitations i have now and i'll be following up on that i'm hoping that the committee will be able to fund this fund some of these trips because i'm really looking forward to some of the locations that you can send me to and i'm available for that if you