the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 227. the nays are 190. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. he house will come to order.

the house will come to order. please, members take conversations off the floor. cease conversations. clear thewell, clear the aisle. -- clear the well, clear the aisle. please ceaseual conversations-d. cease all conversations. lease clear the aisle. he house will come to order. the house will come to order. the chair would ask all present to rise for the purpose of a moment of silence.

the chair asks that the house now observe a moment of silence in remembrance of our brave men and women in uniform who have given their lives in the service of our nation in iraq and afghanistan and the families of all who serve in our armed forces and their families. woit, five-minute voting will continue -- without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the motion on the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1 28 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1228, a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 300 packer land drive in green bay, wisconsin, as the corporal justice d. ross post

office building. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 418. the nays are zero. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without

objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. without objection, the title is amended. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and includeheir remarks and extraneous material on h.r. 1459. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the house will be in order.

pursuant to house resolution 524 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 1459. the chair appoints the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, to preside over the committee f the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 1459 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to ensure that the national environmental policy act of 1969 applies to the declaration of national monuments, and for other urposes. pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, each will control 30 minutes.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman -- the chair: the gentleman from washington will suspend. mr. hastings: the committee is not in order. the chair: the committee will be in order. members, take their conversations off the floor. that includes the staff. the gentleman from washington may proceed. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, president obama has not been shy about his willingness or his desire to circumvent congress and take unilateral action on a variety of issues. this lack of shyness includes the designation of new national monuments. in fact, during the president's first term in office, an internal memo was leaked to potentially lock up more than 13 million acres of western

land with the simple stroke of the president's pen. major land use decisions should -- such as this should be made -- not be made behind closed doors and should fully involve the local citizens whose livelihood would be directly affected by such action. that's why, mr. chairman, i trongly support h.r. 1459, the ensuring public involvement in the creation of national monuments act, sponsored by our colleague from utah, mr. bishop. this legislation requires -- would require public participation before a president can designate a national monument under the antiquities act. mr. speaker, the committee is not in order. the chair: the gentleman is correct. the committee will be in order. members and staff, take their conversations off the floor.

the gentleman from washington may proceed. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, let me repeat this last sentence that i gave, because this is the heart of the legislation. this legislation would require public participation before a president can designate a national monument under the antiquities act. over 100 years ago, the antiquities act was passed to allow a president to unilaterally designate national monuments without any input or involvement from the people, communities or elected officials of the areas that would be directly impacted. however, this authority was intended to be used under narrow circumstances and in emergencies to prevent destruction of a precious place. but unfortunately we have seen this power abused by presidents of both parties. it's been used as a tool to score political points rather than to protect areas facing imminent threat or harm.

national money umets are one of the most -- monuments are one of the most restrictive of all land use designations. they can significantly block public access and limit public recreation and other job-creating economic activities. the american people and their elected leaders deserve to have a say which of their lands deserves special protections as national monuments and which should instead be allowed to contribute to the full arrange of recreational, conservation, economic and resource benefits that carefully manage multiple -- that carefully manage multiple use lands provide. h.r. 1459 would guarantee public involvement and ensure that the designation process is transparent by requiring all national monuments -- designations made under the antiquities act to comply with the nepa process. most, if not all, major land use decisions are statutorily required to go through the nepa

process. designations made by the president should be treated no differently than those other processes. i will openly state, however, that i and many of my republican colleagues, believe that nepa is a law that should be streamlined and updated. however, this bill is about transparency and ensuring that the public has a voice. so let me ask the rhetorical question, mr. chairman. if my democrat colleagues believe that nepa is a worthwhile law that works and that nepa is important, why should they oppose making sure that presidential designations should not go through the same process? this bill continues to uphold the original intention of the antiquities act which is to allow the president to act in emergency situations. it protects the president's ability to act if there is an imminent threat to an american antiquity by allowing for a temporary emergency designation

of 500 -- of 5,000 acres or less for a three-year period. after that time, in order to ensure public participation in the process, the designation would be made permanent if the nepa process is completed or if it's approved by congress. the bill would also limit national monument declarations to no more than one per state during any four-year presidential term and prevent the inclusion of private property without the prior written consent of the property owners. national monument designations deserve public input from the people and communities directly impacted. this bill is necessary to stop unilateral actions by the president and ensure participation by the american public. i commend subcommittee chairman bishop for his work on this bill, and i encourage my colleagues to support it and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves his time.

the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman from arizona may use as much time as he wishes to use. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. this week the majority advanced the bill that would block the administration from implementing extreme buffer zone rules intended to protect waterways from the impacts of mountain top removal coal mining and adding to the list of their attacks on the environment, house republicans ignore the fact that americans want clean water, clean skies and more, not less, national parks and national monuments. because now they are forcing a vote on h.r. 1459, a bill that will make it harder for presidents to create new national monuments, adding layers upon layers of duplicative oversight and nonnecessary congressional review. this is not what our constituents are asking congress to do. it's simply another attempt by the majority to stall the

protection of federal land. in its 100-year history, the antiquities act has been used by 16 out of 19 presidents. in fact, teddy roosevelt used it to to protect the grand canyon and -- use it had to protect the grand canyon and we must not make it more difficult for future presidents to let land aside and honor our shared history, but that's exactly what this legislation is trying to do. there are two ways to create a new national monument. congress can pass a law or the president can use the antiquities act. as we all know, it's becoming increasingly difficult to pass a law even for popular bipartisan conservation measures. bills languish in congress for years, and the antiquities act is often the only way to move some of these projects across the goal line. the majority will refute this by pointing out -- pointing the finger at the senate, blaming the other side of the hill for inaction and highlighting their

own track record of passing bills out of the house. that is a smokescreen. they have only moved a fraction of the conservation bills sitting before the house. many even do not get a subcommittee hearing, and some of these proposals have been around for 10 years. democrats are very pleased -- as democrats, we are very pleased to create new wilderness in the sleeping bear dunes national lake shore. don't get me wrong. this is a good legislation, but passing one stand-alone wilderness bill, one national -- one national monument and one new national park bill in three years is not proof that congress could do the work of conserving land and creating national monuments. for example, i introduced a bill to establish a national monument in my district that would honor and recognize land considered sacred by native american communities in the southwest. it's an area full of ancient petroglyphs increasingly under threat for looting and vandalism. a national monument designation would ensure that these

cultural treasures receive the level of protections they deserve. this proposal is supported by the national congress of american indians and every tribe in arizona. like many of my colleagues in similar national monument proposals, i am unable to get even a hearing on that particular bill. if the majority is truly concerned about public input or congressional review of national monuments and conservation of federal land, why don't they consider bills to establish new monuments, parks, heritage areas or wilderness? nearly 100 conservation designated bills have been introduced in the last two congresses. four have become law. this track record doesn't prove that we need more congressional review. on the congressional trear, if the majority is to -- contrary, if the majority is so eager to apply this to the antiquities ct, why would they limit the scope on other lands? the majority has skrd and

advanced measures to timber operations, mining activity and oil and gas lease. following this logic, there's too much view -- following this logic, there is too much review when foreign corporations want to extract american taxpayer owned national resources but not enough when we set aside land for future generations. house republicans have attempted to rewrite california water law, undermine the endangered species act and blow up the steam buffer rule and approve state and private takeover of federal land. putting up barriers to presidential proclamations of national monuments as envisioned by h.r. 1459 is just another failure in the anti-environmental cap. h.r. 1459 will set up arbitrary per state limits on presidential monument decisions and require congressional review of any monument under 5,000 acres, monuments over

5,000 acres won't have to be approved by congress but they will be delayed by a process intended to evaluate the environmental impact on major -- of major federal access. i hate to break it to the majority, but the conservation and the establishment of national monuments don't have the same footprint as open pit mines and oil wells. republicans want us to believe that this bill is about protecting private property. the antiquities act only applies to federal land. let me repeat. only applies to peril land. if there are -- only applies to federal land. if there are people who have inholdings within that federal land, why are they standing in the way of federal land acquisition and depriving those property owners who are willing sellers the right to sell? h.r. 1459 is a wasteful and duplicative piece of legislation that will, like most bills passed out of this chance, have no chance of ever becoming law. i urge my colleagues to oppose

h.r. 1459, and i reserve the remainder of our time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new mexico, mr. pearce. the chair: the gentleman from new mexico will speak for two minutes. mr. pearce: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the work of the gentleman from washington and for his yielding time. you've just heard one view of what the bill does from our friends on the other side of the aisle. i would bring a different view. just a couple months ago, secretary jewel visited my -- he city in my district, las cruces to create a presidential executive order creating a monument. keep in mind that monument bill could not be passed through this house under democrat rule. it could not be passed through the republican-controlled senate with a republican sponsor. it could not be passed through the democrat-controlled senate when they had a

filibuster-proof majority. and now then the president is going to come and unilaterally declare almost 1/3 of the county to be restricted. the west is starving education because of the public ownership of land. anytime you create a monument, then you restrict the ability of local economies to survive. so the first monument, the first wilderness area that was created by congress is in my district. the hila national wilderness, and they're starving for jobs in that entire region. they're asking, when can we have our jobs back? so the gentleman describes somehow we as republicans objecting. no, all we're saying is that the president needs to live by the same rules as everyone else. the president is not above the law. neither is his secretary. this bill is very simple. it is transparent. it says that the nepa process is about public involvement. that public involvement is what has scared away both democrats

and republicans trying to make this 600,000-acre wilderness happen in the second district of new mexico. this bill needs to be passed because washington needs to understand the people own the land. i yield back and thank the gentleman for giving me time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from arizona. . mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. i give such time as he may consume to mr. defazio. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. defazio: i thank my friend and colleague for the time. since congress passed the antiquities act in 1906, both republican and democratic presidents have used the power granted under the act to protect some of our most recognizable, most beloved natural wonders. zion in utah, owe lick pick in washington -- olympic in washington.

the statue of liberty. that's a few. then last week i had the opportunity to backpack for seven days in what is the best known and most visited, 4.4 million people last year, the grand canyon of the united states. in 1908 republican president teddy roosevelt granted national monument designation for the grand canyon under the antiquities act and all but two presidents since then have used this authority. at that time it was critical to protect the grand canyon because tremendous development was being proposed both for tourism purposes and for commercial uses and mining and other issues. so that was an extraordinary step that that president took back then. why would we turn back the clock? why would we strip this president or future presidents from having this authority to preserve and conserve national treasures? when they are indefinitely stalled in the morass of

congress. it was dysfunctional for different reasons back then. but just as dysfunctionaler to more dysfunctional today than it was back then. there's going to be no protection passing this house easily or freely with this majority in charge. you know, it is truly that there have been some -- true that there have been some controversial designations. one mentioned previously and earlier by chairman bishop. but i'd also note that no one, no one has proposed legislation to repeal that designation by president clinton. if they are so aggrieved and it is so egregious, i wonder why they haven't done that. perhaps because it enjoys tremendous popular support except from among a few people. now, they say this is about more control. let's take a look at what they've done with droll -- control. over the last four years, the republican majority has proposed legislation to sell off public land, they have passed multiple bills that would open our public lands virtually unregulated, as of yesterday, with mountain top

removal, mineral and energy extraction. they shut down access to our national parks because of their stupid government shutdown last fall. they found out that wasn't too popular. then they held a hearing to find out why the parks were shut down, when the government was sht down. whoa, look in the mirror -- shut down. whoa, look in the mirror, guys. that's why the parks were shut down. they realized that these parks and monuments enjoyed tremendous support from the american people. there have been 89 conservation bills introduced from both sides of the aisle in this house in the last two congresses and only four of the 89 have become law. this republican majority is genuinely openly hostile to conservation designation and yet today they're pretending that they actually really care about these iconic places. they're just making a couple of little changes to the law to include more public input. i had an experience in the clinton administration with mountains in oregon. we only got it done because president clinton, secretary baseball et, said, we're going

to -- secretary babit said, we're going to make that a monument. we had a meeting in my office with the republican senator, republican member from oregon, myself, a couple other members came in and out, and the secretary, and we happen hammered out a bill to protect the mount -- and we hammered out a bill to protect the mountains in oregon and it passed on a bipartisan basis with a republican congress, house and senate. those were the old days. 16 out of 19 presidents have used this power. teddy roosevelt said it best, i think. about the grand canyon. we should let this great wonder of nature remain as it now is. do nothing to mar its grandeur and lovelyness. you can't improve on it but what you can do is keep it for your children, your children's children and all who might come after you, as one great site which every american should see.

today the majority here would undo that legacy or the potential for future legacies under the antiquities act. and just one side note. chairman bishop made much of talking about that there was a provision in legislation of which i was a sponsor, critical and unique to my state, designating the o.n.c. lands. and he said, it precludes new monument designation. yeah, he's right. that was in there at the instistence of the republican majority. i would have been happy to take it out. but i'll cut him a deal. i'd be happy to negotiate. he voted for that bill. but it also includes 1.2 million acres of old growth preservation, 90,000 acres of wilderness, 300,000 acres of setaside and 150 miles of wild and scenic river designation. if he will fully support those conservation provisions in my bill, i'll perhaps negotiate with them that they could say, well, we don't would -- well, we won't do any mormonments in

that area. that's -- monuments -- more monuments in that area. let's not create a phony argument here. with that i urge my colleagues to reject this horrible legislation. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from nevada, mr. amodei. the chair: the gentleman from nevada is recognized for two minutes. mr. amodei: thank you, mr. chairman. you know, it's nice to see that the assaults on the authority of this branch continues. it's sad that it continues from within. and it's interesting to hear westerners talk about issues that are particularly acute in western lands. i happen to hail from a state that's 87% owned by the federal government. the key word there is owned. if you want to protect natural resources that are federal, which by the way this law takes

into account, the federal government already owns them. you do not have enough authority by virtue of ownership interest over the last 110 years almost to protect things? things have not changed. i've heard criticism about the mining reform law of 1874 from my colleagues, here's something, 1906, and it's like, if you can't protect it by being the owner, as the federal government, under the land management of species of multiple federal land use agencies, i'm wondering why, and i heard somebody say these areas enjoy tremendous support of the people. what is the problem with allowing the people to participate in the process of monument designation? why is it awful to these people who want these areas, want to enjoy them to say, hey, you know, we're thinking about a making a monument of this. even though you control it by virtue of ownership and countless regs, we want to use deregulation that applies to

that to let the people who enjoy them so much participate in the process. we want to cede all authority to the executive branch because we happen to disagree on some things? let me tell you, as a member of the republican side of the aisle that's been advocating for the creation of 96,000 acres of wilderness in a bipartisan context with my colleague from nevada that i can't get through yet, i'm frustrated too. i fail to see the harm in allowing the people that so much appreciate these federal lands to participate in their further designation, adding another layer of administration as monuments. let's please defend our authority as this branch and let's support this bill. i yield back, mr. chairman, thank you very much. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. let me yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, a member of the natural mr. ces committee, huffman. mr. huffman: i rise in strong

opposition to h.r. 1459. this is a solution in search of a problem. this bill. it implies, the name of it implies, the reference to public participation, that there is a complete lack of public input in the process of designating these monuments. that these designations are dropping abruptly and arbitrarily out of the white house. and i will tell you, as a representive of the newest national monument in this country, that is just not the case. before president obama added the public lands to the california coastal national monument, literally the entire community in that area that i represent, all of the interested stakeholders were not only engaged they been engaged for several years. and that includes everyone from the business community, local tribes, conservation groups, local governments to school children in the area. there was no opposition to this proposal. people came out to public meetings and that included a public workshop that the secretary had herself. she came out to the area and i

assure you, there was no shortage of public input, no shortage of public participation. and so this premise that there's a lack, an absence of public participation is at least in my experience totally false. but so is the political narrative behind this bill. this idea that president obama has somehow overreached in his exercise of executive authority. in fact, president obama has been much more jishous than many of his predecessors in deciding when to designate these monuments. prior to this president, 16 presidents from both parties have used this authority under the antiquities act over the course of more than a century. and that ranges from president roosevelt's designation of the grand canyon to 140,000 square miles of marine monument that were designated around hawaii by president george w. bush. by comparison to his predecessors, president obama has been very sparing in using the antiquities act. and he and his cabinet have

been very careful to bring the public in and to be very transparent. so the narrative about executive overreach is also false. limiting the antiquities act, as this bill would do, and i want to emphasize this, will harm jobs and economic growth. and in the case of my district, the community understood, one of the reasons for the broad support of this monument designation is that the community understood it was good not just for the environment but good for the economy. the travel and tourism industry is one of the county's biggest industries, bringing in over $300 million annually. and everybody understood that this monument designation was going to significantly boost that part of our economy. and it's going to happen now, this summer, thanks to what president obama did. so why should a community like mine wait on a monument designation, especially in a situation like this where there was no opposition to the proposal? no one is saying that congress shouldn't play a role in

protecting our public lands. but it's important to note that bills to protect this part of the coast were introduced first more than two years ago. so the 112th congress had a full chance at it, we had -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. huff would request another 30 -- mr. huffman: would request another 30 seconds. mr. grijalva: i'll extend 30 seconds to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. huffman: mr. speaker, we know that congress can be slow, that there are uncertainties in the process of moving through congress and the question is, why in the case of something like this, when there's no opposition, all these economic benefits, should my district or any other district have to wait for this critically important designation? i think we should be very careful about repealing a bill that has stood the test of time and worked well for both democrats and republicans for more than a century. and i request a no vote on h.r. 1459. i thank the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from aferse

reserves -- arizona reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm respleesed -- pleased to yield two minutes now to the gentleman from utah, mr. stewart. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized for two minutes. mr. stewart: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank my good friend and really one of my heroes, congressman bishop, for bringing attention to i think this very important topic, especially to my home state of utah and to my friends across the aisle, i think you have to twist yourselves into pretzels in order to object to this bill. in 1996, nearly two million acres in the heart of my district were locked up in the creation of the grand staircase national monument. nearly two million acres. it was the largest national monument created in the history of the united states. this massive monument was created with a stroke of the president's pen. without any consultation, without even notice given to the local population, no phone

calls, no conversations, nothing. and the president didn't even have the courage to step into my state when he created this monday. he stoot on the arizona -- monument. he stood on the arizona border and said, i create a national monument over there. if the president desires to create new large national monuments, surely he can believe that conducting a thorough environmental analysis is a good thing. nepa was specifically designed to mandate the federal agencies to stop and think about proposed actions and make sure those actions are propose. -- appropriate. it also mandates that all of those who are impacted by this decision would have sufficient information and approval. if the creation of a national monument is a good idea, shouldn't the monuments have to undergo public scrutiny? and if the president can take five years, five years and counting, to approve, say, the keystone x.l. pipeline, can't we take an appropriate amount

of consideration before we create another massive monument? that is what democracy is all about. that's all that this bill asks for. and with that, mr. chair, i ield back. the chair: the gentleman is reminded not to engage in personalities toward the president. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. let me yield 15 seconds to the ranking member, mr. defazio. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for 15 seconds. mr. defazio: to the previous speaker and others who've complained about grand staircase escalante, you could introduce a bill to repeal it. why don't you? the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i'm very pleased to yield one minute to one of my classmates, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. sanford.

the chair: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. sanford: i join in support of this bill, not because it's because of public input. it's because of two central tenants that the founding fathers laid out that is important for democrats and republicans alike. their belief that three, four, five perspectives were always better than one. they didn't want to see unilateral action. they didn't want to see a king, and the idea of overstepping on that front was contrearl to what they set out. secondly, that the individual was to be the sole repository of power in our political system, and that any government had legitimacy only in as much as there was consent by the governments. what you see by these monuments is no consent by the local government. i very much believe in land conservation, have been an advocate for a long time, but i believe in a process that prescribes that which the constitution laid out necessary in that process. with that i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you very much. i yield to the gentlelady from maryland, ms. edwards, two minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. edwards: thank you and i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i want to join my colleagues in opposition to h.r. 1459, the ensuring public involvement in the creation of national monuments act. sounds good but it should be known as preventing new parks act. this bill would severely restrict this and any future president's authority to establish a national monument, eliminating a crucial part of our nation's conservation strategy. in this current poisonous climate, the majority has made it nearly impossible for congress to conserve land for future generations, using the legislative process. this past congress, in fact, was the first since world war ii to not protect a single acre

of land as a national park, monument or wilderness area. not one single acre. just last year, there was a significant bipartisan effort on the part of the president and others to designate the harriette tubman national historical parks act, of which i am an original co-sponsor, but that bill failed to even make it out of the committee with public support, with family support failed to make it out of committee. but just yesterday we celebrated the first anniversary of the harriette tubman underground railroad national monument located in my state of maryland and designated as a national monument by president obama using his authority under the antiquities act. i was in the oval office with the descendents of harriette tubman and the people of that community who had been working for years for this designation. i saw what it meant to the community. they believe it meant economic

development also. had h.r. 1459 been passed a year ago, this monument to a national hero would probably be stuck in the arbitrary hurdles and redundant restrictions this bill proposes. national monuments are an important part of telling our american story, and yet currently only 26 of our nation's 460 national parks have a primary focus on african-americans and just eight are dedicated to women. that includes the harriet tubman park. no, i will not yield. i would ask for 20 seconds. mr. grijalva: i'd give the gentlelady for 30 seconds. the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. edwards: we should be encouraging this and future administrations to continue to work for the common good, for the public good that this necessary preservation work entails. i urge my colleagues to oppose this restrictive bill, and i urge a no vote on the bill.

thank you and i yield. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, before i yield to my colleague from wyoming, i want to address what the previous speaker mentioned, and she was talking about the tubman bill. had this bill been in effect, we wouldn't have the problem with the tubman issue right now. it was dedicated as a national monument and did not go through the local process. as a result of that, there are flaws in that designation. thus, the bill that the gentlelady is introducing is to correct the flaws that were put in place because of the monument legislation. ms. edwards: will you yield? mr. hastings: no. i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from wyoming, mrs. lummis. the chair: the gentlelady from wyoming is recognized for two minutes. mr. aluminum miss: i don't know

if you know there was any state exempt from the ack particular wits act. in 1950 when grand tee tau national park and the jackson hole national monument were combined, lawmakers and president truman exempted wyoming from congressional designations. now, 48% of wyoming is federal land. we have the first national park, first national forest, first national monument. we have nine total national forests and one national grassland within our state borders. yet, without having to comply with the antiquities act, we created the national migratory birds refuge in wyoming which is a massive area that happened with local input. you don't need the antiquities act as it exists to continue to create federal designations. they can be done with local and state input which is exactly what this bill will allow. if there are additional, unique

and special designations necessary, they should go through the congressional process and not be usurped by unilateral presidential powers. this is 2014. we're not back in the era when presidents needed to designate areas that were at risk of being degree redated. he ethic of a nation for conservation has come far beyond that. let's adapt our laws to the morality and the ethics of the times. let's pass this bill and give people involvement in decisions that are made in our states. thank you, mr. chairman and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from delaware, mr. carney. the chair: the gentleman from delaware is recognized for two minutes. mr. carney: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to join my colleagues in opposition to h.r. 1459. this bill will clearly undermine the antiquities act,

one of our country's most important environmental and historic preservation tools and one that's been critical to protecting beautiful land in my home state of delaware. currently, delaware is the only state in the union without a national park. that means that every summer as families flip through the guide books of national parks in search of the internet for outdoor vacation ideas, delaware is not on the map, except, of course, for our beautiful beaches. the good news is that last year the antiquities act helped fix this problem. it allowed for the creation of the first state national monument, including the historic woodlawn property, through a process that involved broad public input and public participation. the woodlawn property is 1,100 historic acres, spanning the border of delaware and pennsylvania. it had been privately owned and used for public recreation for over 100 years and was about to be sold potentially leading to extensive residential development. in response to considerable

public outcry about the possible loss of this great property, a private foundation, the mount cubic center, stepped in with an incredibly generous donation of more than $20 million to protect the property for future generations. given the various limitations related to the management and transfer of the property, the antiquities act provided the right path for us to move quickly with plenty of public input to ensure that the monument effectively represented our community's goals. as part of this process, we had over a dozen public meetings on the creation of the monument, including a hearing attended by the national park service director, john jarvis, and hundreds of delawarians and pennsylvanians who expressed strong support for the protection of the woodlawn property. the first state national monument continues to enjoy -- ually unanimous en

enthusiastic support. the provisions in this bill under consideration today would have jeopardized this process, and we may not have been able to realize -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. grijalva: i'd yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. mr. carney: i thank the gentleman for the additional time. teddy roosevelt, a republican president, a great outdoorsman and a lover of nature, said this about the importance of protecting our natural treasures. he said, it's not what we have that will make us a great nation. it's the way in which we use it. let's continue our nation's tradition of protecting our public lands in a way that reflects the greatness of this nation. i ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from delaware yields back his time. the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, may i inquire how much time is left on both sides? the chair: the gentleman from washington has 16 minutes. and the gentleman from arizona 9 3/4 minutes.

mr. hastings: mr. chairman, at this time i'll reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. scott: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i rise today in opposition to h.r. 1459, the no more national monuments act. i have experienced the antiquities act firsthand in my community's efforts in establishing fort monroe as a national monument in 2011. the history of fort monroe is older than the history of the united states and the story of fort monroe is really a story of our nation. it's also known as freedom's fortress, witnessing both the beginning and the end of slavery in our nation. it played a crucial role in nearly every military engagement right up to its closure in 2005. after its closure, the city of

hampton and the entire hampton roads region united in support of the inclusion of fort monroe in the national park system. the creation of fort monroe national monument was the culmination of years of hard work led by then hampton mayor molly ward, the city of hampton, preservation groups, hampton security council, virginia's governor and virginia's congressional delegation. these parties worked together at the local, state and federal level to urge the president to use his powers under the antiquities act to take immediate action to establish fort monroe as a national monument. while i supported legislation introduced by my neighboring colleague, congressman scott rigell, to enshrine fort monroe as part of the national park system, this bill stalled in committee and was really never given a proper hearing. without the president's statutory authority to protect this land, it is doubtful that fort monroe and the history of the site would be protected as it is today. mr. speaker, the underlying --

had the underlying bill been law in 2011 when president obama designated fort monroe as a national monument, we would be nearing the three-year approval deadline, including -- included in this bill and the powerful role -- that fort monroe played in our nation's history wooble in danger of being lost to future -- would be in danger of being lost to future generation to authorize the president's designation lingered in committee. while this legislation has been introduced to have public participation in the designation process, in my experience, the administration, including the president and the secretary of interior, both went to great lengths to make sure that public input was a top priority in the decision to make fort monroe as a national monument. this legislation would jeopardize other communities to protect sensitive federal lands in their areas the same way that my community was able to do. mr. speaker, for these reasons, i oppose the passage of h.r. 1459 and hope that members --

that other members will oppose the legislation as well. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yields back his time. the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i'll reserve my time. the chair: continues to reserve. the gentleman from arizona. grijalva -- mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new mexico, mr. lujan. the chair: the gentleman from new mexico is recognized for two minutes. mr. lujan: it's with great disappointment that i come to ack oor to undermine the particular wits act, a protection of the grand canyon, zion national park, the cesar chavez national monument and others that have been protected of the antiquities act. this hits close to home for me and for my constituents. last march, president obama designated as the rio grande del norte as a national

monument under the antiquities act. the result was years of work and the community coming together to find consensus on a path forward that respects our traditions and respects are our culture. protecting the rio grandedel norte, a strong coalition showed that protecting this land needed to be a top priority. whether it's for recreation, farming or sustaining a way of fe, the rio grandedel norte helps those live off the sussnens it provides. if it not for the antiquities act, this majestic land that drives the local economy would not have received the protections that will ensure its vitality for future generations. this attack on the antiquities attack is an attack on the preservation of lands that are part of who we are, our rich history and our diverse nation and our ability to enjoy these lands in the future. i urge my colleagues to vote no

on this bill. . mr. hastings: mr. chair, i ask my friend from arizona how many more speakers he has. mr. grijalva: i have one more speaker. mr. hastings: then you'll close? mr. grijalva: then i'll close. mr. hastings: i will reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. payne. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. payne: thank you. i'd like to thank my colleague for allowing me the opportunity . mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to h.r. 1459, because it would have severe unintended consequences for the 10th congressional district of new jersey which i represent. this is yet once again an attack on the president's authority. but in this case, h.r. 1459 would create unnecessary obstacles regarding the

president's ability to conserve lands, protect our country's most notable destinations. the antiquities act has been used to protect the site in my district that commemorates the outstanding achievements of a great american inventor, thomas edison. this great innovator produced many of the inventions loved across the world, from solid and sound motion pictures, the motion picture camera, and the electric storage battery. for more than 40 years, thomas edison's laboratory complex, located in new jersey, was cranking out innovation after innovation. the laboratory employed at one time over 100 people, working on various projects from chemistry to physics to metals. in 1956, president dwight d. eisenhower used his authority

under the antiquities act to establish the edison laboratory as a national monument. one year prior, in 1955, congress had established thomas edison's home as a national historic site. six years later edison's national historic site legislation combined two into a unit of the national park system. recently the laboratory complex underwent an extensive renovation and had a grand opening in 2009 to welcome america to explore two new floors of the laboratory that were previously closed to the public. the museum's collections at edison's national historic park are by far the largest single body of edison-related material in existence and it is the third largest museum collection in the national park service. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. grijalva: do you need additional time? mr. payne: just to close. mr. grijalva: i yield an

additional 30 seconds, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. payne: thomas edison would appreciate this bipartisan bill which could turn out the lights , this partisan bill, excuse me, that will turn out the lights on our future national monuments that honor innovators such as him. i ask my colleagues to vote no on h.r. 1459 and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields back. the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i'm very pleased to yield five minutes to the sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized for five minutes. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. chairman. and as i said on the rule, sometimes i am mazed -- amazed at the kind of misinformation and inaccuracy that's taken place about this bill. this bill does not stop parks, it does not stop monuments. we have heard about grand canyon being made a monument under this act, under this

power. but it was a national forest before that and it was made a park by congress because only congress can make parks. the gentleman from delaware, i appreciate him being here, he still has the park because only congress can go through that particular process. i also get confused when people talk about how this is a way of rolling back any kind of protection. like, mr. chairman, federal government owns over 635 million acres. we already have 336 million acres that are presently in a protected status. there's no way they can be touched by anyone at any time for anything. and those that are for development are only 38 million acres. it's almost a 10-1 ratio between the two of them. i want you to think back on when the antiquities act was originally passed. this is 1906. states of hawaii, alaska, new mexico, arizona and oklahoma did not exist. they were all territories. my home state had only been in the union for a decade.

there were very few environmental laws. today if you were to list all the environmental protections that we have on the statutes, both by the federal government and by the states, it would take four, five pages, small type, just to list them all. there could have been a reason for doing this. this was back in the era when there was no bureau of land management. there wasn't even a park service when this was being done. the majority of the designations teddy roosevelt made were in territories that were not states. things have changed since that time, unfortunately this law hasn't. and if you don't allow the nepa process to allow public input, you make mistakes. you made mistakes in utah and, yes, we have had bills that have been filibustered by the senate to make those changes, but 20 years later we're still trying to work through what ought to have been there. the gentlelady from maryland was here. and i appreciate her concept. ut her national monument, it's

a good idea. the unfortunate thing is it was poorly done because you didn't take the time to go through the nepa process and get some public input. it is still in draft status. this is the boundary within the green. the stuff that has the stripes on it are private property they just kind of found within the boundary that now they have to get approval to try and acquire that property. the white is also other private property that right now they don't think they need to acquire. now, how come we missed all that stuff? it's simply because the president decided to use the antiquities power without taking the time to get public input, to go through those situations. yeah, a lot of presidents have used this stuff, i mean, one other thing, too. the proclamation that there would be 11,750 acres set aside. the park service says it's 25,000 acres and no one knows the difference.

25,000 acres of federal, state and private land. see, that's the problem. if you rush this stuff through without taking the time to get the input from people, you make mistakes. takes.make mis the national -- mistakes. the national resource defense council said that nepa, the national environmental policy act, which regulates -- requires to have public input before you go forward with that, called it the magna carta that protects people from the dangers of monarchy. nepa protects people by providing transparency in federal probablies. both the magna carta and nepa espoused the ideals of public participation and democracy by giving citizens a voice in government decisions. giving people the chance to have a voice in government decisions is the purpose of nepa. every federal agency has to use nepa. congress has to use something very similar because everything requires some kind of hearing. the only person that doesn't have to do that is the

president when he uses this act, over 100 years old in situations that have changed. instead, what was said about this in some of the misinformation going out, they said, if this bill is passed, it eviscerates one of america's bedrock conservation laws. look, you can't say it is good to have public involvement except here in which it is bad to have public involvement. unfortunately that is exactly what the administration said. the administration said the president should not have to go through nepa, should not have to get public input, because he's only a head of the executive branch, he's not an agency of the executive branch. that is intellectual gymnastics and one of the reasons why we simply have problems. this bill doesn't stop anything. any monument that was made could easily be made. this bill recognizes there may be an emergency situation and anything less than 5,000 acres

can be done -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman an additional two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized for two minutes. mr. bishop: you need to have a clock up there so i can time myself. i apologize, mr. chair. i even forgot where i was, for which you were happy, i know. yeah, thanks. mr. chairman, i was trying to say this is a damn good bill. and there is a reason why it's a good bill, because it simply requires the president to have public information and get the input of people. oh, and if there is an emergency situation that allows for them to create something under 5,000 acres as an emergency basis, without doing nepa, it's just the congress has to respond within three years to validate it. otherwise it reverts back. anything he wants to do with nepa he can do regardless of the size. it's the appropriate thing to do. this bill moves us forward and takes a bill that may have been

appropriate in 1906, but certainly is living in a different time and in a different era and we need to sure that a president, before he puts his pen to a paper, has actually talked to local people and it has not always happened. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. in closing, let me just say that at the direction of the republican leadership, this house has approved a remarkable series of extreme antienvironmental bills in this congress. while conservation language is stilled in congress, we've seen time and time again house republicans have voted to deregulate mining, make drilling on public lands less safe, prevent federal regulation of fracking, open virtually the entire coast of the united states to unsafe drilling offshore, give away precious public lands, override state and local water laws and just yesterday weaken existing limits on dumping coal mining waste in streams and rivers.

in the last six years, 7.4 million acres of public lands have been leased for oil and gas drilling. only 2.9 million protected for the future legacy and conservation -- for the future use of the public and this nation. and that imbalance, that imbalance is directly the responsibility of the lack of action by this congress. each of these measures were not only poor public policy, but also poor use of our time. as they were thankfully dead on arrival in the senate, as this bill h.r. 1459 is simply another bill in this series of deeply flawed proposals and it will rightly suffer on identical fate. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona yeeveb yields back his time -- yields back his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to make a couple of

points. it's pretty hard to follow up on what the author of the legislation did, talking about the history of this legislation and why there needs to be some changes and i thought did he that in a very, very, very good way. my friends on the other side of the aisle, at least the previous speaker, but others had mentioned the same thing, about different pieces of legislation that we have passed out. i understand they're probably in opposition to having more exploration, making us less energy independence with offshore legislation, with onshore legislation and so forth. but, mr. chairman, what wasn't said in that argument was that in every case, in every case the legislation that the gentleman lamented that we pass, we had a hearing in the committee. we had a hearing, it went through the normal legislative process. and when you look at what the intent of this legislation is all about, it's simply to have a hearing with consultation and transparency with those that are affected. nothing more. you may not like it, but at least you have that

transparency. let me make a couple other points. several members said that we haven't passed a national park legislation in several years. and that's true. there are some pending and obviously we'll hope to have that done at the end. but this point needs to be made too. the national park service by eir own admission has over $10 billion, with a b, backlog in maintenance. shouldn't us, as the keeper of the taxpayers' purse, look at that and say, before we rush on some of that, let's make sure that we can afford to maintain whatever is going to be ensuing next? and finally, let me make an observation about my colleague from california, mr. huffman. he was saying that his community was very in favor of that monument designation that is going to happen i guess later on this year. i don't think the gentleman, however, mentioned that that precise piece of legislation, which was h.r. 1411, passed

this house on a voice vote. in other words, there was no need to make a monument designation for that because this house had determined that it was the right thing to do. the problem is, the senate hasn't moved on that piece of legislation. so on the one hand they say, we haven't passed legislation. and when we do, the president steps in and i think overstates his authority on the antiquities act. this piece of legislation, again, what mr. bishop said i think is -- oh, sorry, before i close, i did have another speaker and so at that time, i apologize to my friend, if the gentleman wants to take more time, i will give him more time if the gentleman wants it. i want to yield one minute to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. scalise: i want to thank my friend from washington for yielding and for the author of bringing this bill forward.

we are seeing an abuse of the antiquities act where you got a president using this law to shut off more areas of federal lands to things like energy exploration. that's not what this law was intended to do. in fact, i think if you look at the reforms that are included in this law, there are very good and responsible in ensuring that the president still has the ability to esignate monuments where appropriate, one in each term. and the opportunity is still there. they have to come and talk to congress. i know the president has a hard time working with congress, but we're right here. he talks about he's got a pen and a phone. pick up the phone, mr. president. you can call us, and if it makes sense we'll work with you to get it done, but don't abuse go and quities act to carve off federal land that we can't explore for energy and for other great resource needs. so i think it's important that we finally put the brakes on this presidential land grab that we're seeing, and i

encourage all my colleagues to support this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: ok. if my friend -- i'll yield if the gentleman -- i'll just close, then, by taking the balance of my time. i just want to, again, make the point there of my colleague from california, mr. huffman. he had a bill that passed the house, is pending in the senate. i just -- there's no need for the president to go through this. all you have to do is pass the legislation which, by the way, had a hearing and was marked up properly in our committee. so this piece of legislation i think is a good piece of legislation. i think it corrects abuses that happened by the way of presidents in both parties over the years. i ask my colleagues to support the legislation and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as

read. no amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in house report 113- 385. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to the amendment and shall not be subject for demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider printed in mber 1 house report 113-385. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 113-385 offered by mr. bishop of utah. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 524, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment tries to clarify the process for monument designations of 5,000 acres or less, providing they could become permanent if the president follows the regular nepa public involvement process. there was a question on the clarity of the language in the underlying bill. it also requires that -- ensures that new taxpayer dollars will use existing funds to conduct any study or analysis that's in the bill or may be added by an amendment. with that i reserve. with that i'd like to yield to the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i think his amendment adds to this legislation. i support his amendment and i yield back to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i still reserve now. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. grijalva: to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. grijalva: we're not really sure what this amendment is trying to achieve. if the underlying goal of the

bill is to make sure that every national monument designation goes through a nepa process or is approved by congress, this amendment makes things more confusing. the amendment states that all monuments established through the use of the antiquities act shall expire after three years. it goes on to say that they may become permanent if the president follows the review process under nepa. does this mean that the president could declare the designation a categorical exclusion? if so, what's the point of the amendment? does that mean that the administration has to file an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement? can they just issue a finding of no significant impact? again, the amendment does nothing to fix or clarify the underlying bill. i oppose the legislation and the adoption of the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. chairman. just to respond one more time.

the purpose of this is to make sure it was very clear on those emergency situations that were 5,000 or less, if indeed the president uses the nepa process, that three-year clock does not tick on those parcels of property. anything he does through the nepa process, that is ok. it was not clear in the underlying bill. this attempts to make it clear. with that i encourage adoption of the manager's amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from utah. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 113-385. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. barber: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 113-385

offered by mr. barber of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 524, the gentleman from arizona, mr. barber, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. barber: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to offer an amendment to h.r. 1459, the ensuring public involvement in the creation of national monuments act. under this bill, national monument declarations must include a feasibility study that assesses the costs to the federal government to manage the monument in perpetuity. however, costs of managing the monument are only one side of the equation. as all arizonans know well, also bring uments significant benefits which -- such as tourism dollars that create jobs and stimulate local

economies. these benefits are real. travel and tourism is a major economic driver in arizona, bringing in millions of dollars to the -- part of the district -- the state i represent, southern arizona, and billions of dollars in direct savings of spending, i should say, statewide. the same is true for national monuments all across the country. communities near national monuments would testify to the economic benefits of their national monuments. my amendment is simple and straightforward. this amendment says that in addition to assessing the costs associated with managing a monument, we should also look at the many benefits that result from the establishment of a national monument. doing so will ensure that congress and the american people have a thorough and complete picture of how a monument will impact local communities. this is a commonsense amendment that will not add additional costs to the bill, and i urge my colleagues on both sides of

the aisle to support it. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: wish to claim time in opposition even though i am not opposed to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. bishop: i think what the barber amendment does is re-emphasize the fundamental purpose of this bill which is to ensure there's transparent public participation and input in making these types of designations. so i appreciate the addition he's made as to what should be studied and what should be encompassed. i think it's an addition to the bill and it's a good amendment and i urge its adoption and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 113-385. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from massachusetts seek recognition? ms. tsongas: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 113-385 offered by ms. tsongas of massachusetts. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 524, the gentlewoman from massachusetts, ms. tsongas, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from massachusetts. ms. tsongas: thank you, mr. chairman. the underlying bill presented before us today is problematic for many reasons, as my democratic colleagues on the national resources -- natural resources committee have clearly outlined on the floor this afternoon. the antiquities act has served our country for well over 100 years and has been used by 16 presidents to designate over 140 national monuments. many of them protecting american military heritage. to date, presidents and congress have designated 22

military sites as national monuments. one of the many unintended consequences of this legislation is that it would prevent the president from protecting important military, cultural and historical sites under the antiquities sites. as someone who grew up in military bases across the country and overseas, i know firsthand the tremendous sacrifices that our service members and their families make on behalf of our nation. my father was a survivor of the attack on pearl harbor, and the world war ii valor in the pacific national monument is just one example of a monument that was directed by presidential authority under the antiquities act. my amendment would preserve the president to declare as national monuments those that provide for the, quote, protection or conservation of historic or cultural resources related to american military history, unquote, regardless of their size. i urge adoption of this amendment to maintain the president's ability to honor

our military and military families and fix one small piece of this misguided legislation. thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. bishop: i claim opposition to the misguided amendment to the well-proportioned bill that's under there. look, i do appreciate what the gentlelady from massachusetts is trying to do. i'm an old history teacher, so these sites are important to me. but as well-intended as this amendment may be, it still undermines the intent of the legislation which is to make sure that any designation that's at large has public transparency and you allow the local people to do it. whether it's a military site or not. this would create a very large loophole that is unnecessary because the provisions of the bill provide for that. if something is smaller than 5,000 and in immediate

jeopardy, it can be handled. if it is larger than that and goes through the nepa process, it is handled. there is no problem that could develop from this particular piece of legislation. i'd also add that in the present staff use as well, any harm to an element -- in the antiquities act, any harm to anything that is antiquity of element on the property already is subject to fine and imprisonment. this amendment was attempted in committee. i appreciate the sentiment, but it was also defeated in committee by a vote of 24-13. it is the same amendment here, and i would urge my colleagues to also defeat it simply because it undermines the very purpose of this bill. it does not lead to the public process. with that, mr. chair, i will yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from massachusetts. ms. tsongas: well, i thank my colleague for his remarks, but i respectfully disagree. as we know yet again to reiterate, the antiquities act

has served our country well for over 100 years, has been used by presidents, both democratic and republican, to designate over 150 national monuments. it was created to allow swift action to conserve high-priority public lands when congress is unable to act. it was not the intention of the antiquities act to let congress dictate which national monuments the president can and cannot create. we've heard from our colleagues from delaware and new mexico the robust public input around designating antiquities act, presidential action taken under the antiquities act are, like ll others, exempt from the nepa process. this should not be considered on the fly in a manager's amendment without prior debate in the house. and again, the underlying intent of this -- of this amendment was to protect

military monuments. i respectfully disagree with my colleague across the aisle. thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. and i yield back. the chair: does the gentlelady yield back? ms. tsongas: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from massachusetts. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentlelady from massachusetts. ms. tsongas: i request the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentlelady ask for a recorded vote? ms. tsongas: i ask for a recorded vote, yes, please. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from massachusetts will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on the amendments -- the amendment printed in house report 113-385 on which further proceedings were postponed. amendment number 3 by ms. songas of massachusetts.

the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on business unfinished is the request for a vorded vote on amendment number 3. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 113-385 offered by ms. tsongas of massachusetts. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a vorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. -- a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 197, the nays are 223, he amendment is not adopted. there being no further amendments under the rule, the committee rises.

the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 1459 and pursuant to house resolution 524 i report the bill back to the house with sundry amendments adopted in he committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill, h.r. 1459, and pursuant to house resolution 524 reports the bail tack -- the bill back to the house with sundry amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendmt