The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“NORTH FORK WATERSHED PROTECTION ACT OF 2014” mentioning the Department of Interior was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H2126-H2128 on March 4, 2014.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
NORTH FORK WATERSHED PROTECTION ACT OF 2014
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2259) to withdraw certain Federal land and interests in that land from location, entry, and patent under the mining laws and disposition under the mineral and geothermal leasing laws and to preserve existing uses, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 2259
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2014''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Eligible federal land.--The term ``eligible Federal land'' means--
(A) any federally owned land or interest in land depicted on the Map as within the North Fork Federal Lands Withdrawal Area; or
(B) any land or interest in land located within the North Fork Federal Lands Withdrawal Area that is acquired by the Federal Government after the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Map.--The term ``Map'' means the Bureau of Land Management map entitled ``North Fork Federal Lands Withdrawal Area'' and dated June 9, 2010.
SEC. 3. WITHDRAWAL.
(a) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid existing rights, the eligible Federal land is withdrawn from--
(1) all forms of location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
(2) disposition under all laws relating to mineral leasing and geothermal leasing.
(b) Availability of Map.--Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Map shall be made available to the public at each appropriate office of the Bureau of Land Management.
(c) Effect of Section.--Nothing in this section violates the rights of existing leaseholders or prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from taking any action necessary to complete any requirement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) or the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) required for permitting surface-disturbing activity to occur on any lease issued before the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 4. EXISTING USES NOT AFFECTED.
Except with respect to the withdrawal under section 3, nothing in this Act restricts recreational uses, livestock management activities, or forest management activities allowed on the date of the enactment of this Act on the eligible Federal land in accordance with applicable law.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
General Leave
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the legislation under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The legislation before the House today enjoys bipartisan and bicameral support in Congress and the strong endorsement of the affected local communities.
Our colleague, Mr. Daines of Montana, is the lead sponsor of this bill, and he has championed its action here in the House. I can assure everyone that it is because of his leadership, his commitment and energy that this legislation will pass the House today. Mr. Daines has put the interests of Montana first and has been willing to work in a bipartisan way, with Republicans and Democrats, to get this bill passed.
Mr. Speaker, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act would codify protections of Federal forest lands in the North Fork watershed from development in accordance with the memorandum of understanding signed in 2010 between the Province of British Columbia and the State of Montana. Very significantly, the bill makes certain in law that existing uses, including public recreation, livestock management, and forest management are protected and not restricted. This bill will ensure that this region stays accessible for most of the traditional activities in this beautiful part of Montana.
Mr. Speaker, in 1988, the Ninth Circuit Court enjoined the Department of the Interior from allowing any activity on issued oil and gas leases in this area. Since then, no oil and gas development has taken place in this area, and several leaseholders have voluntarily relinquished their oil and gas leases within this area. The State of Montana has made clear its desire to partner with British Columbia, as I have mentioned, to protect this watershed. H.R. 2259 would similarly protect the Federal land located within this region.
Again, I would like to recognize the author of this legislation, Mr. Daines, for his hard work and leadership, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
H.R. 2259 will protect an important watershed and recreational resource west of Glacier National Park, and we are glad to see it on the suspension calendar. It is a widely supported initiative in Montana that will conserve a treasured landscape that belongs to every American. Some places are just too special to allow short-term commercial considerations to potentially harm their long-term viability.
Stakeholders in Montana identified the importance of the North Fork watershed, an area that supports the recreation-based economy, provides clean drinking water, and allows wildlife to thrive. H.R. 2259 guarantees that this area will not be threatened by unfettered energy development. I support this bill, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1715
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Daines), the author of this legislation.
(Mr. DAINES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAINES. Mr. Speaker, I want to give my thanks to the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee for his support and leadership in moving this bill through the House.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to proudly offer H.R. 2259, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act, for consideration in the full House.
This bill is special to Montana for many reasons.
The Flathead River is one of the most cherished waterways in our great State, and our country, for trout fishing. In fact, it is considered a ``red ribbon'' stream. That is Montana's version of a blue ribbon trout stream.
The Flathead is an area beloved by the local community for recreation and supporting the region's forest-based economy.
Last but not least, this watershed is a gateway to one of the crown jewels of the National Park system, Glacier National Park.
Protecting the watershed and ensuring its value extends for future generations has been a task shared by Governors and legislatures of both parties, our neighboring Canadian Province of British Columbia, as well as our local Chambers of Commerce. It is also supported by Montana Senators Max Baucus and John Tester, and myself. We all support protecting this area for future generations. It makes this bill the first lands legislation supported by the entire Montana delegation in nearly 30 years.
The North Fork Watershed Protection Act protects 430,000 acres along the North and Middle Forks of the Flathead River from mineral development. Eighty percent of leases in this area have already been voluntarily relinquished. The bill explicitly protects the rights of existing leaseholders, and there is no loss in production.
The North Fork Watershed Protection Act represents commonsense resource management. It is the kind of common sense Montanans understand and Washington, D.C., needs more of.
The North Fork Watershed Protection Act ensures the region's current uses--forest management, hunting, fishing, outdoor recreation, quality water supply for local communities, access to gravel for infrastructure maintenance, and livestock grazing--will continue for many generations to come because that is our way of life in Montana.
The North Fork Watershed Protection Act is a key to international agreement between the State of Montana and British Columbia. In fact, in February of 2010, the Province of British Columbia and the State of Montana signed a Memorandum of Understanding to preclude mineral development along the Flathead. British Columbia completed prohibition of mineral development along the Flathead River in 2011.
The North Fork Watershed Protection Act is necessary to hold up the U.S. end of the bargain and to be a good neighbor. The Canadian province has expended significant resources for the sake of upholding this agreement and strongly supports passage of this legislation so their efforts will be solidified.
The bill also has an unprecedented mix of supporters, from ConocoPhillips, Anadarko, and Chevron, to Ducks Unlimited, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and local chambers of commerce. This unity across diverse stakeholders is reflective of the bill's strong support among Montanans. It is time we get this done.
Montanans have been working toward protecting the Flathead for decades. Senator Max Baucus began work to protect this watershed in his very first year in Congress. That was back in 1974, when he was Montana's Congressman in the House. I am proud to be part of the effort to get it done and across the finish line.
Passage of the North Fork Watershed Protection Act is a major stop towards a commonsense goal that Montanans have worked toward together for decades.
Though Senator Bachus has now retired and is serving in China, the passage of the North Fork Watershed Protection Act will send a strong message to the Senate to get it done.
I urge passage of H.R. 2259, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act.
Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise again to reiterate our support for H.R. 2259, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2259, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
