Tom McClintock

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 289, the Guides and Outfitters--or GO--Act, offered by my Natural Resources Committee colleague and my California neighbor, Congressman Doug LaMalfa. For many years, we have seen increasingly severe restrictions on the public's use of the public's land. One of the most galling aspects of this exclusionary policy is the use of exorbitant fees to prevent many group events and small business services that have often been the economic mainstay of small mountain communities like those in my district in the Sierra Nevada. This abusive practice was made possible by the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement--or FLREA--Act in 2004. It unleashed a flood of complex rules, regulations, and court decisions that have gradually increased the cost of permit administration for the Forest Service and for the Bureau of Land Management, which these agencies, in turn, have used as an excuse to raise fees on the public to cost-prohibitive levels. For example, the California Endurance Riders Association have been using the El Dorado National Forest for many years. In 2009, when they sought a simple 5-year, 10-event permit to continue doing exactly what they had been doing without incident for decades, the Forest Service demanded $11,000 in fees. Well, they paid those fees. But the El Dorado National Forest management, nonetheless, pulled the approved permit and halted the process on utterly specious grounds. It then demanded an additional $17,000 fee, causing the Endurance Riders Association to cancel what had been a long-term civic tradition that had been a boon to the local economy. In 2010, this outrage was repeated after the group spent $5,800 for the Fool's Gold endurance run that had been an ongoing event for more than 40 years. Hardest hit are guides and outfitters, the folks who make it possible for visitors to fully enjoy our national lands. They are the small businesses that provide specialized knowledge, skills, and equipment that new visitors just don't possess. Both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management have used FLREA to require these small businesses to pay for permit processing and environmental analyses that require more than 50 hours. These fees, along with complex planning requirements, have virtually shut down so many legitimate and traditional public events and uses. Efforts to encourage the agencies to modify and streamline the process have failed, even when those efforts were supported by agency policy. The GO Act is a long-overdue relief of these practices. It amends FLREA to streamline the recreation permitting process and allow for increased public access to recreational opportunities on the Federal lands. The GO Act was crafted in consultation with a wide variety of recreation groups throughout the country, and it aims to reduce the cost and complexity of these permits. Mr. Speaker, I commend and personally thank Congressman LaMalfa for listening to his constituents, the people of the Sierra Nevada, and to the thousands of recreation service providers across the country who have been begging Congress to make these changes. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the measure.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of American Legion Warren McKeon Post 587 as its members celebrate the 75th Anniversary of their charter in Foresthill, California. The American Legion was first incorporated by Congress in 1919 as a patriotic veterans organization dedicated to continued devotion of America's service members and veterans. Hundreds of local American Legion posts around the country strengthen our nation one community at a time, and the Warren McKeon Post is no exception to that standard. The American Legion Warren McKeon Post 587 was founded on September 11, 1942--just nine months after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The Post is named in honor of Warren Alexander McKeon, who was raised at Yankee Jim's, located three miles from Foresthill, CA, and served in the 26th Infantry Regiment, 1st Division in World War I. Private McKeon was killed in action on July 18, 1918 and buried at Oise-Aisne American Cemetery in France. The Post's 160 members serve a number of different charities including the Veterans Home of California, Travis Air Force Base Fisher House, American Legion Boys State, and Boy Scouts of America, in addition to sending care packages for troops deployed overseas. To honor the sacrifices made by the men and women who have put themselves in harm's way to defend our nation, American Legion Warren McKeon Post 587 has built a veterans monument in front of the Foresthill Veterans Memorial Hall. The monument, to be dedicated on September 11, 2017, will serve as a permanent reminder of our nation's sacrifice in the pursuit of a free and prosperous democracy. Mr. Speaker, the significance of this day is lost on no one. Not only is September 11th the 75th anniversary of the chartering of American Legion Warren McKeon Post 587, it also marks 16 years since the deadliest terror attack on American soil. The monument will commemorate the heroism, selflessness, devotion and patriotism of the men and women of our nation who answered the call when our nation needed their service. Mr. Speaker, our veterans deserve to know their contributions will never be forgotten, and it is my privilege to rise in recognition of the efforts of American Legion Warren McKeon Post 587 to honor those who stepped forth from the safety of hearth and home and into mortal peril to protect their fellow citizens.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks after the 2016 election, I spoke on the House floor and warned that the greatest single obstacle to meeting the expectations of the American people was the cloture rule in the Senate. I said: ``Voters elected Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress and they expect action. They'll get it from the President and from the House. But in order for the Senate to rise to this occasion, it must reform its cloture rule.'' Well, it didn't. Now, cloture is the Senate motion to conclude debate, and it is based on a sound parliamentary principle that as long as a significant minority--currently, 40 Members of the Senate--want to continue to debate, that debate should continue. This principle assumes it is an actual debate between real people regarding the merits of the subject directly at hand, but that is not what cloture has become. Today, any Senator can block virtually any bill simply by filing a protest, and until 60 of the 100 Senators agree to take up the bill, it cannot be heard. Thus, a motion designed to protect debate has now degenerated into a motion that very effectively prevents debate. It also hands practical control of the Senate to the Democratic minority, which can effectively veto any proposal by the majority, essentially reversing the result of the last election. This is not some act of God or constitutional constraint that has been forced upon the Senate. No, this is a deliberate choice by Senate Republicans not to reform their cloture rule. It has rendered the Senate dysfunctional and, with it, the Congress. Earlier this year, the Senate briefly recognized this and chose to reform cloture for Supreme Court nominations, but not for the legislation absolutely vital to the interests of our country. The news yesterday that the President has now had to capitulate to Democratic demands on the debt limit should come as no surprise. By failing to reform cloture, Senate Republicans have effectively given Chuck Schumer operational control of the Senate. That is how we got wrapped around the axle on repealing and replacing ObamaCare. The House could have passed a comprehensive bill that completely and cleanly abolished ObamaCare and fully replaced it with all of the market and tax reforms that Republicans agreed with and campaigned on, popular reforms that put consumers back in charge of their healthcare decisions and placed those decisions within their financial reach. Instead, the House leadership chose to attempt this through a budget process called reconciliation, a process completely unsuited for complex policy reform. They did so for one reason: to bypass the Senate cloture rule. By adhering to the very limited and restricted requirements of budget reconciliation, the House produced a mangled, tangled mess that fell well short of the reforms we had promised and, ultimately, failed to receive even a simple majority of the Senate. Those who supported this process argued that a clean, complete, comprehensive bill would have been dead on arrival in the Senate for lack of Democratic votes for cloture. Well, I doubt that. Quite the contrary. Had the House done its job through regular order rather than trying to cover for the Senate Republicans' bad choice, one of two things would have happened: Senate Democrats would have been seen as the single obstacle to a popular, comprehensive reform while ObamaCare continued to implode and, quite possibly, eight of the most vulnerable Democrats would ultimately have crossed party lines and supported this rescue of our healthcare system; or, far more likely, Senate Republicans would have been forced to come to the same conclusion that they came to with respect to the Supreme Court nomination of Neil Gorsuch and reform this rule. Certainly, we couldn't have been any worse off than we are today. I would ask that, henceforth, the House leadership stop covering for the Senate Republicans and move all of the legislation that we promised the American people to the Senate through regular order. It is time we left the management of the Senate to the Senate, stopped enabling their atrocious judgment on not reforming cloture, and made it very clear to the American public why the reforms they entrusted us to enact aren't being sent to the President. Senator Dirksen once noted, when they feel the heat, they see the light. It is time the House and the American people adopted this maxim.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. It would cut off air service to communities that are usually just an hour or so drive from a major regional airport where they can obtain air service. This is the kindest cut of all. Eliminating a temporary program established 39 years ago has become a poster child for wasteful Federal spending. Now, our national debt has nearly doubled in 8 years. American taxpayers will pay $269 billion this year just in interest costs on that debt. If you are an average family paying average taxes, it means that $2,200 of your taxes this year will accomplish nothing more than renting the money we have already spent. Continuing to pay for this obsolete and wasteful program with money we don't have is simply obscene. It makes a mockery of any claim that we cut spending to the bone, and I would ask for adoption of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment eliminates the $150 million of discretionary spending wasted on one of the least essential programs in the entire United States Government, the so-called Essential Air Service. That is the program that subsidizes empty and near-empty planes to fly from small airports to regional hubs that are usually just a few hours away or less by car. This was supposed to be a temporary program to allow local communities and airports to readjust to airline deregulation back in 1978. Last year, the Essential Air Service cost a total of nearly $300 million between direct taxpayer subsidies and fees to fly near-empty planes to underused airports. $150 million of that is in our control, and this amendment zeros it out and puts it toward deficit reduction. We are often told that we now have a $200 per person cap on the subsidies, as if that wasn't bad enough, but that is only for flights under 210 miles. It continues unlimited subsidies over that distance, and actual subsidies per passenger can be over $1,000 per seat. Year after year we are promised reform, and year after year the cost goes up. By the way, Essential Air Service flights are flown out of Merced and Visalia airports that serve my district in the Sierra Nevada. A tiny number of people actually use them, and the alternative is hardly catastrophic. Visalia and Merced are less than an hour's drive from Fresno air terminal. But I can assure you that every person in my district who hears about this waste of their money is outraged by it. Rural life has great advantages and great disadvantages, and it is not the job of taxpayers who choose to live elsewhere to level out the differences. Apologists for this wasteful spending tell us it is an important economic driver for these small airports, and I am sure that is so. Whenever you give away money, the folks you are giving it to are always better off, but the folks you are taking it from are always worse off to exactly the same extent. Indeed, it is economic drivers like this that have Europe's economy right off a cliff. Four years ago, one Member rushed to the microphone to suggest this was essential for emergency medical evacuations. Well, it has nothing to do with that. This program subsidizes regular scheduled commercial service that practically nobody uses. If it actually had a passenger base, we wouldn't need, in effect, to hand out wads of $100 bills to the few passengers who use it, would we? An airline that so recklessly used its funds would quickly bankrupt itself. The same principle holds true for governments. The Washington Post is not known as a bastion of fiscal conservatism, but I cannot improve upon an editorial a few years ago when it said: ``Ideally, EAS would be zeroed out, and the $200 million we waste on it devoted to a truly national purpose: perhaps deficit reduction, military readiness, or the social safety net. Alas, if Congress and the White House were capable of making such choices, we probably never would have had sequestration in the first place.'' There are many tough calls in setting fiscal priorities, but this isn't one of them. If the House of Representatives--where all appropriations begin, with a Republican majority pledged to stop wasting money--can't even agree to cut this useless program off from the trough, how does it expect to be taken seriously on the much tougher choices that lie ahead? Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Gallagher), who has brought this legislation before us today.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. With this vote, we will begin proceeding on this memorial and begin a process of planning a great work to honor the bravery, sacrifice, and patriotism to those who have defended Western civilization from the medieval barbarism that has reappeared in our time. But even more importantly, we begin work on a tangible promise for future generations, a promise animated by the heroic deeds of these veterans, the promise of a coming age of liberty and justice, of peace and tolerance that will surely come. I ask for adoption of this measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. 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 bill under consideration.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 873, the Global War on Terrorism War Memorial Act, authored by Congressman Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin, would authorize the Global War on Terror Memorial Foundation to begin the lengthy Commemorative Works Act process to establish a Global War on Terrorism Memorial on Federal land in the District of Columbia. The memorial will recognize and honor the men and women who have served on Active Duty in the United States Armed Forces since the attack on our country on September 11, 2001. The global war on terrorism is the longest conflict ever fought by the United States, and there is still no end in sight. We can and should debate the policies that have prolonged this war and denied our troops the full might and resources of our Nation. But one thing is far above and beyond any debate, and that is the heroism, selflessness, devotion, and patriotism of the men and women of our Nation who stepped forward from the safety, security, and comfort of hearth and home and into harm's way when our Nation called. The Commemorative Works Act requires that a war be ended for at least 10 years before planning can commence on a national memorial. There is good reason for this requirement: it gives history the insight to place the war in an historic context and to begin to fully appreciate its full significance to our country and future generations. But the war on terrorism has been fought in a decidedly different way than our past wars. We are now approaching the 16th anniversary of the attack on New York and Washington. The veterans who sacrificed so much to keep that war away from our shores deserve some tangible and lasting tribute to their patriotism and altruism while they, their families, and their fellow countrymen can know it. The Gold Star families of our fallen heroes for whom the war will never end deserve some assurance that their sons and daughters will never be forgotten by a grateful Nation. We should remember that many of our Nation's heroes from World War II never lived to see the completion of the World War II Memorial, which was completed 59 years after the end of that conflict. For these reasons, this measure suspends the 10-year period in current law. It doesn't repeal it. It merely sets it aside for the unique circumstances of the current war on terrorism. I am confident that the Memorial Commission will respect and appreciate the fact that many may have yet to serve in this war, and history has not yet had time to reflect on its significance to our Nation and, indeed, to the future of Western civilization. I am sure the design they recommend will respect these facts and provide significant latitude for the completion of the memorial after this bane of Islamic terrorism has been extirpated from our planet and the long- suffering people of the Middle East have been liberated from it by the brave fighting men and women of the United States Armed Forces that this memorial will honor and thank. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a July 28, 2017, letter from the Congressional Budget Office providing a cost estimate for this bill. Congressional Budget Office, U.S. Congress, Washington, DC, July 28, 2017. Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 873, the Global War on Terrorism War Memorial Act. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Janani Shankaran. Sincerely, Mark P. Hadley, (For Keith Hall, Director). Enclosure. H.R. 873--Global War on Terrorism War Memorial Act As ordered reported by the House Committee on Natural Resources on July 26, 2017 H.R. 873 would authorize the Global War on Terror Memorial Foundation, a non-profit organization, to establish a memorial in the District of Columbia and its environs to commemorate members of the armed forces who served on active duty in support of the Global War on Terrorism. Because H.R. 873 would prohibit the use of federal funds to establish the memorial, CBO estimates that implementing the legislation would result in no significant costs to the federal government. Enacting H.R. 873 would affect direct spending; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. The memorial project would be subject to the requirements of the Commemorative Works Act. Under that act, any entity that receives a permit to construct a memorial must donate to the National Park Foundation (a nonprofit organization) an amount equal to 10 percent of the memorial's estimated construction cost. That amount, as well as any project funds remaining after construction of the memorial, would be available in future years for maintenance of the memorial. Based on the experience of similar commemorative projects, CBO expects that any amounts collected by the federal government for maintenance would not be received for several years and would be offset by an expenditure soon thereafter. On net, CBO estimates that such effects would be insignificant. Enacting the bill would not affect revenues. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 873 would not increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028. H.R. 873 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Janani Shankaran. The estimate was approved by Theresa A. Gullo, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 873) to authorize the Global War on Terror Memorial Foundation to establish the National Global War on Terrorism Memorial as a commemorative work in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Gallagher), the author of this measure, one of the many thousands of Americans who stepped forward to answer their country's call. Mr. Gallagher. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership on this issue, for working with us, and I ask that he please extend our thanks to every member of the Natural Resources Committee for its effort in getting this bill to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I also thank the gentleman from Arizona for his words and for his service. It is my honor to call him my fellow marine. As an officer, I did my best just not to get in the way of my enlisted marines, who were doing the real work. Maybe we can bring some of that same ethos here to Congress. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this bill that honors our post-9/11 veterans and secures their rightful place in our Nation's Capital. Earlier this summer, I had the honor of welcoming a group of American heroes who journeyed from northeast Wisconsin to Washington, D.C., aboard the Old Glory Honor Flight. That is one of the truly incredible things we get to do as Members of Congress. Just to watch generation after generation of veterans representing every major conflict since World War II visiting the very memorials that honor their sacrifice, their service, their commitment, their courage in those conflicts was one of the most remarkable experiences of my life. Just as these veterans visited their respective memorials, so, too, should the brave men and women who have served and continue to serve in the ongoing war on terrorism have a memorial one day to honor their courage, their sacrifice, their commitment. But as the chairman laid out, current law does not allow for the creation for a memorial for the war on terror. The 1986 Commemorative Works Act requires that monuments in honor of a ``. . . limited military engagement or a unit of an armed force may not be authorized . . . until at least 10 years after the officially designated end of such war or conflict.'' But as we know, this is a conflict unlike many others that have preceded it. This war will have no clear end date, no V Day or V-J Day. Threats continue to rise, so the longest ongoing conflict in our Nation's history continues. After 15 years, after over 6,800 American lives lost, there is still no end in sight. So this memorial is for the men and women who have died fighting, those who continue to fight, those who are still joining the fight against terrorism. Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a second to recognize the dedicated members of the Global War on Terrorism Memorial Foundation, many of whom are with us here today, especially Andrew Brennan, George Chewning, Chad Longell, and Matt Gannon. They have been tireless in their commitment to getting this done. Today we are taking an important step forward, but we still need to get it across the finish line, so I want to recognize their efforts. I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, like most, I struggle with how to truly honor the men and women whose sacrifices far exceed my own. I was lucky. I had great marines that kept me safe, and we all came home safe. But my hope is that this memorial will serve as not only a way to honor those who paid the ultimate sacrifices, but also as a call to action for us, the living. I believe that those we will pay tribute to through this memorial didn't risk everything just so we would sit back and praise them for keeping us safe. I would submit to you that the fallen don't want our praise. They want our participation in this incredible experiment in self-government. If we are going to continue passing the torch of democracy from one generation to the next, then we need to build this memorial so that future generations never forget their duty to do the same, so that future generations never forget the cost of liberty. Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues to support this legislation to memorialize the service of the brave men and women who have fought in the global war on terrorism.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, this administration was elected to drain the swamp, and one of the muckiest parts is the Export-Import Bank that makes taxpayer-guarantied loans to foreign companies that buy American products, often to use in competition with American companies that get no such advantage. Now, when politicians are picking winners and losers in the shadows, it shouldn't surprise us that we find a particularly nasty breeding ground for corruption. We can debate the merits of the Ex-Im Bank, but one thing is undeniable: it is an agency that needs a taxpayer watchdog on its board and not just another lapdog for crony capitalists seeking to fleece the taxpayer. Scott Garrett is a watchdog. He has sounded the alarm on the Ex-Im's more questionable loans, and his leadership on its board would restore credibility to its decisions. The bank's supporters should welcome an independent voice that could restore its reputation, and the President should insist on it.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs. Love).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to reciprocate the kind words of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay). It has been a pleasure working with him on this bill. Shakespeare put it best: This story shall a good man teach his son. This bill tells that story of how the full measure of our Nation's founding principles came to fruition. I would ask for Members' support and adoption of this measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1927, the African American Civil Rights Network Act, introduced by our distinguished committee colleague, Congressman Lacy Clay from Missouri, directs the National Park Service to identify and create a national network of historic sites, research facilities, and educational programs connected to the modern African-American civil rights movement. The network will be comprised of existing units and programs of the National Park Service related to the African-American civil rights movement as well as the properties and programs of other Federal, State, local, and private entities that join the network. Establishing this network of historic sites connected to the African- American civil rights movement will help preserve the legacy and the struggle of the many courageous individuals who risked their lives to secure racial equality and to put the full measure of the Declaration of Independence and its sacred principles into action. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1927) to amend title 54, United States Code, to establish within the National Park Service the African American Civil Rights Network, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz), the author of this measure.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. 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 bill under consideration.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by assuaging the concerns raised by my friend from Missouri. A provision in the bill--and I will simply read it--I think, answers his concerns rather clearly. It says: ``. . . the county shall preserve in perpetuity the areas of the non- Federal land that, as of the date of enactment of this act, are dedicated for conservation, preservation, public recreation access, and public parking, in accordance with any resolutions of the Board of Commissioners of the county.'' As my friend has pointed out, Congress established the Santa Rosa National Monument and directed the Secretary of the Interior to convey the Federal land in the monument to Escambia County, Florida, back in 1946. Just 6 months later, the land was deeded to the county. Under the terms of the conveyance, Escambia County was given the authority to lease the property on Santa Rosa Island; however, they were not allowed to issue title on the property or otherwise dispose of it or reconvey it. In the intervening years since then, Santa Rosa Island has experienced tremendous economic growth. This growth prompted county leaders to assess property taxes on the leased lands. The imposition of taxes led to several lawsuits centered on the question of whether island residents and businessowners paying lease fees for their land could be taxed, despite not having outright ownership of the property. Courts have reached different conclusions based on differences in the language of particular leases, which has created fairness issues for the county governments of Escambia and Santa Rosa. One property may be subject to property taxes, while a virtually identical property next door may not. This uneven treatment has prompted interest in removing the deed restriction prohibiting reconveyance, which then allows the county governments to convey ownership and create a uniform tax treatment for all properties on the beach. Recently, both Escambia County and neighboring Santa Rosa County passed resolutions asking for a Federal solution to allow current Santa Rosa Island leaseholders the option of attaining fee simple title while protecting public access to the beaches and conservation areas on the island. I commend my colleague, Congressman Gaetz, for listening to his constituents and working to find a solution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.