Grace Napolitano

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, on Tuesday, June 24th, 2014, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 351 due to a medical emergency in my family. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Waxman of California Amendment that excludes any project with a pending Presidential permit application from using the new approval requirements in the bill. Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Welch

Ms. NAPOLITANO

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. NAPOLITANO. I rise to address this amendment, Mr. Chairman. I thank my cochairman, Mr. McKinley, on the National Guard ChalleNGe Program. Thank you for your great help in the outreach to all of our Members of Congress. We have been working in a bipartisan manner to help our Nation's throwaway children, those who have fallen through the cracks. For 2015, Defense Appropriations will fund the program at $114 million. The current funding is $135 million, so it would be short. This amendment increases by, as he mentioned, $21 million to have the same funding as 2014, increasing it to the same level of $135 million. It would prevent cuts to critical programs that are helping our youth integrate back into society. It reduces the budget line in operation and maintenance by the same amount. It is critical for hundreds of our young people who drop out yearly to have an opportunity to be accepted into the program. The ChalleNGe Program has already educated 120,000 young people nationally. It also is a volunteer program free for 16- to 18-year-olds at no cost to the child or the family; 22\1/2\-week residential boot camp-like program led by the State's National Guard cadre; prepares them, educates them, instills discipline, builds employment potential, and returns them to school. The 2012 RAND Corporation study finds that for every dollar spent, in return is $2.66, a yield of 166 percent return on investment--the best youth program in the Nation. It effectively addresses part of our Nation's dropout epidemic on a very small level. America needs more of these programs, not less. It is beneficial to our local businesses, to our communities, and to our Nation's ability to compete, to our future economy. According to the 2009 National Labor Market study, California alone has 714,000 dropouts yearly, the sixth-worst State. Our graduates are 800 a year. Basically, we need more funding to expand it to more qualified individuals who are on a waiting list. Our best retention rate is in California. It is educating, training, and retaining more than 90 percent. There is very much a need for these programs. Please support this amendment.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, June 10th, 2014, I mistakenly voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 277. I meant to vote ``aye'' on the Nadler Amendment to H.R. 4745 to increase funding for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS program (HOPWA) by $29.1 million. HOPWA is a program that I have supported throughout my tenure in Congress. HOPWA provides much needed housing assistance to low-income persons with HIV/AIDS in my Congressional District and throughout the Country. I will continue to work with my colleagues as this bill moves through the Senate and onto the Conference process to advocate for increased funding for HOPWA.

Ms. NAPOLITANO

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I too rise in strong support of WRRDA and sincerely thank Chairmen Shuster and Gibbs and Ranking Members Rahall and Bishop and all the staff--let's not forget them--for the great bipartisan work. We thank them for including quality provisions that are important to the Nation, especially to my district, home to Santa Fe Dam and adjacent to Whittier Narrows Dam, the two largest Corps reservoirs in L.A. county. Generally, it also improves water supply and water capture at the dam. It changes levee vegetation policy not previously taken into account, local characteristics, habitats, or safety. It allows local funding of Corps projects to benefit the region. It improves invasive species management. It prioritizes Harbor Maintenance donor regions, allowing expanded use of funding, which is something I had fought for for many years. I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in clarifying that section 3013 of WRRDA will require the corps to perform a new review and revision of levee vegetation policy engineering technical letters. Thanks to Transportation and Infrastructure for their leadership, and please vote ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, I rise to clarify the intent of Section 3013 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Conference Report regarding Vegetation Management policy. In 2009, the Army Corps of Engineers issued new levee vegetation policy through Engineering Technical Letter (ETL) 1110-2-571. Most states and local flood control districts, including the State of California Department of Water Resources and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, strongly disagreed with this policy as not taking into account local characteristics and good science. The 2009 ETL directed states and local agencies to remove all vegetation from their flood control levees. Our local engineers in California and Los Angeles believe this change could be damaging in the following ways: 1. It will lead to weaker levee systems since the roots of vegetation hold the levee material together. 2. It will displace the habitat for endangered and fragile species that use the vegetation. 3. It does not take into account the local geology and characteristics of our levees. 4. It will create massive costs on our flood control agencies that should be using those funds for urgent flood control projects. Section 3013 of WRRDA will solve this problem by requiring the Secretary of the Army to reissue these regulations regarding vegetation on levees and incorporate regional characteristics, habitat for species of concern, and levee performance. A minor issue has come to light in recent days since the Conference Report was filed because Section 3013 requires the Corps to re-issue levee vegetation policy based off of the 2009 ETL 1110-2-571. That 2009 ETL 1110-2-571 was set to expire soon, so the Corps reissued a new Engineering Technical Letter ETL 1110-2-583 that addresses the same levee vegetation policy in the last few weeks. The new ETL is very similar to the 2009 ETL and does not make the changes required by Section 3013 of WRRDA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify for the record the intent of Congress that the Corps' new ETL 1110-2-583 does not satisfy the requirement of Section 3013. Section 3013 requires the Corps to revise its levee vegetation guidelines after performing a comprehensive review taking into account all regions of the United States and their unique habitats and levee structures.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) for allowing me to ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15 to demand a vote on the bipartisan immigration reform bill that reduces our deficit by $900 billion. This is an American values reform bill.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, there is no taking of anybody's water rights in this case and the majority knows it. Claiming this is a taking is misleading and irresponsible. The only way State or private water rights could, I repeat, could be transferred or diminished in any way is if the owner of those rights volunteers to a transfer or a limitation to a portion of those rights as part of a deal to receive the permission to use Federal land. Volunteering to limit your water rights in exchange for the use of Federal land, taxpayer land, is the opposite of taking. The various court cases the majority has thrown around deal with legitimate, I repeat, legitimate water rights issues; cases where there are overlapping or conflicting claims over the same water. This is not that type of a case. I defy my colleagues to produce any case law holding that a decision to give up a water right, voluntarily, in order to get another Federal benefit is a taking. There are no such cases. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, this bill is so badly written we really have no idea--I repeat, no idea--what impact this may have on tribes. Yes, Mr. Mullin, I totally support water rights for Native Americans. We have been working on that for at least 8 years in my subcommittee, as well as other water rights owners. We don't oppose your amendment, and we honestly really truly hope this will offer adequate protection to tribes. They deserve it. It is a long time coming. But, as we have said, the bill is beyond repair. Even if we were to adopt the amendment, H.R. 3189 is dangerous legislation that must be defeated. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment; although, I don't oppose the amendment, but I do oppose the bill, H.R. 3189. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, I thank Mr. Polis for yielding. I must say that, again, I must direct attention to the fact that the February 11 letter from the ski resorts focuses on narrowing the bill, not the bill in total, but narrow focus. Mr. Polis joined Mr. Tipton on this bill in an attempt to seek a reasonable solution to the problem facing ski resorts in the West, but when Mr. Polis tried to work with the majority and when we on the committee tried to work with the majority to make reasonable, responsible changes to the bill, we were told no. We were told the majority wanted a big, broad bill that goes way beyond the resorts and way beyond the Forest Service. We pointed out that when you start drafting big, broad bills that go beyond the original issue, you will have unintended consequences, but they would not listen. Mr. Polis' amendment is the last chance to make this a narrow, bipartisan bill that can actually pass, and we should adopt it. Again, we don't want a job killing. We don't want a water grab. We don't want specific people to favor. I think the people need to understand it is the farmers and ranchers who benefit. The six savings clauses the bill needs is not needed. It is in the Polis amendment because the amendment narrows the scope only to ski resorts and National Forest Service.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, I now yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, may I ask how many speakers my colleague from the other side has?

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The legislation we have to consider today is flawed on many levels-- it is flawed on process; it is flawed on policy; and it is flawed in claiming that it protects States' water rights. H.R. 3189 does not solve the problem--it creates more problems--because it is so broadly written and has no chance of being enacted into law. The majority introduced the Water Rights Protection Act as a way to protect private property rights. It is not about protecting private property rights. It is not about protecting States' water rights. It goes in the opposite direction, that of creating a new Federal definition of a ``water right'' when we have not had a hearing on that particular point. Water rights have, for more than four centuries in American law, been defined as a matter of State law. If the majority is really concerned about Federal overreach, creating a sweeping new Federal definition of a ``water right'' without even a single hearing is not the best choice. H.R. 3189 only had a hearing, and it was held during the government shutdown, during the sequestration. As a result, the agencies affected were not able to provide expert analysis because they were not able to be at the hearing to talk to the bill's impacts. The bill's incomplete legislative record was worsened by the committee markup, whereby a clumsily drafted savings clause was added. This only added to the confusion as to the purpose of the bill, negating the purpose of the legislation, which I understand now makes it a broader bill in addressing some of the issues, as have been stated by my colleague, that it is overreach by the Obama administration, thus negating the water rights. Today, the manager's amendment, with four additional savings clauses, continues to show the magnitude of the unintended negative consequences that H.R. 3189 would have on various activities that require a Federal permit. There is some agreement on this bill. We both agree that the starting point of this legislation involves a conflict between the Forest Service and the ski resorts, which was the focus of the hearing. Unfortunately, the Forest Service issued a declaration, a release, that mandated certain things that are objectionable to my colleagues, and they are now having to set out a new policy directive that is under consideration by the OMB. We have not waited for the results of the OMB. We can't tell until after the comment period is given to the general public, and then it can be published. There are currently 121 ski resorts located in 13 States that are operating on Federal Forest Service land. That is public land that belongs to the general public. It doesn't belong to the ski resorts, and it doesn't belong to this body. It belongs to the people. Through long-term special use permits, these resort companies are operating on public--taxpayer--land, belonging to the American people, for private profit. In many cases, these companies purchase water rights in order to operate the resort. The Forest Service is currently struggling with what happens with the permitting of sales of water rights. How could the agency find a new operator if there is no water to go with that land and if it is not available, if there is no water for the land? The Forest Service issued a directive in 2011 requiring that, as a condition of these special use permits, the applicant must place its water rights in the name of the United States. Who is the United States if it isn't the American taxpayer? To be clear, this was not because President Obama is mad with power and wants to own water rights, as some have alluded to. Rather, it was so that the Forest Service could include those water rights as part of the package when seeking a new operator and issuing a new contract for an existing ski area on public--taxpayer--land. The court validated that directive on procedural grounds, and the Forest Service is currently working on a new directive, as they have stated in the letter to this committee. One, they have said, will not involve permit applicants transferring their water rights to the Federal Government. It would be appropriate to consider legislation that really pinpoints and clarifies that ski area permits may not be conditioned on the transfer of water rights to the government. New legislation devising a real solution to this problem would not only be welcomed, it would be a necessity. This is why we support the Polis amendment, which addresses the narrow conflict between the ski resorts and the Forest Service, which is the real conflict. This bill would prevent the entire Department of Agriculture and the entire Department of the Interior from conditioning any use of public property on the impairment of any water right. This bill goes well beyond ski resorts and well beyond the Forest Service to fundamentally alter public--taxpayer--land management, including the management of all units of the National Park System. If this bill were to become law, grazing permits could no longer require that some water be left in the streams for the cattle, and bypass flows would be impacted. Any and all uses of public lands which touch on water would be affected. Without the ability to condition permits or authorizations on reasonable protections for water-dependent resources, such as habitat, timber, or recreation, agencies will not be able to comply with the conservation and multiple-use mandates required currently by law. The bill is so broad and so irresponsible that, if it were to be enacted, it would mean the very end of the public lands activities it is supposed to protect, because those activities could no longer be managed responsibly. Congress should get out of the way, respect States' rights, and allow the Forest Service to issue its new directive, which is not the taking of anyone's property. Rather, it is placing responsible conditions on a permit allowing private companies to profit from their use of public-- taxpayer--lands. Finally, Madam Chair and Members, it is unfortunate that we are dedicating time and energy to this aspect of water management when our constituents and our communities are facing so many more important water challenges. Most of the U.S., especially the Western U.S., is suffering from drought. While 53 percent is facing moderate to exceptional drought, the entire State of California, my State, is in drought. We certainly have more fish to fry than talking about a bill that is limited to ski resorts and the Forest Service. I do urge my colleagues to worry less about these resorts and more about the drought that is ravaging our West, the wildfires that are threatening our lives and property, and climate change, which, if we continue to fail to act or accept, makes snow skiing a thing of the past. Some would say that this goes far beyond ski resort issues and affects nationwide entities. I say let's deal with the ski issue and the Forest Service separately, and let's support the Polis amendment. Madam Chair, I submit for the Record a letter dated February 11, 2014, from the National Ski Areas Association. In the very first sentence, they are including: I am writing on behalf of the ski industry to express the reasons ski areas strongly support passage of the bipartisan Water Rights Protection Act, H.R. 3189/S. 1630, and to advocate changes to the bill to narrow its scope. I oppose the legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and to support the Polis amendment. I reserve the balance of my time. National Ski Areas Association, February 11, 2014. Re: Support for Water Rights Protection Act Rep. Scott Tipton, Cannon HOB, Washington, DC. Rep. Jared Polis, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Sen. John Barrasso, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Sen. Mark Udall, Hart Office Building Suite, Washington, DC. Gentlemen: I am writing on behalf of the ski industry to express the reasons ski areas strongly support passage of the bipartisan Water Rights Protection Act, H.R. 3189/S. 1630, and to advocate changes to the bill to narrow its scope. At the outset, the ski industry would like to express our deep appreciation of your effort to protect ski area water rights from federal encroachment over the past couple of years. Your leadership on protecting water rights and your commitment to working in a bipartisan fashion to solve this problem on behalf of ski areas and other permittees on federal land have had very positive and real effects to date. While ski areas have enjoyed a long and successful partnership with the Forest Service spanning almost eight decades, Forest Service water policy is an issue on which we simply do not agree. We have invested too much in water rights to simply hand them over to the federal government. As you are well aware, the Water Rights Protection Act would stop the federal government from illegally seizing water rights from private parties that develop them, such as ski areas, in violation of State water law and 5th Amendment property rights protections. The intent of the bill is narrow--to protect valuable assets of ski areas and other permittees that use federal land from seizure without compensation by the federal government. Essentially everyone agrees on the need for this protection, given recent (and past) Forest Service policy that demands transfer of valuable water rights to the U.S. without compensation. This policy threatened to rock the foundation of over a hundred years' worth of water law in the West, and again, thanks to your intervention, beneficial changes are expected in the future. The intention of the Water Rights Protection Act is not to impact stream health or aquatic species in any way. Some conservation groups contend that HR 3189 has a broader effect than simply protecting water rights, and in fact would hinder federal efforts to protect stream health and fish. Ski areas and other stakeholders strongly disagree with this interpretation of the bill and would never support a bill that had this result. In fact, a ``savings clause'' was included in the bill to explicitly state that the measure had no other impacts than to protect permittees' water rights from forced transfers. More importantly, the bill does not alter in any way the minimum stream flow protections that are set and enforced by the states on virtually every river and stream. Ski areas support and abide by these minimum stream flow requirements and would never take action to undermine them. However, to make it abundantly clear that ski areas have a narrow and pointed agenda with respect to this legislation and that we are committed to maintaining stream and aquatic species health, we are now advocating changes to the bill to narrow its scope even further. These changes include narrowing the scope of the bill to apply just to the U.S. Forest Service, and clarifying that the bill prohibits forced transfers of ownership of water rights to the United States by inserting the term ``title'' into the bill. We offer these changes to demonstrate emphatically our unwavering commitment to maintain stream health and aquatic species, and our narrow focus of simply protecting our valuable water rights assets. These changes are directed at solving the concrete problem at hand, which is overreaching policy by the Forest Service that requires a forced transfer of ownership of water rights from permittees to the United States. The bill will continue to benefit all permittees on Forest Service lands, not just ski areas. The release of a new water policy is expected from the Forest Service sometime in 2014. Ski areas welcome this new policy change, which we understand will not require a forced transfer of ownership of water rights. The release of this policy will not change the need for federal legislation however. First, the new policy is expected to apply prospectively, such that existing water rights subject to past Forest Service water clauses could continue to be in jeopardy of a taking by the Forest Service. Ski areas are proposing an amendment to the bill to protect against the implementation of such clauses beginning with the effective date of this bill. Ski areas have experienced four changes in Forest Service water policy in the last ten years. Only Congress can help stop the pendulum from swinging and provide ski areas the kind of stability they need to grow and succeed in the future. After prevailing on our challenge of the Forest Service's water rights takings policy in federal court in 2012, ski areas offered an alternative approach for the Forest Service to consider that would not involve forced transfers of water rights. We offered this alternative in the spirit of partnership, and as a way for the Forest Service to work cooperatively with ski areas to support their viability, and the viability of mountain communities, over the long term. The alternative offered by ski areas was to require resorts to provide successors in interest an option to purchase water rights at fair market value upon sale of a ski area. We continue to support this approach as a viable alternative that meets the needs of the agency, provides ski areas needed flexibility, and respects state water law. Ski areas are great stewards of water resources. It is important for everyone to remember that only a small portion of water that is used for snowmaking is consumed. Most of the water diverted from streams for snowmaking returns to the watershed. Although it varies from region to region, studies show that approximately 80 percent of the water used for snowmaking returns to the watershed. Since the majority of water used for snowmaking is water purchased by a ski area, brought onsite through diversions, stored on-slope, and typically released more slowly back into the watershed with the seasonal melting of the winter snowpack, snowmaking typically benefits the watershed in which it is taking place, as well as downstream users, and can help counteract the harmful effects of drought. In addition to using a whole array of conservation measures, many resorts impound or store water in reservoirs for use during low flow times of the year without affecting fish or aquatic habitat. The ability to control our water assets and investments--which will be the outcome of passage of the Water Rights Protection Act--will enable us to continue this stewardship in the future. It will also allow us to continue to provide a high quality recreation opportunity for millions of people on the National Forests. In closing, we thank you for your work to date on this issue, and we look forward to continuing to work together in cooperation to ensure the bill's passage. Sincerely, Michael Berry, President.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, there is opposition to this bill from 90 conservation, recreation, and sportsmen groups, including the Grand County Board of Commissioners, Summit County Board of Commissioners, Eagle County Board of Commissioners, besides the other agencies. Letters in Support of H.R. 3189 Hinsdale County; Rio Grande Watershed Association of Conservation Districts; Conejos County Board of County Commissioners; Colorado River District; National Cattlemen's Beef Association; National Association of Conservation Districts; National Ski Areas Association; National Water Resources Associations; Western Governors Association* *WGA has taken a neutral stance on H.R. 3189. letters in Opposition to H.R. 3189 U.S. Department of Interior; U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service; Grand County Board of Commissioners; Summit County Board of Commissioners; Eagle County Board of Commissioners. 90 conservation, recreation, and sportsman's groups including: California Environmental Groups; Alabama Rivers Alliance; American Bird Conservancy; American Rivers; American Whitewater; Appalachian Mountain Club; Atlantic Salmon Federation; California Sportfishing Protection Alliance; CalTrout; Chesapeake Bay Foundation; Clean Water Action; Connecticut River Watershed Council; Deerfield River Watershed Association; Defenders of Wildlife; Earthjustice; Foothill Conservancy; Friends of Butte Creek; Friends of Merrymeeting Bay; Friends of the Rivers of Virginia; Friends of the White Salmon River; Gunpowder Riverkeeper; Hydropower Reform Coalition; Idaho Rivers United; Lower Mississippi River Foundation; Maine Rivers; National Audubon Society; National Parks Conservation Association; Native Fish Society; Natural Resources Defense Council; Northwest Resource Information Center; Rivers Alliance of Connecticut; Shenandoah Riverkeeper; Sierra Club; Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna, Inc.; Tennessee Clean Water Network; Upstate Forever; Utah Rivers Council; WaterWatch of Oregon; Yadkin Riverkeeper Inc. I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time remains?

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, this amendment does not fix the bill because the bill cannot be fixed. The savings clause in the base bill and the savings clause that Mr. Mullin's amendment includes are symptoms of the problem that we pointed out before in this bill, not the solution. The amendment would be the sixth savings clause added to this 4-page bill. I do support Representative Mullin's and Representative Cole's efforts in protecting our Native American communities' water rights. As the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) mentioned at the Rules Committee last night, Native American water rights are the oldest water rights in the system. They are time immemorial, and yet we choose to ignore them. I remember Congressman Kildee repeatedly saying, under the Constitution, they hold the first water rights in the United States, and yet we do not recognize them. Yet, since Republicans took the majority 4 years ago, there has been no legislation, no oversight hearings on any Indian water rights settlements. If we want to support Native American water rights, Congress should consider tribal water rights legislation, enact tribal water rights legislation, and fund tribal water rights legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, the amendment doesn't fix the bill because the bill cannot be fixed. The savings clause in the base bill and the savings clauses that will likely be added by the manager's amendment are symptoms of the problem with the initial bill, not the solution. If you have a 4-page bill and you need to insert five different savings clauses, you have a problem, my friends. The need to insert layer upon layer of text trying to explain that you don't mean for the bill to do this or that proves beyond any doubt that the bill is a massive and dangerous overreach. We have no idea how these savings clauses operate in the context of the bill, but what we do know is that, even with the five savings clauses, you haven't caught all the problems. The only responsible policy is the one offered by Mr. Polis in his substitute amendment which focuses, again, strictly on the main issue that brought this to the forefront, and that was the Forest Service and the ski resorts. Everything else is just a failed attempt to fix the bill. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado, Congressman Polis.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, I am certainly grateful for the opportunity to have this dialogue, and I think it is very important for the American people to listen in and understand that one bill that was meant to cover a specific issue has been turned into a gigantic--I would say--mess. We understand the reasoning behind it, to some extent, and we trust that our colleagues understand and are prepared to vote on something that may have unintended consequences in their own backyards. This bill is flawed. It is flawed on process, on policy, and in claiming that it does protect State water rights. The Governors Association has indicated that they wanted to ensure that the states' water rights remain protected. We welcome legislation that devises a real solution to a targeted problem, which the amendment that Mr. Polis has on the floor will address. We are supportive of that amendment and hope others will support his amendment, which was made in order. We, unfortunately, feel that H.R. 3189 does not solve the problem. It creates more problems and has no chance of being enacted into law, and I trust that we will do the right thing by the people because we are talking about protecting the U.S. public, their lands, and their water. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, I know I have said it before, the ski resort association wants to focus on this bill, so I am suggesting that we do approve the Polis amendment and then hold a hearing--an open hearing and a transparent hearing--for those agencies that are impacted so they may have the ability to have a word and be able to move this forward. I might add that the savings clause does not include the national parks. So all the units, Grand Canyon and others, are impacted. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.