Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California will be postponed.
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE ACTING CHAIR
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
The first amendment by Mr. Dicks of Washington.
The second amendment by Mr. Dicks of Washington.
The amendments en bloc by Mr. LaTourette of Ohio.
Amendment No. 39 by Mr. Pompeo of Kansas.
Amendment No. 23 by Ms. Richardson of California.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on the first amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174, noes 237, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 658]
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Sanchez, Linda T.
Lungren, Daniel E.
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE ACTING CHAIR
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
Mr. BARTON of Texas, Ms. SUTTON, and Mr. ROONEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. CARNEY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. DICKS. Section 120 provides that for 2012 through 2014, the movement of livestock across public land shall not be subject to NEPA review.
Proponents of this provision will argue that moving cattle from one location to another shouldn't require a NEPA review. However, this movement of cattle can be across wide swaths of public lands and take weeks, not just days. The impact on water, plants and other wildlife species, including bighorn sheep, can be significant.
I would like to yield to the ranking member to further discuss this amendment.
Mr. MORAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Some on the other side may be thinking, well, what's a guy from a heavily residential suburban area in the Washington area and with no cattle in his district know? So I would have thought this would have been a perfectly fine amendment: What do you need to have restrictions for livestock moving from one place to another?
But upon further investigation, what is not immediately apparent becomes very important. As the gentleman has said, we're talking about very wide swaths of land that are covered by these livestock movements, and they don't just take a few hours or a few days to cross. Sometimes they can take weeks. When you've got very large herds of cattle, you can cause quite a bit destruction to the soil, to the brush, to waterways, to any number of environmental resources in the process of major transfers
from one area to another of very large herds of cattle. There can be very substantial environmental destruction. That's why those who are involved in this feel there ought to be a NEPA review. The National Environmental Policy Act will review it, it will tell us what the ramifications will be, what are the consequences, and then
based upon that information it empowers those who have land or interests that would be adversely affected by large movements of cattle from one place to another. That's why the NEPA review has an appropriate place and role to play in this, and that's why I think the gentleman's amendment makes a lot of sense and I would support it.
Mr. SIMPSON. Referring my remarks to the Chairman, I've got to get the gentleman from Virginia on a horse out with some cattle.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. ``Trailing'' is the process of moving a livestock herd from one grazing area to another. It generally doesn't take weeks. It certainly doesn't take weeks in the same location. You're moving from one location to another. Trailing has no significant impact on the environment, so [Page: H5614]
while in the past it has been generally considered part of the process of grazing on public lands, the BLM has rarely conducted
environmental assessments on or issued permits for trailing itself, focusing instead on the impacts of grazing.
Recently--and this is the problem and this is why this amendment is before us--environmental activists that want to get cattle off of public lands, and they have a right to try to do this--I disagree with them--have focused their attention on trailing as a way to shut down grazing on public lands.
Congress, not the courts, has the authority to determine public land policies, and today responsible grazing is an important and legitimate use of public lands. Unfortunately, because activists have tied local BLM offices up in knots with litigation, judges are now determining how public lands can be used in the West.
This provision--and this is the important part--attempts to get ahead of this issue by exempting trailing from NEPA requirements for 2011 through 2014. The Forest Service on their grazing permits require permits on trailing. The Forest Service does. The BLM has not in the past. But, instead, these litigations are tying this up in knots. The BLM is going through a process to include trailing when they issue their grazing permits, so that the NEPA process on trailing will be included. The problem
is between now and when they get that completed, we're going to be in court spending all our money in court rather than getting this process moving forward.
We're not opposed to requiring NEPA process on trailing permits just like the Forest Service does, but what this does is exempt this through 2014 while BLM, for lack of a better term, gets their act together. That's all this does.
I yield back the balance of my time.