National Landscape Conservation System Act

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

You know, there was a time when Pete Rose was trying out to make a baseball team, and the scouting report said that ``Rose can't make a double play, he can't throw, he can't hit left-handed and he can't run.'' The first time Fred Astaire tried to make a movie preview, the report coming back on Fred Astaire was, ``he can't act, he's slightly bald, and he can dance a little bit.'' The Boston Red Sox were reviewing a new outfielder, and the scouting report came back saying, ``he's not the Red Sox type.'' The guy they were actually scouting was Willie Mays. Which simply means, in life, sometimes what we see and sometimes what we're told is not necessarily the reality of situations. As groups and individual Members of Congress are starting to see this bill for what the details are is one of the reasons why we see some of those groups peeling off on their support.

Why, some of the issues we raised in committee, it was said they're not really issues, now there are amendments that have been proposed by the majority party to deal with those so-called ``nonissues.''

It is said all we're trying to do here is codify and make permanent an institution that's already in existence, but it is much, much more than that. My freshman year, the goal of the freshman class was to try to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in government. Sometimes I wish we were still doing this because today we have reached the mother lode of waste, fraud and abuse.

This is an entity, the National Landscape Conservation System, which spends money, but it does not hire anyone, it does not fire anyone, it does not write regulations, it does not repeal regulations, it doesn't administer any land, it doesn't manage any land. For the life of me, we have been trying to figure out what this thing does other than spend $50 million a year to encourage and to bring attention to certain particular areas.

We are told that this bill would not change any of that. This bill apparently does nothing to an entity that does nothing. But I'm going to portend to you that the reason this entity has been so successful so far is simply because it's been under the auspices of the Secretary of the Interior. But if, indeed, we codify this and put this into statute, an entity right now which sticks out on a flowchart like a sore thumb that doesn't really do anything will change, it will change significantly, and all of a sudden it will start to do something. And that's where the danger arises. Because when we wrote down the values of this supposed new system, they are extremely vague, which means, first of all, it opens us up to lawsuits right and left. If the amendment that will be offered later does not pass to try and limit the impact of those lawsuits, we are offering this Nation a great deal of harm and potential peril.

We have spent $50 million every year on what can best be called a redundant organization, but it actually should be changed. And the question obviously is, will we be spending more in this society? Now, once again, the proponents say nothing will change, it's not going to cost more, CBO says it's not going to cost more, there will be no regulations. The chairman of the subcommittee that sponsored this bill was asked once again at one point in time, will this create more cost, more regulation, and the answer was simply this: Well, you go in to establish the system, and then you go to step two. What that step two is is the fear that happens to be here. The values that have never been identified in this legislation dealing these parts of land deal with such issues as recreation. Amendments to actually define that were not allowed to be discussed. It deals with border security. Amendments to define that were not allowed to be discussed. We will have another border security amendment which, in my estimation, does anything more than establish the status quo as our policy when the status quo is not sufficient.

We will have discussions over grazing issues and energy issues. We should have had discussions over private end holding issues. All of those should be defined as part of the values that we are talking about here.

The Department of Interior has been very positive about this. They said they support this concept because it allows them to do what has always been done that is the difference between BLM monuments and parks versus national park monuments and parks, and that is, the value of multiple use. But in committee, when we tried to amend the language so that multiple use was a value to be maintained, it was defeated on a party line vote. And when we went to the Rules Committee and tried to make sure that we had a chance to discuss this, to put in multiple use as the value that is significant, it was again denied the ability even to discuss that on the floor. And that is the sum and substance that is different.

Now, we are dealing with a system that impacts people and their lives. It was said by Sir Henry Maine, ``Nobody is at liberty to attack civil property and say at the same time they value civilization because the history of two can never be disentangled.'' And that is where we're at.

Unless this bill is significantly modified, this bill will do harm to people. Unless this bill is changed and this system is moved back, it will do significant harm to people.

We have problems within this entity right now. Rather than solve any of these problems, it provides vague and fluffy language that will make the situation worse. It does not solve the problems, but it does create a permanent statutory entity without any solutions and, indeed, goes the other direction and makes permanent solutions to our problems more difficult actually to accomplish.

This simply is a bill whose time is not now. This is a bill that does not tell us exactly what to expect. It opens up the Federal Government to all sorts of potential lawsuits, and doesn't actually come up with a value that makes BLM land different than Park Service land, which is multiple use. That phrase has to be in that bill if this bill has any chance of having any some rationality of purpose.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Idaho, a member of the committee (Mr. Sali).

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to one of the sponsors of this bill, our good friend and colleague from California, where obviously at this particular time both physically and intellectually we are on different sides of the field on this particular issue, but I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono Mack).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

If the gentleman from Arizona would like to reclaim his time, I realize he has just had one of his speakers come in here, and we can keep the order going, which would be fine with me.

At this time, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Chairman, I offer the Member 1 more minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard several things about this particular piece of legislation. This new entity, the National Land Conservation System, not to be confused with the National League Championship Series, which is a much better concept, this entity was not created by congressional action. It was created as the dream child of a former Secretary of Interior less than 10 years ago.

When asked in a hearing of the Bureau of Land Management if they were incompetent to manage these lands before this new entity was established, the simple answer was no. One would then ask the question, why was there a need 10 years ago for this new entity, because this new entity still does not administer anything, they don't manage anything, they don't regulate anything, nor will they, as has been carefully delineated by the sponsor of this legislation.

The first question still should be asked, what do they really do, other than to provide some vague philosophy of recognition and enhancement and anything else? If we really simply wanted to just create this system statutorily, a one-sentence piece of legislation would do: ``There is established a National Land Conservation System.''

Is there a threat to any lands that are currently under the auspices of the Bureau of Land Management, as has been indicated by certain speakers? The answer is no. The sponsor just admitted there is no threat to that. All we are talking about is some vague new entity, and the issue of concern with this vague new entity is the language now says this new entity has certain values that it is supposed to uphold. These values are vague. Nowhere does it specifically say what these values are.

Is this a threat to private property? No more than the present system. But that is where the issue comes in. We already have threats to the private property within this system, and this piece of legislation, rather than solving that issue, exacerbates that issue altogether.

Is there a border security issue? Yes, presently, and this piece of legislation does not help that issue. It exacerbates the issue, if anything else.

It is the vagueness of the language in this bill that puts into statutory language an entity that really doesn't do anything right now. That is a problem for the future, if at some stage or some point in time Congress wants or even the entity itself wants to make it do something proactively.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, the gentleman from Florida just gave a wonderful speech, and I think he illustrated some of the problems with this particular bill. The territory to which he was speaking is National Park Service land, not BLM land. This bill only deals with BLM land, and that is precisely the problem that we have with this particular bill.

It is very simple one. We have parks and national monuments, some administered by the Bureau of Land Management, some administered by the National Park Service. They are different. Each one of them has a different value.

In the Park Service, the organic act that created it said what the values for this land would be. It is established in statute and in regulation. The Bureau of Land Management does not have that same value system, because they are different lands for a different purpose, which is why the language in this bill is so troubling, because it is simply a vague statement that simply says they will have values, and it has never, never been defined.

When the Department of Interior told me personally that they were in favor of this, it was because they could maintain the Bureau of Land Management parks and monuments with multiple use as the significant value. It would be protected, they said. Which is why I am so chagrined, that when we attempted to clarify in this legislation by amendment in the committee and once again before the Rules Committee that that is specifically the difference between the Park park and the BLM park, it was rejected.

Now, multiple use is the difference between national parks in the Park Service system and national parks in the BLM system, and that language, that language has to be maintained, because that is indeed the only value that makes a difference.

These lands are not threatened if the BLM has them. They are not threatened if we don't make this system, which is redundant at best and expensive at best, codified. But we do do something dangerous if we pass this legislation and now give a vague term of values on to a system that is defined nowhere. It opens us up to litigation problems, it causes problems in administration, and it does change the system. That is why there is so much danger, unless you are willing to do what our side has been saying all along, which is define what those vague terms actually mean.

That, Mr. Chairman, is why we oppose this piece of legislation. It opens up a door that has no definition as to what room we actually enter, and that is wrong. It is simply wrong.

The problem with that is it is going to hurt people, people who use this BLM land now to recreate, people who use it to graze, people who use it for their economy, people who have private property in-holdings in this area. They are put at risk because our language is simply too vague to allow them to understand what our intent is. That is why this bill has to be defeated.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I first ask uanimous consent to include an article from the Tucson Weekly that deals with the areas of this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Mr. Grijalva actually taking the lead on this issue.

In fact, Republicans had two amendments that were introduced to the Rules Committee that dealt with this same specific issue. Again, in a spirit of bipartisanship, the two Republicans ones were not put in place but the Democrat one was, and at least we are addressing this particular issue.

I do happen to have some objection to this one, because to me, what this amendment does, is put into statute or to put into language the status quo. Nothing in this act shall impede what we are already doing. I think this issue should be more forward thinking. We need to change what is happening in the status quo in this area that is simply now known as the trail of amnesty, where so much illegal narcotics work, illegal human trafficking and illegal gang activity has taken place. The article to which I referred actually specifies what that is there.

That is why the amendments that were not made in order were superior to the one that is made in order here, and it should be recognized.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield to the gentleman from New Mexico 2 minutes of my time for discussion of this amendment.

Do I have remaining time still, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman, let me make this clear. I have no intention of opposing or voting against the language from the gentleman from Arizona.

I am appreciative that the gentleman from Arizona and the majority party has finally taken the initiative of bringing issues up here.

My objection is that the language that was proposed to the Rules Committee in other amendments dealing with this issue was far broader and would have been better in the future. When we talk about language right now that nothing of us actually impede, we were talking in other pieces of legislation about not hindering border security, not hindering illegal immigration for Homeland Security or other law enforcement agencies.

The amendments we tried to propose would have been far broader, far more inclusive and would have dealt with issues into future as opposed to this.

But having said that, this is at least a good step in the right direction.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. Chairman, again, as I was speaking earlier about the bill, one of the problems is simply the concept of some vague elements of what ``values'' may or may not be, especially as it applies to Park Service and Bureau of Land Management lands.

The language in question that I ask to be removed from this bill is language that comes specifically from the Organic Act that created the National Park System as well as the Redwood amendments. Those two concepts caused the National Park Service to administer park lands to the same standard.

In the absence of any other definition of what Bureau of Land Management land should be in this system, it is essential that we not have to revert back to what the National Park Service uses as its values standard, and that's the fear that comes in here.

Indeed, in the BLM land that has been put into this system, you have a multitude of different land, from Bureau of Land Management monuments to Bureau of Land Management parks, to wilderness areas, to wilderness study areas. If, indeed, the same language that has forced the Park Service to manage in the same administrative pattern is now imposed on the Bureau of Land Management, it would do irreparable harm to different lands that are specifically there so that they can use multiple use.

Once again, we come back to that issue. BLM lands are supposed to be administered differently. That's why it's BLM lands in the first place. This language opens up the possibility of using the same kind of litigation techniques that force the Park Service to use all of their lands in the exact same manner onto the National Park Service.

If you change it to simply do what we said earlier, establish a National Landscape Conservation System, without the other verbiage, you eliminate that potential problem.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the language that is put in here is part of the BLM mandate. They are to conserve, protect, restore cultural, ecological and scientific values for the benefit of current and future generations.

The issue at hand, though, is that this is not the only part of the BLM's management authority and management purpose. By refusing to expand this to the other areas to which BLM is supposed to do, the work they are supposed to do on this land, we are in danger of actually going the other way and trying to impose that this is the only way, especially when this language has been used in the Park Service to mandate specific management practices and hurt that process.

If you go on with this particular section, when you go to (b), it lists the kind of areas designated in this new land system. Each one was established with a certain land management plan. They are there. But the fact that we don't put them in here opens up the possibility of litigation to problems that are there.

It is important so we know that the Department of the Interior said they don't mind creating this system by statute, but they were opposed to this language. They said this language is harmful to their mission statement.

I wish to actually try and convince every Member on the floor, all three of us here, that this is indeed not what the department needs. It is not what the bureau needs. It is not the kind of language that you want to put in statute if you want to make sure what we are doing is specifically defined. This opens up more problems than we would otherwise have.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. Chairman, I can be painfully brief on this amendment.

In two places in this bill you have the same problem we have been talking over and over about, about the vague notion of simply ``values.''

The last amendment took the very superfluous language in the preamble, which has the potential of creating problems, as it has in other sections. But also in section 3(c)(2), we once again find this vague, nefarious language.

It says that the Secretary shall manage the system in a manner that protects the values for which the components of this system were designated.

Once again, by simply saying ``values'' without any kind of definition, nor is there any regulatory definition, you have simply opened this up to a vague, contentious opportunity. If you are going to establish this system and give them something to do, for heaven's sake, tell them what they are going to do and make it simple and make it succinct.

That is why this section should be eliminated. Until we are ready to define these values, you don't put this in statute.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Arizona's comments. His initial sentence was that I am attempting to strike the very purpose of this act. I don't really think that is accurate because there is no purpose. If there was a purpose, it would have been written down as to what the purpose is. This simply says there will be values; and there is no definition of what those values are.

I would remind all of my colleagues in this room, this is the language that the department said they do not want.

This is the language BLM says does harm to them. This is the language they said was too vague and should be fixed, and it has not been fixed. That is why it should be eliminated.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with one of the other issues that we are talking about as far as potential development of energy on these lands that are currently under the control of the Bureau of Land Management and may or may not actually change with the formalizing of this new entity.

With skyrocketing energy prices, the last thing that Congress should do is lock up more lands that could provide a solution.

The NLCS lands include potentially billions of barrels of oil, vast quantities of natural gas and coal, and unlimited potential for renewable energy sources such as wind and solar.

The energy development on NLCS lands is vital to the economies of western States, and to the Nation. We should be looking at ways to keep the $400 billion that we spend to buy energy overseas here at home. We are only just beginning to understand what potential there is on NLCS lands for renewable energy sources. This amendment would ensure that those options remain open.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am assured and comforted.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I wish to claim the time in opposition although, as some others have said here, I may not necessarily be in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, to be honest, I will be voting in favor of

this particular amendment. I think this is actually a very good amendment. This is the issue we presented in committee that was rejected in committee. I am glad that someone somewhere, between the path of this bill from committee to here on the floor, found religion and is actually looking forward to this particular issue. It's a good one, even though we were told in committee it was just a shadow that we were fighting on the wall.

I would recognize also that there were three amendments that were introduced that did the exact same thing that have now been incorporated in this particular amendment. Somebody once told me, well, when you steal you should steal from the best. I think this is stolen from the best simply because the ones that were not recommended were my amendments.

Therefore, since we're saying the same thing, in the spirit of bipartisanship, what else can I say, other than this is the right thing to do, and I actually personally support this particular amendment. It is the right thing to do. Regardless of who gets credit for it, it is the right thing to do.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The amendment offered by Mr. Pearce is critical to protecting ranchers who produce our food from the negative consequences of this bill. Without the Pearce language, ranchers would be left to the whims of future Secretaries of Interior that will diminish ranching opportunities.

Already, grazing rights are under assault on multiple fronts. There is a simple element out there that loathes grazing on public land. And our food supply is, indeed, worthy of protection and worthy of the use of our public land.

Despite opposition to this amendment in committee, I hope the other side will now recognize that granting these small protections in the legislation is, indeed, our duty. We cannot abandon our responsibility to legislate by leaving to bureaucrats the opportunity to isolate bankrupt ranchers dependent upon grazing.

We thank Mr. Pearce for his foresight and determination to protect grazing rights now and in the future, and urge support of his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2016 is simple, straightforward legislation. The bill would provide statutory authorization for a conservation system which was established administratively nearly a decade ago. This is not a land management policy bill, rather, it seeks to finally grant the National Landscape Conservation System the congressional recognition that it truly deserves.

The NLCS covers approximately 26 million acres, about 10 percent of the land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, including all national scenic and historic trails, national conservation areas, national monuments, wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, and wilderness study areas managed by the BLM.

The individual lists which make up the National Landscape Conservation System are unique and beautiful. Canyons of the Ancients in Colorado, Craters of the Moon in Idaho, Agua Fria and Vermillion Cliffs in my home State of Arizona, these are poetic names for poetic landscapes. And Mr. Chairman, these units are truly nationally significant, ecologically, scientifically and culturally. For example, Agua Fria National Monument is remarkable for its natural splendor, with the Agua Fria River cutting through Sonoran Desert mesas, and for its unique and diverse wildlife, which includes pronghorn antelope, javelina, and the gila monster, among many others. But the monument also preserves significant and intact pueblo ruins, some with more than 100 rooms, terraced agricultural fields, which bear witness to the lives and stories of those that came long before us.

Like Agua Fria, each of the units included within the NLCS was created to conserve unique cultural and natural resources. But while the individual monument or wild and scenic river or other designations which make up the system are about conservation, creation of the NLCS itself has more to do with accomplishing the full mission of the Bureau of Land Management. From 1946 to 1996, very large, new national monuments created under the Antiquities Act was removed from BLM management and turned over to National Park Service.

The National Landscape Conservation System was created to assure that these valued public lands remain in the BLM system, allowing the agency to manage them and fully realize the conversation aspect of its multiple-use mandate.

The NLCS has been enormously successful. Visitation to these areas is increasing as more people are learning about BLM's spectacular landscapes. From its red rock deserts to its rugged coastlines, NLCS units provide unique and world-class outdoor recreation opportunities for hikers, hunters, anglers, climbers and bird watchers, among many others. Sportsmen consider these areas essential not only for their recreational value, but also because the NLCS is critical to the conservation of fish and wildlife habitat on BLM lands.

Mr. Chairman, opponents of this bill seem to be concerned that it will somehow change or alter the current management of these lands. This is simply not true. Included in H.R. 2016 is a section that specifically states, ``Nothing in this act shall be construed to enhance, diminish or modify any law or proclamation (or regulations related to such law or proclamation) under which the components of the system identified in section 3(b) were established or are managed, including but not limited to the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the Wilderness act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the National Trails System Act, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.''

After almost a decade of success, it is time for Congress to finally put its stamp of approval on this system by formally authorizing NLCS. H.R. 2016 does nothing more or less than write the NLCS into statute. The bill will not alter management of a single acre of Federal, State or private land. Enactment of this legislation will not change the management of these areas, but it will change the perception; it will not upgrade their protection, but it will upgrade their stature.

The coalition of organizations supporting 2016 is as diverse as the system itself, including environmental groups, the American Hiking Society, the National Council of Churches, American Sportfishing Association, Boone and Crockett Club, National Trust for Historic Preservation, National Wildlife Federation, and the Outdoor Industry Association. The Bush Administration has enthusiastically supported the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, what we have here are uniquely American places that should and must be recognized. The NLCS deserves congressional sanction, and we should grant it.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of our full committee, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), an original cosponsor of H.R. 2016.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey, a sponsor of the legislation (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, let me recognize Congressman Inslee, a member of the Resources Committee, a sponsor of the legislation, for as much time as he may consume.

May I inquire as to how much time remains.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I think in the course of the debate on H.R. 2016 we are going to hear a lot of claims, a lot of allegations, of how H.R. 2016 will change the management of these public lands, how H.R. 2016 will restrict uses in the future for these public lands. I want to remind Members of section 4, Statutory Construction, the savings clause, which in fact codifies the existing management and codifies the existing uses. But we are going to continue to hear that, the generalizations. And with those generalizations come half-truths and untruths as to what this bill does and does not do.

What this bill does not do, it does not encroach on private property rights. What this bill does not do, it does not change grazing and oil and gas development on these lands. It does not threaten recreational and traditional uses of the land, including hunting, rock climbing, hiking, camping, rafting and motorized use. It does not make the conservation system park-like or eventually managed by the national parks. It does not provide additional protections for Wilderness Study

Areas in the conservation system, and will not designate new wilderness. It does not create a new level of bureaucracy. It does not take money away from national parks. It does not increase spending on government land acquisitions. And it does not impede border security.

I find it ironic that the now-minority, having been the majority for the past 7 years, has not been able to change some of the land designations that they are so upset about today. This vehicle, H.R. 2016, should not be the vehicle for them to vent their frustration. H.R. 2016 has gone through a rigorous process and has bipartisan support.

With regard to border security, the failure of this Congress to comprehensively grapple with the security issues, the border issues and the immigration issues that are facing this country, a broken immigration system that all of us can agree to, that failure to enact those should not be now made the responsibility of H.R. 2016, for the crisis that has been created by the inaction and the fearful reaction of many Members of Congress to try to deal with border issues and border security.

H.R. 2016 is a good piece of legislation. Specifically, the savings clause protects the intention of those lands, the management of those lands and the uses of those lands.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mahoney).

Mr. Chairman, I mentioned earlier the discussion of what H.R. 2016 does not do. I think it is worth mentioning what it does do. It is very important. And I am only going to concentrate on one point. I think we will deal with the values issue in the amendment process.

H.R. 2016 unifies separate units into a coherent system. It ensures permanency, and I think that is the most important point. It will permanently establish perhaps a last great American conservation system in statute, and those lands will continue to be managed by the Bureau of Land Management and prevent any future attempts to get rid of the system. It enhances the statute of this system, and it deserves to be enhanced.

It is a good piece of legislation. It has good support from Members of Congress and from interest groups who care about the conservation issues that we face in this Congress.

Mr. BROWN of Georgia, Mr. Chairman, seizing land infringes on the most fundamental of Constitutional rights and endangers property owners across our great Nation. NLCS will eternally lock land into Government control and prevent Americans from their right to property ownership.

Our Federal Government already owns 653,229,090 acres of land. Does it really need to control any more? NLCS would take control of 26 million acres of land--13 percent of the nation's surface. This land will be forever taken and the right to own land denied. There is no justification to consume more land.

Second Amendment Rights are also under assault in this legislation. Nothing in this legislation protects hunting, fishing, or gun rights on NLCS land--even though they have traditionally been allowed.

The Constitutional right to own property should always be protected. Citizens should be allowed to utilize and prosper from the land. As chairman of the Property Rights Action Caucus, I believe that no legislation should ever infringe on property rights or attack the Second Amendment. Protect these fundamental Constitutional rights of land and gun use by voting ``no'' on H.R. 2016.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment states in its entirety that nothing in this act shall impede any effort by the Department of Homeland Security to secure the borders and enforce the immigration laws of the United States.

Let me be clear, the recent decision by DHS Secretary Chertoff to waive more than 30 bedrock environmental laws, including the Safe Drinking Water Act and the National Park Service Organic Act, in order to build a wall along our southern border was, in my opinion, an abuse of discretion granted to him by the previous Congress.

I have introduced separate stand-alone legislation, H.R. 2593, the Borderlands Conservation and Security Act to, among other things, repeal this waiver authority because, in my view, there are better ways to secure our borders than requiring them to waive laws which protect the water we drink and the air we breathe.

I have also joined with Members of Congress in filing a notice of our intent to file briefs before the United States Supreme Court because I believe the waiver provisions violate our Constitution.

However, the bill currently before the House, H.R. 2016, is not an appropriate vehicle for addressing these concerns. This is simply an authorization bill for a conservation system. It is not intended to impact the management on any of these units, including management decisions regarding border security.

The amendment I am offering here simply makes this as clear as possible. I oppose the law, and I am using every opportunity to make that opposition plain, but this is not the bill for those opportunities.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, make sure the debate on border security takes place in the appropriate time in an appropriate manner under the appropriate legislation, and then we can move forward on this straightforward conservation bill.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment is straightforward, the amendment restates the obvious, and the question about taking initiative is an appropriate question. The initiative should be taken with a committee that has been formed to deal with the issues that are of great concern to some of my colleagues that have spoken.

That committee is the Homeland Security Committee, to take legislation there that would deal with the issues they were concerned about. This is not the vehicle for that legislation.

My amendment states the obvious, reiterates the obvious.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition.

Not necessarily.

Mr. Chairman, as with most of these amendments, the Cannon amendment is clearly unnecessary. Once again, we have, in this bill, an ironclad savings clause which I demonstrated earlier. That would be, after the enactment of H.R. 2016. Nothing in this act would diminish or enhance that.

The ability to sue plaintiffs that they have under current law, that would not be changed by H.R. 2016, and nothing in this act would change that. Nothing we do here creates a Federal cause of action. Since the creation of the system in 2000, nothing ever has. The proponents of this amendment are looking for a problem where a problem doesn't exist.

However, if the proponents of this amendment will feel more comfortable that we include language that simply states the obvious, then we will not oppose the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman from Utah's amendment because it would undermine not only this legislation, but the mission and the mandate of the Bureau of Land Management.

The language this amendment would strike reads as follows: ``In order to conserve, protect, and restore nationally significant landscapes that have outstanding cultural, ecological, and scientific values for the benefit of current and future generations.''

These words are not new, nor are they undefined. The NLCS already exists and has existed for nearly a decade and the Bush administration supports these words as a summary of the management goals already in place for these lands under existing law.

Versions of this language are found in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, in the Wilderness Act, in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, in Presidential proclamations and specific statutes creating these conservation units.

Restating these goals in this authorizing legislation is an appropriate mission statement and preserves the status quo. In contrast, striking them

would send a terrible message. Cutting these words out of the bill implies that these are not worthy management goals.

In effect, this amendment suggests that the BLM should no longer ``conserve, protect or restore'' places like the Canyons of the Ancients or the Vermillion Cliffs.

Cutting these words out of the bill suggests that the Grand Canyon Parashant and the Sonoran Desert are no longer ``nationally significant'' and no longer include ``outstanding values.''

Cutting these words out of the bill suggests that ``providing benefits for future generations'' is no longer a worthy goal of the BLM to pursue at Colorado Canyons or Santa Rosa and San Jacinto.

The language this amendment would strike is not a secret attempt to create a new management standard. Rather, it is simply a restatement of the way these lands are already being managed according to mandates already approved by Congress.

The gentleman may not like it. He may even be surprised to learn it, but these words are accurate reinstatements of BLM's existing conservation mandate. Striking them is an attempt to strike at the heart of that mandate, and it must be defeated.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment for the same reasons I opposed the previous amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah.

Like the previous attempt to strike the purposes of this bill, this amendment would strike language instructing the BLM to continue managing these BLM conservation units in a ``manner that protects the values for which the components of the system were designated.''

Mr. Bishop argues he simply does not understand what this term means, and he worries that the BLM doesn't know what it means either. Let me assure Members that this is not a new standard and that the BLM clearly understands what it means to manage land and to protect its values. In fact, they have been doing so for years.

I have here at least 10 instances in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 in which the term ``values'' is used. Not only does it appear in the declaration of policy section of that law, it actually appears in the definition of the term ``multiple use.''

If that is not clear enough, most, if not all, of the laws or proclamations creating the individual units of the NLCS refer to the ``values'' to be protected.

I have three examples. There are many more, but we have selected three because they were approved by majority-Republican Congresses. The Black Canyon of Gunnison and Santa Rosa National Monuments and the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area, all units of the NLCS, all mention ``values'' in their enabling legislation.

The section this amendment would strike is an accurate reflection of the current management standards applied to these lands. To strike it would be to downgrade these conservation areas.

For a better understanding of what this standard means, I would encourage all of my colleagues to read the law, rather than simply trying to disregard language with which they are not familiar. The amendment needs to be defeated.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me read from the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976: ``the public lands to be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values.'' I repeat, this is not new language. This is language which has been part of the management of these units from its inception.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

At this point, not necessarily.

As we have mentioned, H.R. 2016 already contains an extensive savings clause which makes absolutely clear that the simple act of writing the NLCS into statute will not change the way individual units are managed.

The inclusion of this savings clause should relieve Members of the need to come to the floor today and further amend the bill to enumerate each and every possible use of public lands for specific mention in the legislation.

The underlying bill already makes plain the fact that energy development, along with other authorized uses of these lands, will continue in those areas where they are currently allowed, even after H.R. 2016 is enacted.

Apparently, this broad savings clause is not plain enough. This amendment would single out energy production for special mention as one of those uses not impacted by the bill.

From the standpoint of writing clean, clear legislation that avoids redundancy and needless repetition, I oppose the amendment.

However, if this language provides an extra level of assurance and comfort for some Members, this amendment does not really change the bill, and I am prepared to accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Grazing is obviously allowed in the units of the NLCS where it is appropriate, and nothing in this legislation would change that. The savings clause makes that fact as clear as it could possibly be. The underlying bill makes no changes to existing grazing rights.

Were this amendment written simply as an extension of the savings clause, as many other amendments offered today have been, it would be unnecessary, but not harmful to the bill. This amendment goes much, much further, however. It is not as simple as a savings clause specific to grazing. Rather, this amendment would operate to prohibit the BLM from maintaining current standards, dictating the location and the management of grazing on these lands.

This amendment goes beyond simply saying that nothing in this act shall impact grazing, to say that the presence of these areas in the NLCS cannot affect the operation of grazing. Talk about an invitation to litigation.

Does this mean the BLM would lose the authority to manage grazing on 800 or so units in the system?

Does this mean that those NLCS units where grazing is not allowed under current law would have to be opened up, whether it was appropriate or not?

The Pearce amendment could operate to force grazing into sensitive conservation areas where it is currently prohibited, and for good reason. Arguably, this amendment's an attempt to use this simple authorization bill to undermine provisions of existing grazing law that have been on the books for years.

If the gentleman from New Mexico wants to make sweeping amendments to the grazing law, he should do so directly, not by means of an amendment on this bill.

I urge the defeat of this amendment and reserve the balance of my time.

We reserve our time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, these are not tired excuses. I think my attempt has been an exercise in trying to drill the facts of the legislation into those that don't want to hear it.

The underlying bill makes no change to existing law regarding grazing. The amendment, in contrast, could be interpreted as expanding existing grazing into areas where it is not appropriate. We tried to work with the gentleman from New Mexico to draft his amendment more clearly, but because this amendment is unacceptably broad, it must be defeated.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Thank you very much.

I am very well aware of the efforts made by you and the rest of the Oregon delegation to create one of the most unique pieces of Federal land management legislation in the Steens Act. You sought a balance of land protection, multiple historic uses, citizen involvement, and the creation of the first grazing-free wilderness in the country.

I can clearly state to you that H.R. 2016 will not in any way supersede, undermine or be used as a reason to change any of the purposes established in section 1(b) or the objectives established in section 102(b) of the Steens Act, Public Law 106-399.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1317 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during the consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1317.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1317 provides for consideration of H.R. 1286, the Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail Designation Act, under a structured rule.

The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

The rule makes in order two germane Republican amendments that were submitted for consideration and are printed in the Rules Committee report.

The rule also provides for the adoption of a germane Rules Committee amendment printed in part A of the Rules Committee report to clarify that the bill does not in any way limit access for hunting, fishing, trapping, or recreational shooting along the trail.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI.

And, finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, the bill before us today, H.R. 1286, amends the National Trails System Act to designate the Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail.

The trail extends approximately 600 miles, spanning nine States and the District of Columbia, tracing the routes taken by the armies under the command of General George Washington and French Count Rochambeau on their march from Newport, Rhode Island, to face the British forces under General Cornwallis at Yorktown, Virginia.

After meeting in Philipsburg, New York, the combined armies traveled through New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and the future District of Columbia before arriving in Virginia.

With a French fleet blocking the Chesapeake, barring British reinforcements from New York or a sea escape for Cornwallis' troops, the combined Continental and French armies' 3-week siege at Yorktown ended with General Cornwallis' surrender to General Washington on October 19, 1781.

Historians regard the Battle of Yorktown as one of the most decisive events in bringing an end to the American Revolution and the beginning of a new and independent Nation known as America.

H.R. 1286 is the carefully considered result of years of study by the National Park Service, which found that the trail is suitable and feasible for designation as a national historic trail.

I would add that H.R. 1286 includes specific language protecting private property rights, prohibiting the Federal Government from acquiring any land or interest in land without the consent of the owner.

In fact, the Park Service study found that ``no Federal acquisition of lands or interests in lands is proposed or anticipated.''

H.R. 1286 also states that nothing shall prohibit or hinder the development, conveyance, or transmission of energy along the trail.

Finally, there is a Rules Committee amendment to the bill that would clarify that Federal designation of the trail has no impact on State and local laws governing hunting, fishing, or trapping, or recreational shooting. This language is nearly identical to language that has already overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives.

I would like to commend Chairman Rahall and Mr. Hinchey for bringing this widely supported legislation to the floor today so we can ensure that America's history is protected for future generations.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, my good friend, my colleague from Washington State, has once again leveled a litany of accusations and, as usual, the rhetoric does not equate with the reality that we see.

Let's take the attacks one by one. There were a total of five amendments submitted to this rule, all by Republicans. Three amendments were submitted by Mr. Bishop of Utah, one by Mr. Flake of Arizona, and one by Mr. Pearce of New Mexico. Two amendments were made in order, Bishop No. 1 and Pearce No. 4. Two amendments were not germane to the bill and ruled out of order by the Parliamentarian, Bishop No. 3 and Flake No. 5. The subject matter contained in amendment No. 2 by Representative Bishop was already being addressed by a self-executing provision in the rule which was based on language previously adopted in this House by a vote of 416-5, rollcall vote 171, with all Republicans, including my good friend from Washington, voting in favor of the amendment.

Let me take this opportunity to clear up what must be a further misunderstanding on the part of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

Contrary to what my good friend, the gentleman from Washington, would have us believe, the amendment was not the modified Bishop amendment. And I can assure you that the Rules Committee did not hijack any portion of the amendment submitted by our good friend and former member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop). The provision in the rule was based on language passed on April 9, 2008 during consideration of H.R. 2016, the National Landscape Conservation System Act, and it was done to address a concern that a number of Members had about the bill. The amendment was offered by Mr. Altmire of Pennsylvania, was adopted with an overwhelming rollcall vote, as I said before, with every Republican voting in favor of the amendment. If you don't take my word for it, I would be happy to share the Rules Committee report from that bill, which contains the text of the amendment. And I have copies of the section of the Congressional Record that contain the debate and the vote on the Altmire amendment.

I also want to point out that the self-executing language in the rule is not an unusual or unprecedented procedure. It was done numerous times when the other side was in the majority, as my good friend from California (Mr. Dreier) alluded to in committee testimony on Tuesday. It's a legitimate tool available to address concerns in a bill.

The amendment that we are self-executing is nearly identical to the Altmire language. The Rules Committee believes that this language improves the bill. And it is entirely reasonable to self-execute language with a track record of overwhelming bipartisan support in the House. Those Members who don't like the language are perfectly able to vote against the rule.

Now the question of gas prices. Certainly this is an important issue that has been addressed by this House a number of times. We have seen oil climb to record $145 a barrel, and we have also seen big oil companies continue to post record profits. Let's go over a few of the points that have happened in the past years.

The President signed into law legislation including landmark provisions to make cars and trucks more fuel efficient and to promote more affordable American biofuels. That all happened because we passed it in this House and provided leadership on this. The new fuel standards will reduce our oil consumption by 1.1 million barrels a day in 2020, one-half of the current U.S. imports from the Persian Gulf, and will save American families $700 to $1,000 per year at the pump.

The House also passed legislation to suspend the filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And just this week, the Speaker called on the President to unilaterally start releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to try and bring down the cost of oil on the world market, a very responsible proposal.

We have also voted to invest in home-grown American biofuels in the farm bill. We voted to provide tax incentives for renewable energies and energy efficiency and plug-in vehicles, and creating hundreds and thousands of green jobs. We further voted to reduce public transit fares for commuters pinched by the pump. We voted to crack down on oil price gouging, and in fact we're looking into more of that. We've directed the CFTC to use its full authority to curtail excessive speculation in the markets and other practices which may be distorting the energy market. In fact, the Ag Committee, as we speak, is meeting to look into this matter and plans another hearing tomorrow. We have voted to hold OPEC accountable for oil price fixing, and we have called on the repeal of subsidies to profit-rich Big Oil so we can invest in renewable energy futures.

Further, I think it's important for us, as Members, to look at who, in fact, is moving to block the lowering of our prices at the pump. A general blanket statement that we can make, that I have observed, is you put oil people in the White House and you can expect oil prices to go up. President Bush and Republicans have blocked virtually every step that we have tried to make to lower gas prices for the American people. Some of these steps have been:

Cracking down on oil price gouging, which was opposed by 140 Republicans the first time and 145 Republicans the second time, including all the Republican leadership.

The Democrats in the House proposed ``use it or lose it'' for oil companies holding permits and not drilling. There are 68 million acres that are available for lease right now and to be drilled upon. That use-it-or-lose-it provision that was sponsored by House Democrats was opposed by 176 Republicans.

The motion to hold OPEC accountable was opposed by 67 Republicans the first time and by 82 Republicans the second time, including most of the Republican leadership.

The proposal repealing subsidies to profit-rich oil companies and investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency was opposed by 174 Republicans, including every member of the Republican leadership.

Increasing Commodity Futures Trading Commission oversight authority to prevent manipulation of energy prices, which was in the farm bill, was opposed by 94 Republicans.

The Bush administration has vetoed or threatened to veto each and every one of these price control bills.

In addition, the Republicans have initially opposed suspending the Strategic Oil Petroleum Reserve. And while the President signed it into law, it was only after issuing veto threats.

The President vetoed the farm bill twice, which included the CFTC provisions and the historic investment in American biofuels.

I mention all these in the context of my good friend from Washington bringing up that Mr. Clinton vetoed in 1995 a bill that was put forward on energy. The Republican Party in this House is

still blaming President Clinton for problems 13 years after the fact when they have been in control of this House and the Presidency for the last 7\1/2\ years for the Presidency and almost 14 for this House before we took over in 2006. I think it's time for us to understand who truly has culpability with this energy crisis that is at hand today.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would love to point out to the gentleman that there were a number of self-executing provisions put into bills while the current minority was in the majority in the 109th Congress. There were a total of 44 rules with self-executing provisions.

Let me read just a few examples of the self-executing rules that the Republicans did when they were in the majority just to show that this is not a unique practice:

H. Res. 75, the rule on H.R. 418, the REAL ID bill, self-executed major changes in the bill to gain votes on the bill and the rule.

H. Res. 151, the rule for an Iraq/Afghanistan/tsunami relief bill, self-executed the totally unrelated REAL ID bill to the supplemental after final passage.

H. Res. 248, a rule on the budget resolution conference report, self- executed a new budget point of order against appropriations bills in order to get the conservative Republicans to vote for the conference report.

H. Res. 258, a rule on the conference report on the Iraq/Afghanistan/ tsunami emergency supplemental, contained a self-executing provision that authorized the Judiciary Committee to file a supplemental report on an extremely controversial report that had grossly mischaracterized votes taking place in the Judiciary Committee markup.

H. Res. 351, one rule, provided for separate consideration of four OSHA bills, each under a closed rule, and then self-executed language for two of the bills adopting the committee-reported substitutes. The rule also had a self-executing provision that combined all four bills into one text after passage of each bill separately.

H. Res. 365, a State Department authorization rule, self-executed an amendment that struck a section of the bill.

H. Res. 369, the PATRIOT Act reauthorization rule, made in order an entirely new substitute as base text.

H. Res. 387, a China trade rights enforcement rule, self-executed a new text that was considered under a closed rule.

Madam Speaker, I would suggest that my colleagues doth protest too much.

I would reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would just like to observe once again that this Congress has approved and authorized 66 million acres for exploration and leasing throughout this country. Now, that may be hard for some folks to visualize that amount of property, so let's talk about it in something that people understand, the size of States.

Sixty-six million acres is virtually the size of New England, including New Jersey and Maryland and Delaware. That is the size of land that we have opened up to exploration. Can we do more? Possibly. Are there other alternatives? Absolutely. The Speaker this week proposed trying to bring down prices by opening up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That might actually bring down the cost of oil, and all we've gotten from the White House is a blanket ``absolutely not.''

Madam Speaker, there are a number of measures that this House has moved to try and bring down oil prices and bring relief to the American people. We started in our 6 for '06 with H.R. 6 that tried to bring down oil prices before it was ever even a crisis because we anticipated that this might be a problem. I would also suggest that it has been said that over 90 percent of the Bush-Cheney oil energy policy has been implemented by the prior 109th Congress and the Republican Congresses before that. Mr. Bush got 90 percent of what he wanted for American energy and we have this crisis. I submit to you what we need is a change at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to try and regain energy independence and with a change there we may just do that.

I will reserve the balance of my time.

We have no more speakers.

I am, Madam Speaker.

I would just like to clarify for my colleague from Washington. Once again, he sort of mischaracterized what is happening in the House of Representatives with regard to the work that we are doing to lower gas prices.

I would invite the gentleman to join me in the Ag Committee as I leave this chamber today and go to hearings that will be going on all afternoon in the Ag Committee to get to the bottom of the trading issues that might be leading to increased speculatory problems that are possibly causing increased gas prices and the hearings that we are going to have in the Ag Committee all day tomorrow with regard to the same subject. There are a number of us that will be working very hard the next 2 days to try and resolve to get to the bottom of this crisis.

Madam Speaker, I want to refer back to the bill at hand. We have gotten way far afield of what the topic was of discussion for this rule, and that is the National Trail System Act. That act was put in place 40 years ago to provide for the conservation of historic and culturally significant areas.

I think there is no more deserving historic designation than the one commemorating our Nation's struggle for independence. The bill that we are talking about deserves strong support by all Members of the floor. It's a good bill done by the Natural Resources Committee and chairman, Mr. Rahall, bringing it to the floor. I would urge that we support it heartily.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1317 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution

the House shall, without intervention of any point of order,

consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2208) to provide for a

standby loan program for certain coal-to-liquid projects. All

points of order against the bill are waived. The bill shall

be considered as read. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and any amendment thereto

to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one

hour of debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by

the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Energy

and Commerce, and the chairman and ranking member of the

Committee on Science and Technology; and (2) an amendment in

the nature of a substitute if offered by Representative

Dingell of Michigan or his designee, which shall be

considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 40

minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and

an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without

instructions.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from California (Mr. Cardoza) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, last week on July 4, our country celebrated its 232nd birthday, and this week the liberal majority in the House of Representatives marks the worst record in our country's entire history when it comes to allowing open debate, following the rules, treating each Member with respect, and acting in an honest way.

When control of the U.S. House changed a year ago last January, Democrat leaders promised, they promised, Madam Speaker, the American people that they would run the most open and honest House in history. They've not

kept that promise. In fact, they've done the exact opposite of what they promised the American people.

Democrats have passed, to date, 59 closed rules, rules that prevent every single Representative from even being allowed to offer an amendment on the House floor. There are no amendments, Madam Speaker, allowed under a closed rule, as you know. That means open deliberation is nonexistent, and the bill is just forced through the House.

These 59 closed rules are more than any Congress in the history of the United States, and every time we have a closed rule in the future, and we will, this liberal Congress will be setting a new record.

The rule that the House is currently debating allows only two amendments to be offered by just two Members of the House. It closes off any opportunity for the other 433 Representatives to come to the floor and offer an amendment to modify or improve this legislation.

Even more egregious is the fact that the Rules Committee set a deadline of 10 a.m. last Tuesday for Members to file amendments they may wish to offer on this bill. Yet, it wasn't until 4 hours later, 2 p.m. on Tuesday, that the actual bill and report were filed in the House.

But this pales in comparison to the Rules Committee action regarding an amendment that Mr. Bishop of Utah filed actually before the 10 a.m. Tuesday deadline.

Mr. Bishop's amendment was aimed at protecting the second amendment rights of Americans along the new 600-mile trail that this bill would create. Instead of allowing Mr. Bishop to offer his amendment on the House floor, the Democrat Rules Committee took Mr. Bishop's amendment, altered it, then automatically added it to the bill without ever, ever consulting Mr. Bishop. This is not only an offense to Mr. Bishop, it is a threat to every Member in the House.

Because Democrat leaders refuse to allow open debate under an open rule on the House floor, Members have only one way to get an amendment looked at, and that is for them to offer and submit an amendment to the Rules Committee for advance review.

But now, Madam Speaker, it appears that all Members must be aware that the Rules Committee may take, co-opt, edit or otherwise pilfer and steal their amendments and ideas. Sadly, Representatives of this House may need to get a copyright on their amendments before submitting them to the Rules Committee.

Now, Madam Speaker, to many across America this may seem like legislative inside baseball or petty parliamentary quarrels. But what this is really about is that the Democrat leaders are breaking their promise to the American people to run the most open and honest House in history. Instead, they are running the most closed and unfair House in our Nation's history.

Yet, Madam Speaker, these broken promises should not distract us from the even more pressing matter on which Democrat leaders have also broken their promise. It was on April 24, 2006, that then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi issued a press release claiming that the House Democrats ``have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.''

Two weeks later, in May 2006, Nancy Pelosi said that the Democrats have ``real solutions'' that would ``lower the price at the pump.''

Nancy Pelosi has now been Speaker of the House for over 18 months, and this plan, this promised plan, is nowhere to be seen. Gas prices continue to set record highs, and this House has been and continues to be blocked from voting on legislation that would lower gas prices by producing more American-made energy.

Today, instead of voting on legislation to lower gas prices, the House is debating the bill to create a new 600-mile long scenic trail recognizing the Revolutionary War.

Speaker Pelosi and other liberal leaders who control this House may oppose drilling in Alaska or offshore, they may oppose more nuclear power, they may oppose hydropower dams, and they may oppose other ways of making more American-made energy--and holding these positions, of course, is their right as Members of this House--but they should not, Madam Speaker, have the right to block the House from even having a debate and a vote on this important issue.

Record gas prices are hurting Americans. It's hurting families. It's hurting seniors on fixed incomes. It's hurting college students. It's hurting small business owners and their enterprises. It's hurting schools who have to figure out how and what services to reduce to afford gasoline for their school buses. Yet these liberal leaders of this House refuse to allow an open debate on ideas to lower gas prices. They continue to block votes on drilling for oil in America that will increase supply and lower prices at the pump.

Madam Speaker, our Nation needs to invest in more nuclear power. We need to invest in more clean and renewable hydropower, as well as wind and solar energy, and we need to foster development of biofuels, hydrogen fuel cell technology, and the invention of other potential clean energy products.

Yet, Madam Speaker, we must recognize the fact that gasoline and diesel cannot be replaced overnight. New technologies and energy sources take time, sometimes years or decades to fully develop. Our economy is dependent on oil for Americans to get to work, for food to go from the farmer's field to the grocery store, to get kids to school safely and back home, to deliver the mail, to fly airplanes, to operate construction equipment, for police to patrol neighborhoods, and ambulances to transport patients.

The price of gas has an enormous impact on the lives of Americans and families in every town, in every county, in every State in this country.

Madam Speaker, I spent last week visiting school districts and small businesses throughout my central Washington district.

I listened to the heavy impacts that gas prices are having on my constituents in Yakima, Wenatchee, Cashmere, Moses Lake, Orondo, Richland, Union Gap and Pasco. Madam Speaker, the message I heard was loud and clear, that Americans are hurting because of high gas prices and this Congress needs to act. Americans can't afford a Congress that does nothing to increase the supply of American-made energy. If there is price gouging, Madam Speaker, it must be fully prosecuted. If speculators are trying to unfairly profit, we must stop them, also. And yet we must also tap into America's enormous oil and gas reserves.

We have the resources right here in this country that can increase the supply of oil and reduce the price of gasoline at the pump, but our Nation's deep reserves have been put off-limits. With the national price of gas well over $4 a gallon--and it's over $4.29 a gallon in my district--Americans can't afford this off-limits policy any longer.

Madam Speaker, consider this: Alaska's ANWR region contains an estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil; that's more than twice the proven reserves in the State of Texas. The oceans off America's coastline contain 240 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 86 billion barrels of oil. Federal lands contain an estimated 31 billion barrels of oil. Simple economics tells us that the way to combat rising prices due to high demand is to increase the supply, and obviously it is to tap into these known resources. Yet proposals to increase American oil and gas production have faced years of opposition. Drilling in a tiny portion of ANWR in Alaska, for example, has been blocked since President Bill Clinton vetoed a like proposal back in 1995, and we are now paying the price.

It's time to stop saying no to solutions and start saying yes, not only to drilling for gas and oil, but to all parts of the answer, as I mentioned this previously, so let me repeat what I said earlier.

We need to license and build more American refineries. We need to expand wind, solar, hydrogen fuel cells and other new energy sources, reduce fuel blend mandates that increase costs, and invest more in nuclear and hydropower.

Now, Madam Speaker, it's interesting, some say we shouldn't bother because all of this will take years to produce results. Yet these same people claim that the answer is new Federal mandates, government control of the kind of car you want to drive and how far you can drive it, and pinning everything on the hope that a new technology breakthrough will eliminate

our dependence on oil. But Madam Speaker, that, too, takes time. But more importantly, such a course of action is not the American way, and it's a dangerous gamble that puts our economy at serious risk. We need to increase the supply of oil to decrease the price of gasoline, it's as simple as that. And we need to do it here in America. The longer we postpone producing more oil here, the longer we will pay higher gas prices.

Americans are hurting, and yet there is not a single solitary piece of legislation that this House will consider this entire week that even remotely relates to producing more American-made energy and lowering gas prices.

Americans are feeling the pain, and the liberal leaders of the House simply are not listening. They not only do nothing to help, but they block every attempt made to bring legislation to the floor that would help lower gas prices.

So, Madam Speaker, once again, I will attempt this morning to bring energy legislation to the House floor for debate and vote. If my colleagues will join me in defeating the previous question, I will move to amend the rule to allow a debate and vote on legislation that will help produce more American-made energy. The House apparently has time to debate the creation of the 600-mile trail about the Revolutionary War, so let's make time for the House to vote on solutions to lower gas prices.

Madam Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, my good friend from California mentioned CAFE standards as one solution to the problem. CAFE standards, by a law that was passed here, would not take place until 2020. We can drill and produce in ANWR before 2020.

My friend also said that I made a litany of accusations and that the facts don't match the rhetoric. Well, the fact is--and he didn't refute the fact--that we've had 59 closed rules, and that is unrefutable. And I also mentioned that there was not an energy bill on the floor of the House this week; that is also irrefutable.

Madam Speaker, I want to yield 4 minutes to a good friend from Utah, a former member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Bishop.

Madam Speaker, we acknowledge that there is a practice of self-executing rules. That's been done. Principally they are done, however, on technical grounds but admittedly they are done on substantive pieces of legislation. But the fact is already in this Congress there have been more self-executed amendments by this Democrat Rules Committee than there was in the entire last Congress. Already. And we still have 6 months to go before this session is over.

With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to my friend from California, the gentleman from

the Sacramento area, the former attorney general, Mr. Lungren.

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Madam Speaker, can I inquire of my friend from California if he has any more speakers, or he is prepared to close?

The gentleman is prepared to close if I close?

With that, Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it's time for the House to debate ideas for lowering gas prices. By defeating the previous question, I will move to amend the rule to allow the House to consider a bill that will help produce more American-made energy, H.R. 2208, introduced by Mr. Boucher of Virginia and Mr. Shimkus of Illinois, the cosponsors of that bill.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted in the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, this House is on a course to complete its work by early this afternoon. The only legislation the House is even considering is this bill to consider a 600-mile scenic trail about the Revolutionary War. Tomorrow, the House won't even be in session. The House was originally scheduled to be in session, working tomorrow, but that was canceled yesterday.

The Democrat leaders of this House are choosing to do nothing for a day and a half, today and tomorrow, that was scheduled, and of course, do nothing about gas prices. They decided to just stop working and go home early rather than vote on legislation to lower gas prices by producing more American-made energy.

The House needs to confront the skyrocketing price of gasoline. It shouldn't be clocking out early and calling it a week. It's time right now for Congress to act on gas prices.

So, once again, Madam Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can amend the rule to take up serious legislation, bipartisan legislation, to bring down gas prices at the pump.

With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the Record portions of an article from the Tucson Weekly that was published on February 15, 2007.

Following the Amnesty Trail

Leo W. Banks follows one of Arizona's most popular illegal

alien crossing routes

and finds piles of garbage trampled public lands, angry

residents and the suspected presence of a vicious gang.

In the coming weeks, as President Bush and the Democrat-

controlled Congress take up immigration reform, and the

political talk turns to amnesty, everyone living along border

smuggling routes will hunker down to wait for the worst. They

know their lives will get miserable in a hurry.

The word amnesty possesses remarkable power on the Mexican

side of the line. It has the same effect as a starter's

pistol.

Bang! Let the land rush begin.

It happened after Jan. 7. 2004. when Bush floated his idea

for a temporary worker program. The idea was broadly viewed

in Mexico as amnesty, and the Border Patrol's own survey

proved it. In the weeks following the proposal, the agency

quietly questioned crossers apprehended at the southern

border and found the president's plan had caused a big spike

in illegal crossings. Forty-five percent said they'd entered

our country ``to get Bush's amnesty.''

Nowhere will the coming stampede be more evident than on

the smuggling routes that begin at the border at Sasabe, 65

miles southwest of Tucson, curl up through the Altar Valley

and continue all the way to the Ironwood Forest National

Monument, a full 75 miles north of the border.

The 129,000-acre Ironwood, located west of Marana and south

of Eloy, is a desert paradise of giant saguaros and spooky

black-rock peaks worthy of a gothic novel. President Bill

Clinton declared it a Federal monument in June 2000.

But the smugglers have turned this signature Arizona

landscape into a criminals' playground. The land here is

crisscrossed with trails so packed from use, they shine white

under the sun. Another Monument resident, Cindy Coping, uses

Google Earth to zoom in on the Amnesty Trail, which comes up

clear as a bell on her monitor.

What's it like to live here?

If you're out on the land a lot, expect to find the corpses

of those who've made the terrible decision to cross this

desert. Including the three murders last week, seven bodies

were found on the Ironwood in the three months prior to this

writing.

One photo, taken sometime in 2000 by my anonymous

photographer, shows the skull of a presumed illegal, with

other human bones in the foreground. Next to the skull, not

pictured, stands a saguaro-rib cross, probably built by

companions after the deceased went down.

For those trying to keep cattle on their land, the

smugglers have made living in the Ironwood a nightmare. At

this writing, rancher Emilio Figueroa says he has 18 head of

cattle, valued at $800 each, on Tohono O'odham land

immediately west of the monument. They got out when coyotes

cut his fence. Now the tribe is refusing to let him onto

Indian land to retrieve them. He's out $14,000.

For Cindy's husband, Bob, a 58-year-old retired Raytheon

engineer, one of the defining aspects of life on the Ironwood

is a particular sound he can hear, literally, a mile away.

``I'll be out working and I'll hear, `wappa-wappa-wappa', and

I know it's a load-out truck coming down the road with a flat

tire,'' he says.

The smugglers keep driving on the flat until the rubber

flies off. Even then, they don't stop. They keep driving on

the tire's rim until that, too, falls off or disintegrates.

Sometimes the drive train falls out first.

These smuggler vehicles, most stolen from Phoenix, often

travel at night without headlights, with tape over the brake

lights, and they've been clocked tearing through the

monument's dirt roads at 89 mph. This endangers the lives of

residents and visitors alike.

It also ensures that many of these load vehicles--such as

the tan truck pictured--never make it out of the monument.

They smash into trees and saguaros, or run into ditches. The

BLM has towed 300 vehicles a year out of the monument since

2000.

These load-outs, as well as the constant foot traffic,

destroy habitat and threaten cultural sites and endangered

species. The trash left behind requires pickup crews to have

biohazard training and armed guards watching them as they

work.

Even worse, Vic Brown says that MS-13, the notoriously

vicious Salvadoran gang, might be operating on the monument,

based on suspicious tattoos law enforcement has seen on

smugglers arrested there. The Border Patrol's public

information office in Tucson wouldn't return a call to talk

about MS-13 in the monument.

Says Vic Brown: ``We're trying to maintain some semblance

of a national monument out there, and to be quite honest,

we're not able to do it, because undocumented immigrants have

targeted the area. I've watched it degrade from when I got

there in 1992, and in the last 5 years, it has gotten

progressively worse.''

The Copings bought their land here in 1995, and since then,

they've been eyewitnesses to the explosion of the smuggling

trade. In the mid-'90s. it was mainly small family groups

that crossed at Sasabe and walked the 75 miles north to the

monument, then an additional 18-20 miles to their pickup at

Eloy. They rarely used coyotes.

In 2000, the Copings began seeing vehicles, often Ford F-

150 pickups, parked at the side of the road. They usually had

dark windows, no license plates and the keys resting on a

tire. The illegals would drive themselves out to I-10, then

Phoenix.

The abandoned-truck phase gave way in about 2003 to the

huge load-out phase. The Copings began seeing SUVs with five

to eight illegals sitting on the roof, as Bob says, ``like

wasted college students,'' or on the hood, forming a narrow

tunnel through which the driver can see.

Some of these illegals have told the Copings they already

had jobs lined up in places such as North Carolina, and

curried plane tickets out of Sky Harbor in Phoenix.

Cell phones revolutionized the smuggling racket, allowing

illegals to call ahead to arrange a pickup in the Ironwood,

often eliminating the longer walk to Eloy. Independent

walkers are gone now. ``Everybody we see now is somebody's

customer,'' says Bob.

The business has become sophisticated, commercial and very

dangerous. Cindy, 50, a former engineer at Hughes, used to

check fences alone on horseback, but she quit, afraid of what

she might encounter. ``Sometimes I'll be at the house alone,

and 20 illegals will walk down the road,'' she says. ``It's

intimidating. They sound like an army marching.''

Bob says the number of load-outs in the Ironwood increased

last spring before and after demonstrators took to the

streets in Tucson and elsewhere to demand a rewrite of

American law to accommodate illegal aliens and their

corporate partners. The atmosphere, including talk of

amnesty, created an explosion in traffic. In April, the

Copings counted eight load-outs in one day.

When the National Guard was sent to the border, the free-

for-all ended abruptly, if briefly. ``We saw helicopters

overhead, military-type aircraft, and we didn't a see a load-

out for two weeks,'' Bob says. ``The traffic probably dropped

90 percent.''

But the numbers have risen again significantly, and in

recent e-mails, the Copings have told me the big load-outs

have returned with a vengeance. Cindy's e-mails have the

tension and immediacy of dispatches written from a war zone--

because, in fact, she and Bob live in one.

Last Thursday, three illegals were murdered in the

Ironwood. Cindy and Bob learned of the trouble when a male

illegal came to their house, his thigh covered in blood,

evidently splatter from someone else's wound. In rapid

Spanish, he repeated words like, ``Pow! Pow!'' and ``911''

and ``muerta'' and ``mujer,'' while gesturing of blood

pouring from someone's chest. Cindy grubbed her medical kit,

and she and Bob and this man jumped into a pickup and raced

to the scene.

Here is what she wrote next:

``I called 911 and attended to the woman, who was shot in

the shoulder with a bullet wound coming out that soft spot at

the bottom of her throat. The 911 dispatcher was

simultaneously responding to a similar call from the Asarco

Silverbell Mine, which is about a 10-mile drive south. As

soon as I could see the woman was in stable condition. I

crossed the street and assessed the motionless man on the

other side.

``I felt no pulse on his still-warm throat. His eyes were

closed. I grubbed his wrist, and it cold. Then I saw the back

of his head was shot open. He was gone. There was no bleeding

at the scene, so I assume this shooting took place earlier,

and these four people were unloaded.

``The woman, Sebastiana, whom I later found out is 24 years

old, began shivering in the morning's chill. I found no signs

of continued bleeding. Her wound had been hurriedly dressed

with someone's cotton coat stuffed up under her shirt. It was

a gaping 2-inch-wide gash between the two bullet holes, but

it had stopped bleeding. She was alert and breathing, even

able to talk. She had a smaller wound to her abdomen. I

elevated her feet, and Bob made two trips back to the house

for wool blankets to keep her warm.

``A younger (undocumented) woman, Linda, at the scene had

blood covering her cheek and circling one eye. She indicated

no pain, so this was perhaps someone else's blood. She

indicated that something had grazed her face, possibly a

bullet. In the dark, it appeared she'd been punched in the

eye, but after it got light. I could see it was just dried

blood on her face. The first official to arrive on scene was

a Pima County deputy who told us that someone had walked into

Asarco with four fingers shot off.''

The e-maiI goes on. It ends with Cindy and Bob retreating

to their house and locking the gate, another case of Arizona

citizens sealing themselves off from the horrors this

invasion has brought to our state.

But heartrending encounters are not unusual in the

Ironwood. In November, a man in his mid-50s showed up at the

Copings' corrals and said he'd been drinking his urine for

four days. Cindy made him macaroni and cheese and watched him

gobble it down. As he ate, he broke down in retching sobs.

The man said he owned a small farm with 70 pigs in Colima,

Mexico, and had seven sons living in Phoenix. Breaking her

rule of not allowing strays to use the phone, Cindy allowed

him to call them to pick him up. He waited and waited, but no

one in his family came for him.

That night, he slept in the bed of one of the pickups. In

the morning, he gave Cindy several necklaces--depicting

Jesus, the Virgin of Guadalupe and other images--then left,

and Cindy isn't sure in which direction he went. She never

called the Border Patrol to pick him up.

``They usually don't come if it's one or two strays,'' she

says. ``But mostly I didn't have the heart. I couldn't do it

after all he'd been through.''

Cindy figures she and Bob have made six such ``rescues''

over the years, She has no

choice. ``If I don't help them, they'll die,'' she says.

``We're 75 miles from the border, No one gets here without

walking, at least three days, and it's another 20-mile walk

out.''

But living in the Ironwood presents other tough choices.

In 1997, as a precaution, Cindy got shots to immunize her

from contact with hepatitis A. At the time, she was working

with Pima County Search and Rescue, and that agency

recommended that its personnel get immunized for the more

worrisome, and potentially fatal, hepatitis B. It is spread

through contact with the blood of an infected person, and

Cindy has had contact with bleeding Third World people.

She hasn't gotten the second shot yet. ``If I were taking

the best care of myself. I'd get the B shot, too,'' says

Cindy. ``I probably still will.''

It's easy to understand her anxiety, and her belief that

she is on her own against this invasion--because, in spite of

what she calls the dedicated Border Patrol agents on the

ground, Cindy knows that the American government has neither

the will nor desire to control this border.

The same year she got the shots, a Border Patrol agent told

Cindy that while traveling in Guatemala, he walked by a

travel agency in Guatemala City and saw in its front window a

map showing the 1,800-mile route to the United States--with

her little house in the Ironwood as a landmark.

But Cindy just shrugged at that disturbing news. After so

many years of living on the Amnesty Trail, she's no longer

capable of surprise.