Upper Mississippi River Basin Protection Act

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1192 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1192.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

House Resolution 1192 provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 3644, the Ocean, Coastal and Watershed Education Act, with 1 hour of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

The rule makes in order the amendment in the nature of a substitute that is printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules, if offered by Representative Capps of California or her designee, which shall be separately debatable for 20 minutes. The rule also makes in order the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules, if offered by Representative Flake or his designee, which shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes.

The rule also provides for consideration of another bill, H.R. 1612, the Public Lands Service Corps Act of 2009, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

The rule makes in order the further amendments printed in part C of the report of the Committee on Rules, each of which may be offered only by a Member designated in the report and shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes.

Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit for both H.R. 3644 and H.R. 1612.

I think this is a very fair rule. The rule provides for consideration of two bills under a structured rule. For H.R. 3644, two of the three amendments that were submitted to the House Rules Committee are made in order, including one Republican amendment and one Democratic amendment. For H.R. 1612, two of the six amendments submitted were made in order, both of which are Republican amendments. So for both of the bills combined, three out of the four amendments that are made in order under this rule are sponsored by Republicans.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying bills, the Ocean, Coastal and Watershed Education Act and the Public Land Service Corps Act. The programs within both of these bills benefit districts all across our Nation, from Florida to Alaska, Texas to Minnesota and Colorado. So it is no surprise that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle across the country support these programs.

I would like to thank Chairman Rahall for his leadership on this important issue and my colleagues, Representatives Capps and Grijalva, for their hard work on these bills.

Madam Speaker, we have before us two excellent pieces of legislation, one which would expand and reinvigorate an existing program, the Public Land Corps, by streamlining its management, modernizing its scope and providing new tools to help the program accomplish its mission, and another bill which would expand two National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration grant programs that are aimed at enhancing environmental education related to water resources upon which economic development and human health depend.

H.R. 1612 will help repair and restore our Nation's public lands while employing and training thousands of young Americans and promoting a culture of public service.

This legislation will help provide real employment and training to young people who need it, particularly in a recession, while improving the condition of our priceless natural and cultural resources. We live in a time when environmental science education is just as critical for a healthy environment as land conservation or wildlife protection. Our citizens are empowered by being informed and educated enough to make important decisions in their own daily lives about environmental issues based on sometimes complicated scientific evidence. We need to supply our children and the next generation across our country with enough scientific knowledge to tackle the environmental challenges that they will face in the coming years and to make educated choices as consumers.

This bill also takes a decisive step forward in finishing desperately needed work on our national park lands, forests, wildlife refuges and historic sites. As I have said previously, protecting and maintaining our public lands is one of the most important duties that we have as citizens. I was lucky enough to grow up in Boulder, Colorado, hiking in Mount Sanitas, as I did just last weekend when I was back, the Flat Irons and Flagstaff Mountain. If we don't defend America's truly great public lands, we run the risk of being the last generation to enjoy them.

America and Colorado are really defined by our natural character. America is beautiful and needs our help to remain so. We must not let our ``spacious skies,'' our ``amber waves of grain'' and our ``purple mountains majesty'' become nothing more than forgotten lines in a song.

The bill recognizes the importance, as well, of our coastal and marine systems and our national marine sanctuaries. Those previously have not been eligible for Public Land Corps projects but are just as worthy and just as important a part of our national heritage for those who reside on the coast.

While Members of this body as well as the American public review the historic health care reform bill we will be taking up in the next few days, we have the opportunity to consider this vital program that has bipartisan support providing our youth the education and experience they will need to find meaningful employment while gaining civic pride, scientific education and personal responsibility while maintaining and improving our public lands and National Park System.

This program will invest in our young people, reduce youth unemployment, and prepare young people for a lifetime of work experiences. At the same time youth will be repairing and restoring our National Park System and preserving it for the next generation, we also are able to whittle away at the massive backlog of work that has doubled over the last decade to levels around the $10 billion mark of backlog work that needs to be done. The National Park System has been called America's best idea, and it is past time we give our best attention and respect to the National Park System that it deserves.

Preparing our park system for future generations and preparing young people to face the scientific and environmental challenges that are only beginning to come to fruition is an undertaking of great national importance.

H.R. 3644, the Ocean, Coastal and Watershed Education Act, formally codifies and authorizes two existing programs that have already made great strides in expanding ocean, atmospheric, and environmental literacy in the United States. These programs, the Bay-Watershed Education and Training, which we call B-WET, and the Environmental Literacy Grant, ELG, program deserve Federal recognition and funding for their good work providing educational opportunities from kindergarten all the way through 12th grade.

This legislation gives us an opportunity to consider these vital programs, programs which provide our youth the education and experience that they will need to find meaningful employment in advancing our Nation's progress in science, technology, engineering and math to help keep America globally competitive.

H.R. 3644 codifies two existing environmental education grant programs that were established through the annual appropriations process and are administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Over the past 7 years, these two NOAA education programs have been essential towards advancing ocean and environmental education in the United States. Both programs are very popular in the education community, and in fact, requests for environmental literacy grants are 10 times greater than the appropriated funding levels can support.

Since 2002 and 2005, respectively, the B-WET and ELG programs have connected school children from kindergarten all the way through high school with their ocean and coastal environments. These programs help school children learn about the effects that everyday actions they take have on the environment.

Let's make no mistake about it. Our society is faced with a fundamental lack of scientific understanding, where special interests on all sides frequently undermine the vast scientific consensus on key issues simply by flashy public relations campaigns. We need to make sure that our country is the world leader in innovation and science in order to ensure that our country can overcome new challenges and protect its public health and natural wonders.

In addition to my time growing up in Colorado, I also spent a lot of time in San Diego growing up where the community is as physically, emotionally and economically tied to the ocean and coast as Colorado is to its mountains. Regardless of where someone lives in our great and vast country, whether it's the plains, the mountains, the forests, the coasts or the tundra, our Nation's public spaces, wildlife and environmental health are truly our greatest national treasures, an important part of our national character and who we are. And these pieces of legislation go a long way in our effort to protect them.

I reserve the balance of my time.

There will be, and I certainly look forward to joining my colleague from Florida, a debate this weekend on the health care bill.

I am glad to see, on issues of our national parks and oceans, we are able to come together. And there are certainly other issues where Members of the body don't agree, but there will be a debate and there will be a rule proposed for that debate. I personally believe there should be several hours of debate, and I am hopeful that there will be 2 or 3 or more hours, which would then give Members on both sides who desire to present their positions the ability to do that.

I do take some issue with the characterization that there has not been a vetting of these issues involved. There have been, over the past year, dozens of hearings, even, very recently, a bipartisan summit that the President convened on health care. There have been many ideas and amendments from both sides of the aisle that have been incorporated into the bill that our committee will be doing a hearing on tomorrow and referring, for consideration of the House as a whole, a rule to consider that important piece of legislation.

Both of these bills that we have before us today under this rule are supported by national, regional, State, and local advocates. They are supported by leaders in education, environment, conservationists, service communities, and business communities.

Through passage of these bills, we are able to bring together the desire of this Congress of a meaningful impact on creating jobs for young people, training for young people to occupy the jobs of the future, and doing some lasting good in preserving the historic character of our open spaces.

The B-WET and ELG programs are exactly the kind of innovative learning that we need to cultivate an environmentally minded workforce that can compete in the increasingly green economy of the future. By teaching our children not only to enjoy but also appreciate the value and effect of our endangered national treasures, we can truly create a workforce, a community, and a society that values our environment and our national heritage and in which the environment and economy are increasingly intertwined.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no additional speakers.

Madam Speaker, I have here a letter which I will quote, in part, and then submit from a number of environmental groups under the auspices of the Campaign for Environmental Literacy, a group that I have also had the opportunity to work with on education legislation. What I would like to read is a paragraph that describes ELG and B-WET's contributions to our country.

``The ELG program enables NOAA, as the Nation's leading expert on weather, climate, and ocean information, to partner with the Nation's top nonprofit organizations and educators to put this information to good use.'' ELG funds will allow ``the American Association for the Advancement of Science to update climate education standards that are used to guide science education in classrooms and across the country to reflect state-of-the-art science.''

``The B-WET grants programs support environmental education which promotes locally relevant, experiential learning in the K-12 environment.''

I submit the entirety of the letter for inclusion in the Record.

Campaign for Environmental

Literacy,

Mar. 18, 2010.

Hon. Lois Capps,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Capps: We write to you to indicate our

strong support for passage of the Ocean, Coastal, and

Watershed Education Act (H.R. 3644). This bill authorizes and

strengthens the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration's existing Bay-Watershed Education and

Training (B-WET) and Environmental Literacy Grants (ELG)

programs.

Over the past seven years, these two NOAA education

programs have been essential to advancing ocean, atmospheric,

and environmental literacy in the United States, a major goal

of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy Report and the U.S.

Ocean Action Plan. They have been well received by the ocean

and environmental literacy communities, and in fact, ELG

requests for proposals have been oversubscribed by a factor

of 10.

The ELG program enables NOAA, as the nation's leading

expert on weather, climate and ocean information, to partner

with the nation's top non-profit organizations and educators

to put this information to good use. For example, these

grants have enabled more than 20 million people to gain

access to compelling up-to-date weather, climate and ocean

information through the Science on a Sphere and Ocean Today

Kiosk from Alaska to Hawaii to California to Massachusetts.

ELG funds have also allowed the American Association for the

Advancement of Science (AAAS) to update climate education

standards that are used to guide science education in

classrooms around the country to reflect state-of-the-art

climate science. In addition, ELG grants to the National

Science Teachers Association have given thousands of teachers

access to the most accurate scientific information on

climate, corals and hurricanes.

The B-WET grants programs support environmental education

which promotes locally relevant, experiential learning in the

K-12 environment. A fundamental goal of the programs are to

demonstrate how the quality of the watershed affects the

lives of the people who live in it. B-WET programs have now

expanded to include the Chesapeake Bay, California, Hawaii,

Pacific Northwest, Gulf of Mexico and New England, and this

bill will add five new regions as well. B-WET awards to state

and local education organizations have provided opportunities

to over 125,000 students and 6,200 teachers in 2008 alone.

It is important to now establish these programs in law,

consistent with the education mandates provided to NOAA in

both the America COMPETES Act (PL 110-69, Sec. 4002) and the

Omnibus Public Land Management Act (PL 111-11, Sec. 12304).

They are vital to NOAA's ability to execute the educational

function of its mission. They have demonstrated their

effectiveness, as well as their value to stakeholder

communities. And as our nation begins to grapple with the

complexities and challenges of a changing climate (and ocean

and landscape), they are timely and highly relevant.

Thank you for your consideration of this request. For

questions about this letter, please contact James Elder,

Campaign for Environmental Literacy (978-526-7768,

[email protected]).

Sincerely,

National Organizations

American Fisheries Society (Gus Rassam, Executive

Director);

American Fly Fishing Trade Association (Gary Berlin,

President);

American Forest Foundation (Tom Martin, President);

American Hiking Society (Gregory A. Miller, President);

American Sportfishing Association (Mike Nussman, President

& CEO);

Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher

Education (Paul Rowland, Executive Director);

Association of Zoos and Aquariums (Steve Olson, Vice

President);

Biodiversity Project (Jennifer Browning, Executive

Director);

Camp Fire USA (Pamela Wilcox, National Interim CEO);

Challenger Center for Space Science Education (Daniel

Barstow, President);

Climate Literacy Network (Tamara Shapiro Ledley,

Coordinator);

Coastal States Organization (Kristen M. Fletcher, Executive

Director);

Consortium for Ocean Leadership (Bob Gagosian, President

and CEO);

Council of Environmental Deans and Directors (Stephanie

Pfirman, President);

Council on Environmental Education (Josetta Hawthorne,

Executive Director);

Earth Day Network (Kathleen Rogers, President);

EarthEcho International (Philippe Cousteau, CEO);

Earth Force (Lisa Bardwell, President);

Ecological Society of America (Katherine S. McCarter,

Executive Director);

Federation of Fly Fishers (Leah Elwell, Conservation

Coordinator);

National Association for Interpretation (Tim Merriman,

Executive Director);

National Audubon Society (Judy Braus, Vice President for

Education);

National Council for Science and the Environment (Peter

Saundry, Executive Director);

National Estuarine Research Reserve Association (Matt

Menashes, Executive Director);

National Marine Educators Association (J. Adam Frederick,

President);

National Marine Sanctuary Foundation (Jason Patlis,

President and CEO);

National Project for Excellence in Environmental Education

(Bora Simmons, Director);

National Science Teachers Association (Jodi Peterson,

Assistant Executive Director);

National Service-Learning Partnership (Nelda Brown,

Executive Director);

National Wildlife Federation (Kevin Coyle, Vice President

for Education);

North American Association for Environmental Education

(Brian Day, Executive Director);

Ocean Alliance (Roger Payne, President);

Ocean Conservancy (Vikki Spruill, President and CEO);

Ocean Conservation Research (Michael Stocker, Director);

Ocean River Institute (Rob Moir, President);

Project WET Foundation (Dennis Nelson, President and CEO);

SandyHook SeaLife Foundation (Mary M. Hamilton, Executive

Director);

Second Nature (Anthony Cortese, President);

ServeNext (Zach Maurin, Co-Director and Co-Founder);

Sierra Club (Jacqueline Ostfeld, National Youth

Representative);

Student Conservation Association (Dale Penny, President &

I'll yield for a question.

I will yield some of my time to Mr. Lungren in just a moment.

Again, I would like to emphasize that the gentleman from California's criticisms are not about this rule or any rule that we have before us. Tomorrow the Rules Committee will be meeting to decide under what rule we will consider health care.

The gentleman has made some remarks with regard to a common practice that is within House resolutions referred by the Rules Committee that involves self-executing language. In 1996, the Republican-controlled House adopted a resolution to consider as adopted the conference report on line-item veto. I would also like read a quote from Thomas Mann who is quoted by USA Today. He is a scholar at the Brookings Institute, who said that the ``deem and pass'' move is not very unusual, has been used 36 times in 2005 and 2006 by the Republican Congress, 49 times in 2007 and 2008 by the Democratic Congress.

I think what's important for people to know is that the Rules Committee doesn't have any special ability to do these rules unilaterally. They only exist by the good graces of a majority of the House. If a majority of the House wants to pass the Senate health care bill as part of a rule, they can. There will be a debate and a discussion over that Senate health care bill, and the Senate bill will be presented to the President and signed, if it passes, before the reconciliation bill reaches the Senate floor.

The House, under the Constitution, is given a great ability to do what it wants to do and to conduct its own affairs as it wants to conduct its affairs. Just as today we have a House resolution, 1192, and that House resolution provides for the consideration of two bills, those bills will only be considered by the House if this rule, this House resolution, passes the full House with a majority of the votes. It will be the same with any rule that is referred out of the Rules Committee tomorrow with regard to the consideration of health care. That rule will only have any force, any effect, if a majority of the House passed that rule and whatever is in that rule, just as they would consider any bill under the House of Representatives.

This rule is a very fair rule. These two bills, I believe, have bipartisan support, a strong consensus to help create jobs, prepare kids for our future, educate kids about the environment, and preserve our great natural resources.

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

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

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the gentleman for the courtesy on this floor. I admire courtesy and civility here. I just wish we had more of it on both sides from time to time, particularly as we are in these contentious days dealing with one of the most important issues of our time--the health care bill.

I would stand in support of all the things that the gentleman from Florida said about this rule making in order these two bills. It is not unusual for us to make in order two bills under a rule, but what I would suggest is that that is somewhat different than what we evidently are going to be asked to do later this weekend. As I understand it from the ranking member on the

Rules Committee, it is contemplated that we will have a rule that will be ``self-executing'' dealing with a substantial portion of the American economy, that is the entire arena of health care. I don't think enough attention has been given to the difference between the appropriate procedure that we are enacting here versus that which is to go forward later this weekend.

I served in this body in the 1980s and then left and came back about 6 years ago. In the intervening time there was an effort, on a bipartisan basis, made by this House and the Senate, with the signature of the President, on a piece of legislation that was called the line- item veto. The line-item veto was a process that was contemplated which would allow the President of the United States to receive an appropriation bill from the Congress and then to look at that appropriation bill and find out and decide whether there were certain items that he thought were not appropriate, there's too much spending in an overall appropriations bill. It would have given the President the right to sign the overall bill, but on the one hand, to take out, X out, line out certain items. And so this provided a constitutional question before the Supreme Court in the case of Clinton v. City of New York, because they had to wait until the President actually exercised the right presumably given to him by the legislation passed by this Congress.

And so the question was: Was that manner in which laws were passed consistent with the requirements of the Constitution? And the Constitution sets out the terms under which we're able to pass laws. Essentially, it says three things must happen: It must pass the House of Representatives; it must pass the United States Senate; and it must be presented--it's called presentment--presented to the President and signed by the President.

Interestingly enough, in the majority opinion written by Justice Stevens--I believe the longest-serving member of the U.S. Supreme Court at the present time--when he investigated it, he said this. He said, The Constitution requires that it be the exact text in all three circumstances. Those are his words. The exact text. He went on to say that if in fact a paragraph were absent from the law that the President signed, meaning the President exercised his line item veto and had taken it out, it would invalidate the constitutional requirement for passage of a law because it would not be the exact text.

So, as I understand it, contrary to the rule that we are debating here today, the contemplated rule to cover the health care bill will say something along the lines of: We incorporate a bill which will be deemed to have passed if we pass the rule; or other language to say: thereby passing. So then you will have the interesting question of whether or not we are acting on--that is, I as an individual Member of Congress representing my constituency--I am voting on the ``exact text'' as was voted on in the Senate, which then goes to the President for signature. And I would argue that if you cannot remove a paragraph from the ``exact text,'' as the Supreme Court told us, in any of the three aspects of the bill, that you cannot add text. And that is, if you have a rule which incorporates the bill, you naturally have other language that goes along with it, particularly if it makes reference to other subject matter.

And so in contrast to the rule we have here, which should be supportable under the circumstances that it does not violate the Constitution in any way, shape, or form, even though it is a little different than when we adopt a rule that permits two bills to come to the floor, in the instance of having a self-executing rule we will then be presenting to the Supreme Court a constitutional issue upon which they have not directly ruled. It is, however, my interpretation of their ruling in Clinton v. City of New York that it is the mirror image of what the court found to be unconstitutional. That is, if the exact text requirement cannot be fulfilled by removing a single paragraph from the text; similarly, if you add language to the text in the vote that is presented to the membership, it would be not the same thing, so that we would be prohibiting the Members of this institution, the House of Representatives, from their constitutional obligation to vote on the exact question presented in the other body so that that same exact question can be presented to the President of the United States for his signature.

Now I understand that some say, Aha, there's another section of the Constitution which says that the House of Representatives and the Senate in their respective bodies shall be the sole arbiter of the rules of their Chambers. And that is true. But it is also true that we cannot, by our rules, do what is otherwise unconstitutional. And so Members should understand that while, unfortunately, when we debate rules often times there's the absence of many of our Members here, because the rules process is considered to be technical, in some ways taken for granted, in other ways nonobjectionable, not rising above the ordinary, with all due respect to the members of the Rules Committee. In the instance of a self-executing rule, so-called, on one of the most controversial issues presented to this Congress, certainly in my years of service here, we cannot blithely dismiss legitimate questions about what our obligation is here. I have said on this floor before, and I continue to say, the Constitution is an inconvenient truth.

A couple of weeks ago, I had the opportunity to be in a meeting with Justice Scalia. Justice Scalia made an interesting point. He said, The essence of a democracy or a democratic republic such as ours is, majority rules. If majority rules, you don't have a democracy. But he said one of the unique things about America is that we have some limitations on majority rule. Those limitations are found in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They limit what the majority can do and protect minority rights. But he said, The interesting thing is, those limitations were imposed on the majority by the majority. In other words, it is through the adoption of the Constitution that the majority has limited itself. And he suggested that that should give caution to members of the court to not supersede their legitimate authority by finding new limitations on the majority that were not contemplated by those who adopted the Constitution, and if you need further limitations or protections of minority interests, the way to do that is to amend the Constitution, which is again done by the majority.

Similarly, I would suggest, that those of us who take an oath to uphold the Constitution as representatives of our constituents in this body must follow the dictates of the Constitution and the limitations of the Constitution. In some language in that case that I cited earlier, the 12-year-old case of Clinton v. City of New York, the court talked about how it may or may not be a good public policy that the law that was otherwise found to be unconstitutional, that the fact that it may or may not be good public policy is irrelevant to the question of whether it's constitutional.

So the argument that we have presented to us here most recently in a nationally televised interview by the President of the United States, that whatever vote takes place is going to be on health care and therefore it's okay, and he'll sign it, forgets the inconvenient truth that the Constitution does not permit us to do that, and it does not permit the President to do that. So while a lot of people are talking about the fact we're going to be here over the weekend--and that's extraordinary--I would wish that we would concentrate on the more extraordinary question of whether we are following the Constitution. Because if in fact we circumvent the Constitution by ``allowing'' a bill to become law in which each Member of the House and the Senate did not have the opportunity to vote on the exact language, we are not punishing the Members of Congress; we are punishing our constituents, who have a constitutional right to have laws passed in the way that is articulated in the Constitution, which provides specificity as to how that is done so that the power of the Federal Government will be exercised in the limited sense that was given to it by the people through the Constitution.

And so while I support all of the comments made by the gentleman from Florida with respect to this rule and find this rule to be relatively noncontroversial and to be more of the same, the rule that we are being told of

that we will consider this weekend is not more of the same, is not ordinary, is in fact extraordinary, and I would suggest such an extraordinary stretch that it will be rendered unconstitutional. Why would we follow a procedure that will call into question the very constitutional foundations of the contents of the bill if in fact it is such an important issue? If it in fact is something that needs to be dealt with with such urgency, ought we not to follow the Constitution in each and every aspect and ought we not be guided by the most recent decision of the Supreme Court on a law which we thought was a good law on a bipartisan basis, but which, unfortunately, the Constitution does not allow us to enact.

And I would hope that my colleagues who may not be here on the floor but may have an opportunity to review these remarks will take seriously my concerns. We may very well be preparing to embark on an unconstitutional journey which not only will take the healthy skepticism that our Constitution provides for government--not rejecting government, but we have a healthy skepticism of the power of government that is a part of our constitutional process--but we will turn it from a healthy skepticism to an unfortunately destructive cynicism. And if there is anybody who believes that is good for this country, I would suggest they are wrong.

This is a tough issue that we're going to have to deal with later this weekend. Let us at least do it in a constitutional way, and let us not pass something for the American people that will be called into question in court challenge after court challenge after court challenge and delay the impact or implementation of whatever we believe on a bipartisan basis ought to be the governing law with respect to the health care system.

So with that, I thank the gentleman for his time, and I thank the gentleman for his courtesy.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), for the time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I would like to take a minute to contrast what the majority is doing today with what it is expected to do this weekend.

Today, the majority has brought forth a rule to provide 1 hour of debate for consideration of H.R. 3644, the Ocean, Coastal, and Watershed Education Act, and another hour of debate for H.R. 1612, the Public Lands Service Corps Act of 2009. That is a total of 2 hours of debate on bills that would direct the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to establish education and watershed programs to advance environmental literacy, and expand the authorization to provide service-learning opportunities on public lands and train public land managers. I thank my good friend for thoroughly detailing and covering what is in those bills.

If the majority proceeds as expected later this weekend, Madam Speaker, the House will prohibit, other than in the rule, all time to debate the Senate health care bill and will send it to the President for his signature. So that bill, the Senate health care bill, would become law even though the House of Representatives would never consider it, never debate the bill. The House, in fact, has never even held a committee meeting on the Senate health care bill.

On Sunday, it is expected that the majority will deem the bill passed, and in a few days it would be law, the signature issue of this President and this congressional majority.

You would think, Madam Speaker, that they would proudly embrace their signature accomplishment. You would think that they would welcome debate on it. But they do not, because they know that the Senate bill is fatally flawed. The American people deserve a full and complete debate in the House on the Senate health care bill, but they won't get it.

Again, let's juxtapose that reality with today's actions.

Today, 2 hours of debate on two noncontroversial bills that cost $300 million and absolutely no debate, no committee hearings on a bill that costs nearly $1 trillion, covers one-sixth of our economy, and will affect every single American. That is unfair and inappropriate.

Last year, the majority rushed through a 300-page amendment at 3 in the morning that no one was able to read on cap-and-trade. At that time, the American people rightly stood up and demanded that Congress read the bill. After this weekend's action, the people will demand that Congress not only read bills, but that we debate and vote on bills.

It would seem like common sense, Madam Speaker. But with this majority, it often seems as though common sense is the least common of the senses.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for supporting 2 or 3 hours of debate on one-sixth of our economy.

I would point out that, pursuant to House rules, the deeming, which is presumed will occur with regard to the Senate bill in the debate on the rule itself, that debate is limited to 1 hour. So I would assume the 2 or 3 hours total would be after that bill, the Senate bill, is deemed to have passed by the 1 hour of debate on the rule.

But suffice it to say, it is an improvement that, with regard to one- sixth of the economy, our friends are saying that we should have 2 or 3 hours. But we will continue pressing.

Anyway, I would ask my friend if he has any further speakers. I have none.

Madam Speaker, having said that, since there are no more Members on this side of the aisle who have requested time, I yield back the balance of my time.

Would my friend yield?

Actually, I was going to inquire, because I yielded my time back as my friend knows because we had no further speakers, but Mr. Lungren has arrived and would like to address the House.

I would ask unanimous consent to reclaim our time, Madam Speaker.

I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren).

I thank my friend again for his courtesy, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady for yielding me this time and also for her help and support with this legislation. I also want to thank the gentleman from California and the members on the Natural Resources Committee for their bipartisan support of the Upper Mississippi River protection bill.

As the gentlelady indicated, this has passed the previous Congresses. We're working with the Senate to finally get it to the President so it can be enacted.

And to address a couple other concerns--and we've worked in a bipartisan fashion on this bill--there is concern about privacy protection and data collection. We feel that what has been worked out is a reasonable compromise to ensure that privacy but also, more importantly, that there is buy-in of private landowners which will be crucial for the implementation of this legislation.

What we're trying to do is put the science in place in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. The greatest threat that this great national treasure that we have running through the middle of America, comprising roughly 50 percent of the landmass of our Nation, is the amount of nutrients and sediments that flow into the river basin doing incalculable ecological damage. We've heard of the stories of the dead zone being created in the Gulf of Mexico. Well, 40 percent of the nutrients that are flowing south through the river and ending up deposited in the Gulf, contributing to the dead zone, emanates in the Upper Mississippi River Basin.

What we want to do is utilize the expertise that exists at USGS so that they can do better monitoring of sediment and nutrient flows and develop computer models so we can identify the hot spots, and then utilize the resources that are available to target those hot spots to prevent the increased flow of sediment and nutrients into the river basin.

This has received wide support in the Upper Mississippi River region. All five of the State Governors in the Upper Mississippi region have endorsed this. The Mississippi River Basin has endorsed it. Countless outdoor recreational groups, such as Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, the Nature Conservancy have endorsed this approach, because it is a vital national treasure that we must do more to preserve and protect.

The Mississippi River affects over 30 million people who rely upon it for their primary drinking source. It is North America's largest migratory route, with 40 percent of the waterfowl species using this corridor during their biannual migration in the spring and during the fall. It's a multiple use resource, with commercial navigation, recreation, tourism, bringing roughly $1.5 billion of direct economic activity to the Upper Mississippi region but, additionally, over $1 billion with tourism activity to the Upper Mississippi. But what's been lacking is the scientific data that this legislation will put in place so we can start collecting it, tracking it, and then be smarter with the use of the various public and private approaches that this bill calls for so we can maximize the resources to intercept the nutrients and sediments that would flow into it.

Again, I want to thank the chairman of the committee, the members on the committee. I want to thank the members of the U.S. Geological Survey, especially Mike Jawson and his team at the Upper Mississippi River Environmental Science Lab. I have worked very closely with them with regards to this legislation and their long-term resource monitoring program. They do have incredible competency to do the science that we're asking them to do in this bill.

I also want to personally thank my own river advisory group who has consulted me on all things related to river issues.

I would encourage my colleagues to once again support this much needed but also bipartisan piece of legislation. I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

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

The majority has adequately described the bill. Based on the history of this legislative proposal, we're not opposing the measure; however, Members should note that today's bill has been changed from prior versions. The 10-year sunset has been removed.

We were also concerned that the Federal Government would have unfettered access to private property under this program and that the data collected on this private property could be used against the landowner. However, after meeting with the affected parties, we've concluded that the U.S. Geological Survey regulations require prior written landowner permission for entry and for release of any data collected on an individual's property.

I would like to include in the Record the appropriate permission form that is used for these purposes. It's our understanding that the program authorized in this bill would follow this longstanding practice.

[From the U.S. Geological Survey Manual]

Format for Letter Requesting Permission To Enter Private Property (To

Be Printed on Official Letterhead)

(Insert Date)

(Insert Name of Private Landowner)

(Insert Address of Private Landowner)

Dear (Insert Name of Private Landowner):

The U.S. Geological Survey requires employees to obtain

written permission from landowners in certain cases before

entering onto private property to conduct new surveys or

scientific sampling. Consequently, we are hereby requesting

your approval to enter your land for the purpose described

below. The data and/or samples collected will be used for

scientific purposes and will be provided to you upon request.

Specific information regarding this request is as follows:

1. (proposed date and time of entry and departure, or

period of time during which recurring visits will be

necessary).

2. (kind and number of vehicles to be used).

3. (number of persons in the party).

4. (name, office address, and contact information of chief

of party).

5. (purpose of the work).

6. (locations on the property where work is to be done).

7. (approximate frequency of aircraft flights along lines

of sight for temperature and pressure measurements, in

connection with geodimeter or similar work, if applicable).

We will make every effort to minimize disturbance or

disruption to your property. However, in the unlikely event

that property damage results, you are entitled to file a

claim to recover your damages (tort claim). Please contact

(insert name and telephone number of tort claims contact)

immediately if property damage should occur.

If you have any questions about this program of the U.S.

Geological Survey, you may contact (insert name of chief of

project) at the following telephone number: (insert number).

If you consent to this request, please sign below and (list

method of return, e.g., envelope provided, leave at a

designated location, etc.). Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

(Signature and Printed Name of Requestor).

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself just enough time to wish a belated happy birthday to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

We have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.