Sugar Loaf Fire Protection District Land Exchange Act of 2011

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 500 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my very good friend from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 500 provides for the consideration of three measures that will ensure that the government is funded through the end of the fiscal year; and this rule, as was outlined by the reading Clerk, provides very important tools to deal with important issues that have yet to be resolved.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we all know that, as we sit here at 3 minutes of 10 o'clock this morning, we are faced at midnight tonight with the prospect of a government shutdown. There is a bipartisan consensus on the need to ensure that we don't face a government shutdown; and it's very important that we take action to prevent that from taking place, and that's exactly what our opportunity is here today.

At the same time, it's important for us to realize that it is absolutely imperative, if we are going to get our economy growing and create jobs, for us to reduce the size and scope and reach of the Federal Government. That's the message the American people have sent to us overwhelmingly, and that's why I have to say that I believe this bipartisan compromise, which has been worked out with Members of the House and the Senate and the White House, moves us in the direction of doing just that.

Why? Because we are actually bringing about in this conference report a $95 billion reduction in discretionary spending, merely a drop in the bucket. We all recognize that it's not enough. We all recognize that much, much more remains to be done, but, Mr. Speaker, this is an important first step. And the fact that it's been done in a bipartisan, bicameral way, working not only with the first but the second branch of government as well, is, I believe, a positive indicator for us.

As I think about the challenges that we have--and I said this during the management of our jobs bill that we had, the so-called extenders measure that deals with the question of extending unemployment insurance, doing everything we possibly can to keep taxes low by extending for a year the payroll tax holiday, ensuring that people have access to Medicare dollars, and, of course, focusing on job creation by proceeding with the Keystone XL pipeline. As I pointed out during that debate, right now, our job is jobs. The American people want us to focus on job creation and economic growth, and I believe that this bipartisan, bicameral compromise will help us in that quest.

It hasn't been pretty getting here. We all know the famous Otto von Bismarck line, that you don't want to watch sausage or laws being made. This has been ugly.

And, actually, I was not going to say what I'm about to say right now, Mr. Speaker, but I am going to proceed and I will explain to you why.

It's been a painful and difficult and ugly and messy process which, frankly, is exactly what James Madison wanted. He is looking down at us saying, The process is working just as I envisaged it, because he wanted there to be this clash of ideas and a struggle. But, at the end of the day, he wanted there to be a compromise; and he wanted there to be an agreement at the end of the day, recognizing that that needed to be done.

We know that the chairs of the Committee on Appropriations, Messrs. Rogers and Inouye, shook hands on Monday and had an agreement. Again, I was not going to say this; but the Rules Committee completed its work early this morning, and I got a few hours of sleep, and I woke up to National Public Radio, which I do. That's what wakes me up in the morning, Mr. Speaker. And I know that there are some of my Republican friends who are not fans of National Public Radio. I like to watch MSNBC TV and listen to National Public Radio. It keeps my blood circulating very well, Mr. Speaker.

But I woke up this morning to listen to a report on this conference agreement. I am very happy to see my good friend from Seattle, the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, arrive on the floor. And I wasn't going to say this, but because of this report on NPR, I'm going to share it.

Tamara Keith, who is the congressional correspondent for NPR on Morning Edition, characterized why it is that we are here on Friday rather than having met the 3-day layover requirement and all these things that we wanted to do when the agreement was struck on Monday, and what she said was that Senate Democrats held this bill hostage. Those are not my words, again, Mr. Speaker. Those are the words of Tamara Keith who reported on National Public Radio this morning that this measure was held hostage by Senate Democrats. And she went on a second time, using the word ``hostage.'' She said, Well, finally the hostages have been released. Again, those are not my words. Those are the words of National Public Radio.

So some people wanted me to say it, but I decided not to say it myself. But when I heard it early this morning, I couldn't help but say it. So that's the reason I'm looking across the Chamber right now at 3,000 pages stacked this high right next to the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, right across the aisle from the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. Speaker, we've had to waive the 3-day layover requirement because, again, according to NPR, we had this conference report held hostage, but we've finally gotten here. Now that we're here, I'm happy to say that, while I'm not ecstatic with every measure in it--just as I know that Mr. Dicks is not ecstatic with every measure in it; I know that Ms. Slaughter is not ecstatic with every measure in it; I'm not ecstatic with the process that has gotten us here because of the challenges and ugliness and messiness we've gone through this week. We are here because it is absolutely essential that we not see the government shut down in several hours at midnight tonight.

So I believe that we need to realize--and I know Mr. Dicks and I have had this conversation repeatedly, along with our friend Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations--that we want a clean slate as we head into next year so that Mr. Dicks and Mr. Rogers will be able to go through regular order, bring the appropriations bills to the floor and, we hope and pray, get each bill done ad seriatim, the way they're supposed to be done, rather than dealing with what has been characterized as an

omnibus, a mini-bus, a megabus. But the term that I like that was given by the distinguished chair of the Committee on Appropriations last night is this is ``the rest of the bus.'' And that's really where we are.

But it's essential for the American people, for those who are representing us so diligently around the world in conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other spots, for people who rely and need to have support from government programs that do exist, it's essential that we get this measure passed, and pass it with what I hope will be strong bipartisan support.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to say that I am happy that we are doing the things that will be outlined, I know, very thoughtfully by the distinguished former chair and current ranking member of the Committee on Rules. I will say that we have got 3,000 pages.

By the way, I should say, before my friend begins this, that on Monday, virtually all of that was available, and it was put online at 12:30 Wednesday night. Right after midnight Wednesday, it was made available online. And so while we have not actually met the exact 3-day layover requirement, I should point to the fact that we always said-- and I'm so proud of the fact that we have been able to do it. But when we faced what is really a very, very important deadline, that being the closure of the government that would take place 14 hours from now, I think it is very important that we take this action and do it as quickly and as well as we possibly can.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as my good friends from the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Dicks, congratulate each other in the well, I will ask them to move out of the well so that I am able to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Grandfather Community, who left the Rules Committee at 1 o'clock this morning and went down to her office to work before going down to the White House at 7:30 for a tour for her constituents.

So I underscore the fact that Virginia Foxx is extraordinarily dedicated, and for that reason and many others, I am happy to yield her 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield my colleague an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to simply make a couple of very important points, and that is we are here faced with this situation because of the inability of our colleagues in the other body, the United States Senate, to act.

I am just looking at the list of the conferees, and I listened to my friends criticize the bill--and I actually don't know whether my friend from Rochester is going to end up supporting the conference report or not. I didn't get a conclusion on that--but I will say that every single House Member, Democrat and Republican, every subcommittee chairman, every ranking member of a subcommittee, the so-called cardinals, the chairs of the subcommittees, signed this conference report. It is bipartisan.

Unfortunately, in the Senate, we have a number of Members of the Senate who didn't sign the conference report. But I believe that we need to realize that we went for 963 days--nearly 1,000 days, Mr. Speaker--without a budget having passed from the United States Senate. We know, Mr. Speaker, that we didn't have any appropriations bills done last year. We're trying to clean this process up.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to a very thoughtful, diligent new member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Lawrenceville, Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Will the gentleman yield?

I look forward to it.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I say to my friend from Rochester, would you yield time to the gentleman so I can engage in a discussion with him?

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on each side.

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

I'd like to yield to my friend from Worcester to engage in a discussion. I'm sorry, would the gentlewoman like me to yield? I'm happy to yield to my friend from Rochester if she would like me to yield. Would the gentlewoman like me to yield to her? I've just been recognized.

Would the gentlewoman from New York like me to yield to her, Mr. Speaker?

Then I will reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker.

I am happy to yield to my friend from Rochester if she would like to ask me a question or ask the Chair a question. I am more than happy to yield to her, I would say, Mr. Speaker.

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

In the spirit of bipartisanship, in the spirit of recognizing that we need to ensure that the government doesn't shut down at midnight, I'd like to engage in a discussion with my friend from Worcester, as I was trying to when he was in the well, to say a few things.

First of all, as we all know, last year no appropriations bills were passed. Nothing was completed in the last Congress--nothing at all. And we have spent, with Mr. Rogers and Mr. Dicks, virtually this entire year cleaning up the work of the last Congress. And the gentleman will recognize that, I'm sure. I mean, the gentleman acknowledges that, Mr. Speaker, that we have spent this year working to clean up the fact that no appropriations work was done last year.

I am happy to yield to my friend.

Yes, absolutely. If I could reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, I would say absolutely, we're talking about this year. And the responsibility that was thrust on us this year was so overwhelming because last year nothing was done, nothing was accomplished. And so what's happened, Mr. Speaker, is we are in a position where the appropriators have been shouldering this responsibility. And, unfortunately, our colleagues in the other body, the majority leadership there, Senator Reid and others, according to the National Public Radio report, as I discussed this morning, as others have acknowledged, it was pointed out in the publications out this morning, this was held hostage, and that's why we are where we are.

Now, my friends are enjoying holding up the 2,300-page conference report and the additional 700 pages of the joint managers' report that is included in there. But guess what, Mr. Speaker, all of that was available on Monday, 5 days ago. And the only exception in this measure is one item has been pulled out. That one item pulled out happens to be the Cuba language that was there, and there was obviously a lot of concern about that. That was pulled out. Then one item was added, and that has to do with the Commodity Futures Trading Corporation. And so, as our colleagues hold up these thousands of pages, we need to realize it's been available since Monday. This is Friday, Mr. Speaker. That's more than the 3-day layover requirement. And we've pointed to these minor modifications.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished chair of the Committee on Appropriations, my very good friend from Somerset, Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds. And I would ask my friend to yield to me, if he would.

I thank my friend for yielding.

I would like to just say that I misspoke. The agreement was reached between Mr. Rogers and Mr. Inouye on Monday, and the pages were not made available until it was filed at 12:27, at just after midnight on Wednesday.

I am happy to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.

So I just want to say that I did misspeak when I said the agreement was struck on Monday. It was made available after midnight on Wednesday.

I would like to yield an additional 30 seconds to my friend from Somerset.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I say to my friend, first of all, happy birthday.

And the great birthday present is that we will not shut the government down, and we obviously will see this measure passed today.

I also want to say to my friend that I believe we've made history here. To have any Member of the House stand up, especially on his birthday, Mr. Speaker, and speak in complimentary ways of the other body is, in fact, historic in and of itself.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Bainbridge Township, Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of my friend how many speakers she has remaining on her side.

I plan to close and then move the previous question so we can move ahead to ensure we don't shut down the government.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

We all know that the American people are hurting. We have a protracted unemployment problem that has gone on for an extended period of time, the longest period of time since the Great Depression, and it's important for us to realize the reasons for this.

One of the very important reasons for this is that we have seen a dramatic expansion of the size and scope and reach of government. During the 4 years that my friends on the other side of the aisle were in the majority, we witnessed an 82 percent increase in non-defense discretionary spending.

We now have a $15 trillion national debt, and I think Democrats and Republicans alike acknowledge that that cannot be sustained.

As I've been saying throughout this week, our job is jobs. Right now our job is jobs. We need to have a laser-like focus on creating job opportunities for our fellow Americans, people who are so frustrated they've given up the effort to look for work.

So that's why the things that we're dealing with today are so critically important to address those needs.

Now, since there has been bipartisan recognition that we can't continue down the road with an 82 percent increase in non-defense discretionary spending which we witnessed over the past several years, it's important for us to come together, and that's exactly what's happened.

This is Norm Dicks' birthday, and we're very happy about that. We're happy that on his birthday we're going to see a bipartisan agreement that will bring about a $95 billion reduction in non-defense discretionary spending. And that's what this work product does, Mr. Speaker.

And again, bipartisan recognition and even bicameral recognition, and even recognition from down Pennsylvania Avenue with the second branch

of government, that we are right now altering the course that we had been on of dramatically increasing spending. And we're doing it, Mr. Speaker, in a very fair and balanced and open way.

I don't like the process that got us to where we are right now. I said earlier that I believe that this multi-thousand-page package was available on Monday; it was agreed to on Monday; but it wasn't made available until early Thursday morning. Yet we are where we are, and there was an agreement. Mr. Inouye and Mr. Rogers came to this agreement on Monday.

We could have done this earlier, but we know that our friends in the other body chose--and as I said, I wasn't going to say it earlier, but it has been characterized in the media as having held hostage this very important appropriations bill. We also dealt with the threat of a government shutdown that would take place 13 hours from now. We are not going to see that happen. We are not going to see that happen because Mr. Dicks and Mr. Rogers and other members of the Appropriations Committees in both bodies--and the leadership--came together to ensure that that doesn't happen.

We still have a long way to go. We still have much work that needs to be done. But by the passage of this measure today, Mr. Speaker, we are going to do exactly what is necessary. We are going to finally have a clean slate. We've all commiserated over the fact that we've had this mess to clean up of the past. It's been ugly and it's been difficult; but we have, in fact, by virtue of this agreement cleaned it up so that we can continue to work down this path towards balancing the budget, getting our fiscal house in order, and doing what we need to do--our jobs, which is to create jobs.

I think we have a chance to do that.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this rule, and I urge support of the previous question so that we can move ahead and make sure that we have what's necessary to meet this very important deadline by midnight.

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

Mr. President, fighting fires is very serious business in my home State of Colorado. Just a few months ago, we experienced the most expensive fire in our history--the Fourmile Fire, near Boulder. This fire destroyed more than 150 homes and burned over 6,000 acres.

We could not have stopped this fire without the dedicated efforts of hundreds of public servants, including volunteer firefighters from local fire districts. These individuals saved lives and property, often risking their own lives. That is, in part, why I believe we should do everything we can to help these fire districts and the volunteers who serve them.

One fire district involved in the Fourmile Fire--the Sugar Loaf Fire District--lost 17 homes in the fire. The Sugar Loaf Fire District is critical to protecting thousands of Coloradans, but instead of being able to focus on fighting fires this District has been wrapped up trying to resolve a land issue with the Forest Service for many years now. It is a very simple land exchange to make sure that the Fire District owns the land under two of its three fire stations.

The Fire District has occupied and operated the fire stations on these properties for nearly 40 years. If they can secure ownership, the lands will continue to be used as sites for fire stations and training. The Fire District is willing to trade the property it owns, an undeveloped inholding in Forest Service land, for the property under the stations. This is a simple and fair exchange that will serve the public good and help protect the local area from growing wildfire threats.

The Fire District has made a strong, persistent, and good faith effort to acquire the land under the stations through administrative means by working with the Forest Service. Furthermore, the Fire District has demonstrated its sincere commitment to this project by expending its monetary resources and the time of its staff to satisfy the requirements set forth by the Forest Service.

However, those efforts have not succeeded and it has become evident that legislation is required to resolve the situation.

To help facilitate this land exchange, I am introducing the Sugar Loaf Fire Station Land Exchange Act of 2011 today. This language is the same as what passed the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in the last Congress.

Under the bill, the land exchange will proceed if the Fire District offers to convey acceptable title to a specified parcel of land amounting to about 5.17 acres. This land resides between the communities of Boulder and Nederland in an unincorporated part of Boulder County within the boundaries of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest. In return, the land--about 5.08 acres--where the two fire stations are located will be transferred to the Fire District.

The lands transferred to the Federal Government will become part of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest and managed accordingly.

This is a relatively minor bill but one that is important to the Sugar Loaf Fire District and the people it serves. As public lands bills pile up in Congress because of ideological obstruction, this fire district is being forced into wasting time and money trying to resolve an otherwise commonsense and technical public lands fix. I think this bill deserves enactment without unnecessary delay.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Camp Hale Study Act of 2011, which would direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the feasibility and suitability of establishing Camp Hale, near Leadville, CO, as a national historic district. Camp Hale is an important part of our Nation's proud national defense legacy, and it deserves to be recognized and protected.

This bill concerns an important military legacy from the World War II and Cold War eras. Camp Hale, located in the mountains of central Colorado, was a training facility for combat in high alpine and mountainous conditions. Principally, it was a training venue for the Army's 10th Mountain Division and other elements of the U.S. Armed Forces. The geography of the area was ideal for winter and high- altitude training, with steep mountains surrounding a level valley suitable for housing and other facilities. The facility itself was located in Eagle County along the Eagle River, and its training boundary included lands in Eagle, Summit, Lake, and Pitkin Counties.

In addition to the 10th Mountain Division, the 38th Regimental Combat Team, 99th Infantry Battalion, and soldiers from Fort Carson were trained at Camp Hale from 1942 to 1965. Throughout this time, the Army tested a variety of weapons and equipment at Camp Hale.

Between 1956 and 1965, the camp was also used by the Central Intelligence Agency as a secret center for training Tibetan refugees in guerilla warfare to resist the Chinese occupation of their mountainous country. Just last year, at my urging, the Forest Service put in place a plaque honoring these Tibetan Freedom Fighters. I joined many of those brave Tibetans, their CIA trainers, and their families in a moving ceremony to honor those who trained at Camp Hale.

In July 1965, Camp Hale was deactivated, and in 1966, control of the lands was returned to the Forest Service. Today the site is part of the White River and San Isabel National Forests. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is working to clean up potentially hazardous munitions left over from weapons testing at the site, particularly in the East Fork.

Camp Hale was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1992, but this bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to complete a special resource study of Camp Hale to determine the suitability and feasibility of designating Camp Hale as a separate unit of the National Park System. That would include an analysis of the significance of Camp Hale in relation to the defense of our Nation during World War II and the Cold War, including the use of Camp Hale for training of the 10th Mountain Division and for training by the Central Intelligence Agency of Tibetan refugees seeking to resist the Chinese occupation of Tibet.

I have worked with Representative Lamborn on this bill since he first introduced it in the House in the 110th Congress, when I proudly cosponsored it. I introduced this bill in the Senate in the last Congress and shepherded it through the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. However, because of opposition from a few Senators to all public lands bills, we could not pass this bipartisan bill on the Senate floor.

Camp Hale should be recognized for the role it played in our country's national security. The people who trained there are proud of their accomplishments, and I am proud to join Representative Lamborn in supporting this legislation. I am confident that we will have more success in passing this legislation in this Congress.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Good morning, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleague is absolutely right. This is ``the rest of the bus.'' But it's going to be a little while before we realize whether we are on that bus or whether we've been thrown under it. Obviously, as Mr. Dreier called attention to it, this is the bill that we have today. None of us will make any pretense at all of having read it.

Now, I have been around long enough to know that things happen this way. The country is about to shut down tonight; the agencies are all prepared to close, and we can't have that. So we find ourselves confronted here today with this completed and going through this conference.

A lot of people are breathing a sigh of relief this morning, frankly, particularly the Federal workers and the rest of the country, that they are not going to be faced with a shutdown of Federal agencies.

But although we were able to avert that crisis today, this 2,000-page legislative package is not a cause for celebration--and I don't believe Mr. Dreier thinks it is either--but it is a demonstration of failure. As I have said, I have known cases and have been a participant in cases where things like this have happened before. But for a Congress that had promised at the beginning part of the campaign and what we were promised at the beginning of this term was that this would not happen anymore. Instead, it has happened over and over again. Over the past 12 months, we have witnessed the utter failure to responsibly legislate--a failure that has led to this massive bill that we are considering today.

You've heard all of this before, but in the fall of 2010 when the majority took over, Speaker Boehner said: We'll do away with the concept of comprehensive spending bills.

He's been around awhile too, and he knows that there are times when things happen that really don't fall in line with what we want. But nonetheless, he made that promise. Despite this call for a deliberate appropriations process, the House was recently asked to consider a $180 billion minibus, totaling 354 pages of legislation.

And today, less than 24 hours--we're about halfway, I think--we are offered a $1 trillion megabus appropriations bill. It was given to the Members of the House today, and we're asked to vote on that. We will, of course, do that because, as I've said, the looming layoff and shutdown of the Federal Government is something that we cannot stand at this juncture, or any other time.

So despite the earlier promises by the GOP to separate the controversial legislation from the must-pass bill, the megabus was delayed by a battle over controversial riders. We know this could have been done much sooner, but there were five riders that had to be resolved--everything from the reproductive rights of the citizens of the District of Columbia to energy-saving lightbulbs.

Mr. Speaker, this House has spent more time debating lightbulbs than we have putting American people to work. It has really been an outrage--we have talked about this so many times before. But nonetheless, in all the contemplations, all the conference work, lightbulbs have survived. I know that's a sigh of relief to everybody in America who had no idea we were spending so much time micromanaging their lightbulbs.

But this is a sign, I think, of a larger failure, a failure of their vision of governing. It is a vision that we've gone through all this year that was based on brinksmanship and threats--an all-or-nothing game of chicken with their colleagues and the American people. And everybody is exhausted from, will we do it? Won't we do it? Can we do it? Must we do it? Part of that has resulted in a lessening of the credit rating of the United States of America for the very first time.

So instead of spending the year finding common ground with their Democrat colleagues, the majority spent the year advancing legislation to dismantle the EPA and to talk about lightbulbs and to open federally protected lands to foreign mining companies. I find in my constituency the idea that we were going to give land to Russia around the Grand Canyon to mine for uranium mind-boggling to people. We really ought to be worried about that. This is a very serious problem.

Instead of spending the year finding common ground, we have done nothing about that. So throwing bipartisanship to the side, the majority pushed forward with its ideological battles at the expense of the Nation's welfare. And what we see this morning is the result of their divisive efforts.

What we know is that a process that began with brinksmanship and threats, and ends with this 2,000-page, $1 trillion megabus crammed through the House as the clock hits zero is all we have. This is our chance to keep the government from shutting down.

With proper priorities and a serious effort to engage legislators from both sides of the aisle, we could truly have a process and a product that would make the American people proud. But that's not what we have here today, and it is not what has been done this year.

I hope sincerely, and I know that many people on both sides of the aisle hope sincerely, that as the calendar turns to 2012, we can put an end to the zero-sum leadership that has been provided and finally give the American people the responsible, bipartisan leadership that they want and deserve.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the Committee on Rules, Mr. McGovern.

I yield the gentleman from Massachusetts 1 additional minute.

I would like to address the Speaker.

I do not. If I could be allowed to say something here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Let me say all I was trying to do after last month was to say that if Mr. Dreier's 16 minutes were not adequate for him, I would be pleased to yield him one of my 13. That was my aim there.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, the ranking member of Appropriations, Mr. Dicks, who has worked so hard.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi, the ranking member on Homeland Security, Mr. Thompson.

We have no further speakers.

May I inquire if my colleague has any.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and the martial law rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the No Child Left Behind Flexibility and Improvements Act. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe. Our legislation would give greater local control and flexibility to Maine and other states in their efforts to implement the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB. It provides common sense reforms in the statute while retaining elements to help ensure transparency and accountability.

Since the enactment of NCLB 9 years ago, I have had the opportunity to meet with numerous Maine educators to discuss their concerns with the law. In response to their concerns, Senator Snowe and I commissioned the Maine NCLB Task Force to examine the implementation issues facing Maine under both NCLB and the Maine Learning Results. Our task force included members from every county in our State, and had superintendents, teachers, principals, school board members, parents, business leaders, former State legislators, special education specialists, assessment experts, officials from the Maine Department of Education, and was chaired by a former Maine commissioner of education and a dean from the University of Maine's College of Education and Human Development. In other words, it was a broad-based commission that brought a great deal of expertise, experience, and perspective to the task force's work.

After a year of study, the task force presented us with its final report outlining recommendations for possible statutory and regulatory changes to the act. The task force recommendations highlighted the need for greater flexibility for the Maine Department of Education and local schools in order to address various implementation concerns facing Maine. The legislation we are introducing today would make significant statutory changes designed to provide greater local control to Maine and greater flexibility to all States in their implementation efforts, not just Maine.

First, our legislation would provide greater flexibility to states in the ways that they measure student progress in meeting state education standards. Current NCLB law has proven to be too restrictive. Our legislation would permit states to use additional models to more accurately track the progress of all students over time. Specifically, it would allow States to use a cohort growth model, which tracks the progress of the same group of students over time. It would also permit the use of an ``indexing'' model, where progress is measured based on the number of students whose scores improve from, for example, a ``below-basic'' to a ``basic'' level, and not simply on the number of students who cross the ``proficient'' line. Even if a school is unable to meet the trajectory targets set by the NCLB time-line, a school would not be identified as failing to make AYP provided it demonstrates improved student achievement according to these additional models. We would also require the Secretary to provide examples of these models to give practical assistance to States in the design of these systems. While the trajectory goals set in the statute are certainly valuable, our legislation seeks to clarify that States should be granted greater flexibility in the design of different accountability systems provided that they are consistent with the principle of improved student performance.

Second, our legislation would provide schools with better notice regarding possible performance issues, allowing schools a chance to identify and work with a particular group of students before being identified. It would expand the existing ``safe-harbor'' provisions to allow more schools to qualify for this important protection. The changes made in our bill are in keeping with what assessment experts and teachers know--that significant gains in academic achievement tend to occur gradually and over time. In addition, the legislation addresses my concern about the statute's current requirement that all schools reach 100 percent proficiency by 2013-2014 by requiring the Secretary of Education to review progress by the States toward meeting this goal every three years, and allowing him to modify the time-line as necessary.

Furthermore, the Task Force report raised important concerns that in some schools, special education students fear that they are being blamed for their school not making adequate yearly progress. Our legislation would allow the members of a special education student's Individual Education Plan, IEP, team to determine the best assessment for that individual student, and would permit the student's performance on that assessment to count for all NCLB purposes. This legislative change is also based on principles of fairness and common sense. Many times, it simply does not make sense to require a special needs student to take a grade-level assessment that educators and parents know he or she is not ready to take. Many special education students are referred for special education services precisely because they cannot meet grade-level expectations. Allowing the IEP team to determine the best test for each special needs student will bring an important improvement to the act while still ensuring accountability.

Finally, our legislation would provide new flexibility for teachers of multiple subjects at the secondary school level to help them meet the ``highly qualified teacher'' requirements. Unfortunately, the current regulations place undue burdens on teachers at small and rural schools who often teach multiple subjects due to staffing needs, and on special education teachers who work with students on a variety of subjects throughout the day. Under the bill, provided these teachers are highly qualified for one subject they teach, they will be provided additional time and less burdensome avenues to satisfy the remaining requirements.

While it has been some time since Maine's Task Force issued its report, its findings and recommendations remain valid. Our legislation is still necessary to provide greater flexibility and common sense modifications to address those key NCLB challenges identified in Maine. Our goals remain the same as those in NCLB: a good education for each and every child; well- qualified, committed teachers in every classroom; and increased transparency and accountability for every school. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on these issues during the upcoming NCLB reauthorization process.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, May 18, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills:

S. 220, to provide for the restoration of forest landscapes, protection of old growth forests, and management of national forests in the eastside forests of the State of Oregon;

S. 270, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain Federal land to Deschutes County, Oregon;

S. 271, to require the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into a property conveyance with the city of Wallowa, Oregon, and for other purposes;

S. 278, to provide for the exchange of certain land located in the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests in the State of Colorado, and for other purposes;

S. 292, to resolve the claims of the Bering Straits Native Corporation and the State of Alaska to land adjacent to Salmon Lake in the State of Alaska and to provide for the conveyance to the Bering Straits Native Corporation of certain other public land in partial satisfaction of the land entitlement of the Corporation under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act;

S. 322, to expand the Alpine Lakes Wilderness in the State of Washington, to designate the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River and Pratt River as wild and scenic rivers, and for other purposes;

S. 382, to amend the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 to clarify the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture regarding additional recreational uses of National Forest System land that is subject to ski area permits, and for other purposes;

S. 427, to withdraw certain land located in Clark County, Nevada, from location, entry, and patent under the mining laws and disposition under all laws pertaining to mineral and geothermal leasing or mineral materials, and for other purposes;

S. 526, to provide for the conveyance of certain Bureau of Land Management land in Mohave County, Arizona, to the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, for use as a public shooting range;

S. 566, to provide for the establishment of the National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System;

S. 590, to convey certain submerged lands to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in order to give that territory the same benefits in its submerged lands as Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa have in their submerged lands;

S. 607, to designate certain land in the State of Oregon as wilderness, to provide for the exchange of certain Federal land and non-Federal land, and for other purposes;

S. 617, to require the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain Federal land to Elko County, Nevada, and to take land into trust for the Te-moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada, and for other purposes;

S. 683, to provide for the conveyance of certain parcels of land to the town of Mantua, Utah;

S. 684, to provide for the conveyance of certain parcels of land to the town of Alta, Utah;

S. 667, to establish the Rio Grande del Norte National Conservation Area in the State of New Mexico, and for other purposes;

S. 729, to validate final patent number 27-2005-0081, and for other purposes;

S. 766, to provide for the designation of the Devil's Staircase Wilderness Area in the State of Oregon, to designate segments of Wasson and Franklin Creeks in the State of Oregon as wild rivers, and for other purposes;

S. 896, to amend the Public Lands Corps Act of 1993 to expand the authorization of the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, and the Interior to provide service opportunities for young Americans; help restore the nation's natural, cultural, historic, archaeological, recreational and scenic resources; train a new generation of public land managers and enthusiasts; and promote the value of public service; and

S. 897, to amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to clarify that uncertified States and Indian tribes have the authority to use certain payments for certain noncoal reclamation projects.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to allison_seyferth@energy.senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Scott Miller or Allison Seyferth.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, May 25, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills:

S. 233, to withdraw certain Federal land and interests in that land from location, entry, and patent under the mining laws and disposition under the mineral and geothermal leasing laws;

S. 375, to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements with State foresters authorizing State foresters to provide certain forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration and protection services;

S. 714, to reauthorize the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act, and for other purposes; and

S. 730, to provide for the settlement of certain claims under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and for other purposes.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to allison_seyferth@energy.senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Scott Miller or Allison Seyferth.