Floor Statements

Offered By: Mrs. Lummis

Amendment No. 19: At the end of the bill (before the short

title) insert the following:

I want to thank the gentleman from Montana for working with me on this amendment, which will prevent the United States from unilaterally disarming its nuclear arsenal.

The brave men and women of the 90th Missile Wing in Cheyenne, Wyoming, work tirelessly in keeping our land-based nuclear missiles on nearly 100 percent alert. This work is tremendously important because the notion that the U.S., by unilaterally disarming itself, will somehow convince aggressors to follow suit is dangerous thinking. It is precisely this kind of thinking that seeped into the New START Treaty.

I'm still trying to determine what the U.S. got out of the deal. We all know what Russia got. Russia got to bind us to a cap on our nuclear arsenal. But Russia can still expand its strategic arsenal. Russia can stack their bombers to the hilt with warheads and call it a single- delivery vehicle. Russia can deploy an unlimited number of tactical nuclear weapons that are constantly pointed at our allies in Europe. Russia can develop new long-range nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. That's right, new nuclear platforms, including those capable of reaching the United States from the air and sea, don't ``count'' under the New START Treaty. The only things that ``count'' under the New START Treaty are the platforms on which the United States has a strategic advantage.

New START is a terrible deal for the United States--a mess that we're trying to clean up with our amendment. If the United States keeps making bad deals like this, we risk losing the faith of our allies who rely on our nuclear umbrella. Those who have been content with our protection might think twice about whether it might be in their interest to have nuclear arms of their own. Nations who a few years ago would never imagine being able to compete with the United States might start thinking about trying to compete with us.

This is the reality. This is the danger of unilateral disarmament. And this is

why you should vote for our amendment.

I thank, again, the gentleman from Montana for working with us on this.

Madam Speaker, I rise also to support the rule and to support the Violence Against Women Act. This bill will support programs and organizations that help assist the victims of domestic abuse, stalking, and sexual assault. And it does so in a way that includes much-needed accountability measures so we can be sure that more of the funds go to the victims who need it rather than to Washington bureaucrats.

When I was practicing law, I represented some victims of domestic violence, including men, women, and children, when I was doing guardian ad litem work. And I, further, had a law office bookkeeper who was murdered by her husband while she was working for us. It was traumatic for the entire office.

On Indian reservations in my State and in communities where there is a hidden element of domestic abuse that you see every Friday morning in the courtroom when they have stacked settings for these types of cases, you see things you wouldn't even believe are going on in your own communities. That's why it's so important we have a bill that is efficient and gets the money to those victims, not to bureaucrats in Washington. That's why I support this rule. That's why I support the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your work as chairman of the Western Caucus.

The western States are roughly the 17 western States and three island governments, but they also include Members from States who have very similar problems, but who happen to be east of the Mississippi, such as some of the southern States along the Gulf of Mexico that have enormous energy reserves and face some of the same regulatory burdens. Also, people from coal-producing States that are east of the Mississippi, such as West Virginia, where a heavy attack on coal has jeopardized jobs and the future of coal in this country as a contributor to our energy future.

As we see from the chart next to me and from what Congressman Pearce has previously told us, even though energy production is up, oil and gas production is up on private land. This is the bar to my far right. Over closer to me to the left, it shows that energy production, oil and gas production from Federal lands has declined--11 percent in the case of oil and 6 percent in the case of natural gas.

Now, why is this affecting gas prices? Why does President Obama say that drilling more now on Federal land will not affect oil prices now or the price of gas at the pump?

Well, there's two ways to look at that. One is he's correct that it's not going to affect the price of gasoline today or tomorrow. But the fact that we're not drilling now and that permits are not being issued now--we know of about 22 projects for the proposed 44,000 new oil and gas wells on private land that are being held up. That's going to be gas production and oil production that will be available in the future, anywhere from 3 to 7 years, that because of these regulatory burdens is not going to be produced.

That not only drives up the price of gasoline and power of all kinds, energy of all kinds, in those future years long after President Obama is out of office, but it does affect today's futures market because the people who are looking

at the price of gasoline are looking at whether production is continuing to go up in this country. That is a factor that is considered when futures pricing occurs, and because it's very obvious that the government policy in the United States for the last 4 years has been away from oil and gas and coal and in favor only of solar and wind energy because we subsidize it so heavily and promote it so heavily at the United States Department of Energy, it does affect the price of oil, gasoline, and eventually gasoline at the pump.

Now, another factor related to the coal issue that I mentioned is, are we going to hurt our environment if we don't quit using coal? The answer is to look at our regulatory work that was done prior to President Obama taking office, and it's represented on this chart.

Let's look from 1970. The population in the United States is up 48 percent since then; coal-fueled electricity up 184 percent since then. The gross domestic product of the United States up 200 percent since the 1970s in part because we have had affordable, reliable, and abundant electricity. So much of what we've done in this country in producing job growth is based on the fact that we have been able to rely on affordable, abundant electricity. Half of that has come from coal.

Now, in that same time period, emissions from power plants had declined 60 percent. Look at all of this growth. Look at even the growth in coal-fueled electricity and the decline in emissions down 60 percent. And that's due to the Clean Air Act and compliance with the Clean Air Act.

The point here being regulations can be valuable when done properly, and the Clean Air Act was a regulation that had the desired impact. It dropped emissions 60 percent by 2008. The problem has been since 2008, the efforts to overregulate have stifled our ability to create more energy from coal. It has reduced the number of jobs from coal. It has reduced revenue from coal, and it has reduced the affordability of electricity going into the future.

Mr. Chairman, I have some other points that I want to make about this. But for now, I'd like to just point out that the people who are bearing the brunt of our policies on energy in this country for the last 4 years have been people of very modest income. Because when gasoline prices go up at the pump, when your electric bill goes up, it is the people who are in the lower- and middle class population or in a category of workers who make very little money and struggle to make ends meet, especially single mothers, who are really bearing the brunt of these policies.

These policies are choices of this administration. They are conscious decisions that they are willing to see prices go up for coal, oil, gas generated power in order to make them more competitive with higher- cost, higher-priced wind and solar energy.

These are bad policies for the average, everyday American. These are bad policies for America's working mothers.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to point out what States are experiencing in relation to our Federal budget. So let's start with the Federal budget. Here we have all our revenue for 2011 in this column. Here we have just our entitlement programs that we spend money on in this column. So we're spending all of the tax revenue we take in in this country just on our entitlement programs. That is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, other mandatory programs such as food stamps and school lunches. And then, of course, interest on the debt. Which means every other discretionary program and the global war on terror and our national defense is all borrowed money--borrowed from China, from Saudi Arabia, from Japan, and from American companies and the American people. That would never happen in the State.

On the front page of my State's statewide newspaper today was an article that our Governor, Wyoming Governor Matt Mead, is asking all State agencies to budget for an 8 percent cut in spending, and the health department, a 4 percent cut in spending. This is because natural gas prices in the United States have dropped below $2 in MCF, which is extremely low, and my State is the second largest producer of natural gas in the Nation, and we're heavily reliant on natural gas for revenues.

So what do we do when our revenues decline? We cut spending. We budget differently. We don't hire people to sit in vacant positions. We leave those positions vacant or, better yet, make them completely go away. That's what States do to manage their problems. But an interesting source of revenue for the State is income off State lands. And it's a very important source of revenue.

Now, Mr. Bishop from Utah pointed out earlier this evening that the American taxpayers are paying $8 billion, Mr. Bishop, to pay for administering public lands in the West. In my State of Wyoming, we could be managing those lands. And if you went and looked at the quality of our State lands, you would be thoroughly impressed. They are beautifully managed. The stewardship is well done. We are producing oil and gas. We're producing livestock, cattle, and sheep. We're producing timber. We're producing recreational opportunities, open space. We're creating, because of all that open space, places where clean air, clean water, and clean living can really work together. It is a wonderful system with much smaller administrative costs than the American people are paying for the Federal lands in the West. We've proven that as States who received land when we became States, we can manage all of the land in our State that's not private land.

Consequently, I agree with what Mr. Bishop said earlier. The fact that we have NEPA, FLPMA, SMCRA, CERCLA, and lots of other laws that are managed from the Federal Government's level that could be managed at the State level would make it much less expensive, would make the land stewardship closer to home where the people who really love and thrive on these important lands live and work and want to recreate and want to participate in the management of these lands.

They would also produce more revenue for the States, making States like Utah, like my own State of Wyoming, where we prioritize public education above all other expenditures of government, we would make more money available. Because as you know, in most States, the property taxes go largely to the education system. Well, when the land belongs to the Federal Government, the Federal Government doesn't pay taxes. Consequently, that money is not available to us.

Now, States do get something called PILT payments--payment in lieu of taxes--but they're not the same as if that land were on the tax rolls of the States in which those lands reside. Consequently, look at what we've summed up. We're producing less jobs off Federal lands with more regulations, more cost to the American taxpayer, less revenue to the States, less revenue to the Federal Government, and less potential for job creation. The job seekers end up being on unemployment instead of paying taxes because of the salaries that are paid. And when you have great-paying jobs like in the oil and gas industry, where the average job pays $72,000 a year--a much higher wage than the average wage in our States--we really are hurting ourselves terribly by not prioritizing jobs, not using Federal lands to their fullest capabilities in a way that provides great stewardship that those in the West value and seek and yearn for and want and would never compromise in order to have a robust State and a robust economy.

I want to thank Mr. Pearce once again for his leadership.

I want to applaud House Republicans for putting this budget forward. And here's why we're trying to save Medicare. Do you see this little green line? That's our Medicare revenue. Now, do you see this huge Medicare green line? This is how much we're spending on Medicare. Now, that's just in the last year. So if you extend that forward, you can see why Medicare as it exists is going broke. So that's why I'm so proud of the House Budget Committee.

What they've chosen to do is come up with a plan that will save Medicare in this way: if you want to keep Medicare, you can keep it. But if you want something like we Members of Congress have, you can elect to have that too. Now, here's what I have as a Member of Congress. When I came in as a Member of Congress, I had a preexisting condition, but the Federal Government couldn't turn me down because of that preexisting condition to acquire insurance. That's the way it would be under Medicare.

Further, I have a choice between about 10 plans. I chose a standard Blue Cross Blue Shield plan, and I knew I could get it filled anywhere in the country, including my rural State of Wyoming. I pay 28 percent of my premium. The Federal Government, the taxpayers, pay 72 percent of my premium. That's basically what they're proposing. You'd have a choice among plans. And you would pay part of the premium, and the government would pay part of the premium. If you're healthy or wealthy, you'd pay more of your premium. If you're unhealthy or unwealthy, you'd pay less of your premium.

Now, you could either choose that, if that was something you've become accustomed to, or if you wanted to choose to be on Medicare as you know it today, that would also be a choice. It seems to me, Madam Chairman, that's a great choice. I support the Republican budget.

Mr. Speaker, as I traveled my district of Wyoming and visited another district, Nevada, over the last work period, I heard repeatedly from small business people about the burdensome regulations that have been placed on their businesses and ability to hire people and put people back to work by the current administration here in Washington.

So when I returned to Washington, I asked for a copy of all of the Federal Registers. Those are all the new regulations that have been printed just in this year alone and implemented by this administration. I now have in my office boxes of regulations that are taller than I am, and we're not even finished with this year. And going back to the year before and the year before, those regulations have been growing at exponential paces.

If we're going to put Americans back to work, Mr. Speaker, we need to make sure that these rules that are taller than I am, thousands of pages, tens of thousands of pages, are repealed.

I thank the gentlelady from Missouri.

Among the topics we've been discussing tonight is the effects of ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act, on Medicare. One of the things that I believe is the most egregious is that when the $500 billion was taken out of Medicare to fund ObamaCare, it puts Medicare in a position where access to Medicare becomes a problem; and it becomes a big problem in States like mine, the State of Wyoming, a very rural place. We've got a dearth of physicians.

Every time a Medicare patient walks into their offices, that physician is losing money because the doctors are reimbursed at amounts less than the cost to provide the service. That's happening elsewhere in the country as well, Mr. Speaker.

We know from what the former CBO Director, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said at a hearing in July of this year, and I quote, Today, Medicare coverage no longer guarantees access to care. Seniors enrolled in the Medicare program face barriers to accessing primary care physicians, as well as medical and surgical specialists.

He cited an example of the clinics that Mayo has in Arizona that are no longer accepting Medicare patients into their primary care facility. This is happening all over my State. I think it happens a lot in rural areas.

So the concern that we have of taking money out of Medicare and not using it to fix physician and hospital compensation, and, instead, taking it to create a whole new program for non-seniors was a big mistake, a huge, huge barrier to making sure that seniors and seniors- to-be, such as people in my age group, those of us 55 and older, will know that we have access to Medicare, the Medicare that we've paid into.

I commend my colleagues for having this Special Order tonight and raising these issues. I want to commend you and thank you for the opportunity to participate as well.

Mr. Chairman, the language in this bill does not prevent the EPA from regulating emissions from coal-fired utilities, and it does not prevent the EPA from dealing with cross-State pollution. The EPA must regulate emissions under its current rules.

So let's focus on the facts as presented by the EPA.

Thanks to the Clean Air Interstate Rule, emissions from fossil fuel power plants in the lower 48 States were 44 percent below 2005 levels by 2009.

In the past 40 years, our population has grown 48 percent. Gross domestic product has increased 209 percent and coal-fueled electricity has increased by 184 percent. Yet during that time, emissions from coal-based electricity generation have dropped by 60 percent.

Despite this success, EPA is still pushing for the most expensive rules ever imposed on utilities, every single dime of which isn't paid by the utilities; it's paid by everyday Americans who use electricity and by America's manufacturers.

Just the two rules in this bill, the ones that the TRAIN Act seeks to delay, would increase the nationwide average price of electricity by 11.5 percent, and it's even worse in this Nation's manufacturing States. Look at this map. The upper Midwest could see their electricity rise by 17 percent; Michigan by 20 percent, one of the States that's really hurting; Kentucky and Tennessee, by more than 23 percent. These are where our manufacturing jobs reside.

Raising energy costs would remove one of the few remaining advantages that U.S. manufacturing has over low-cost foreign competitors, that is, access to affordable, reliable energy.

My own industry people tell me that the one advantage they have over foreign countries when it comes to competing head to head is the availability of affordable, reliable energy. And on the environmental side, President Obama's former environmental czar, Carol Browner, herself, said that the rule would provide ``no health benefits associated with addressing non-mercury emissions.''

The rhetoric, Mr. Chairman, used to attack this bill has reached a fever pitch, but it is not backed by the facts.

I urge my colleagues to support the TRAIN Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heart that is both heavy and full of pride. On September 14, former U.S. Senator Malcolm Wallop passed away at the age of 78. Senator Wallop brought to the Congress his considerable influence, outspoken conservatism, and keen intelligence. The word ``statesman'' only begins to scratch the surface of Malcolm Wallop's accomplishments.

After serving in the Wyoming Legislature for several terms, Malcolm Wallop was elected to the United States Senate in 1976, a seat he held for 18 years. In the Senate, he served on numerous committees. He was the ranking member of Energy and Natural Resources and was the first nonlawyer in the history of the Senate to serve on the Judiciary Committee.

His efforts on the Judiciary Committee led to the enactment of the first international parental kidnapping statute, protecting children from being abducted overseas by noncustodial parents.

Through his work on Finance, Congress cut inheritance and gift taxes in 1981, which, among other things, ensured that ranching families could continue their operations upon the death of a family business partner.

He was also a tireless promoter of free trade, making new numerous trips abroad to promote GATT to reduce tariff barriers.

Due to his service on the Intelligence and Armed Services Committees, Senator Wallop served on the Helsinki Commission, which was charged with negotiating a number of complex arms control treaties, including SALT I, II, and III. Senator Wallop was one of the first persons outside of the old Soviet Union to meet with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn while he was still a prisoner in the gulag.

In the Cowboy State, Senator Wallop was a champion of protecting the western way of life, including an amendment to the 1980 Clean Water Act prohibiting Federal usurpation of State water rights and an amendment to the Surface Mining Control Act that directed the Federal Government to compensate owners of mineral rights for the loss of the right to mine.

Senator Wallop was one of the first legislators to lead the charge against the ``War on the West,'' which subordinated States' rights and severely limited multiple use of our public lands. In 1984, the Republican Senator partnered with Democrat John Breaux of Louisiana to author the Wallop-Breaux Sport Fishing Restoration Act to promote boat safety and fish habitat conservation along with enhancing fishing opportunities, including those for the handicapped.

Senator Wallop was also committed to education and volunteerism. In 1979,

Congress passed his legislation establishing the Congressional Award Program, which is privately funded and is the only volunteer award given in the name of Congress. Wyoming is proud to have the most active participation in that program.

Upon his retirement from Congress, Senator Wallop founded Frontiers of Freedom, a conservative think tank promoting freedom, fewer Federal regulations, and smaller government.

He was a man of supreme integrity, incredible intellect and a quick wit, humble to a fault and exceedingly kind. I am told he always had time to ask a Capitol Hill elevator operator or police officer about their family on his way to a vote. He had a tremendously devoted staff, many of whom worked for him for the full 18 years of his tenure in the Senate.

Finally, Malcolm Wallop was the descendent of an entrepreneurial pioneer family who had roots in Wyoming and the British Isles as well. Senator Wallop's grandfather served not only in England's Parliament but the Wyoming Legislature. The first polo field in the United States was built on the Wallop family ranch at Big Horn, Wyoming.

Senator Wallop was a man blessed with four wonderful children, many grandchildren, and his wife, Isabel. My thoughts and prayers are with his family. In their time of sadness, let them be comforted in the knowledge that Wyoming stands strong today because of Senator Wallop's untiring love of, and commitment to, our great State.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the Grand Opening of the Heart Mountain Wyoming Foundation's Interpretative Learning Center in my home State of Wyoming. While the Heart Mountain Relocation Center symbolizes a sad time in our nation's history, the opening of the Interpretative Learning Center begins a new era. It will be a first class educational facility that preserves and teaches the lessons embodied in the wartime experience of people of Japanese ancestry confined during World War II.

The Heart Mountain Relocation Center was located on then public lands in Park County, Wyoming. It was named after the Heart Mountain Butte visible in the distance. It was, and is, in a very rural area of Wyoming. It held nearly 14,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry during World War II on 740 acres. At the time it was the third largest community in Wyoming.

Heart Mountain was one of ten internment camps in the American West established by the War Relocation Authority and authorized by President Roosevelt under Executive Order shortly after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Under the justification of national security, the U.S. military was authorized to create military zones on the West Coast from which residents of Japanese ancestry were excluded.

The Heart Mountain Relocation Center was surrounded by guard towers and barbed wire fences and consisted of 650 barrack-style buildings, including a hospital, other support facilities and 468 residential units. Nearly two-thirds of those imprisoned at Heart Mountain were American citizens born in the United States and living in California, Oregon and Washington States. Internees were able to take few possessions with them and were forced to leave their homes, farms, and businesses.

Yet, despite their unjust imprisonment, the Japanese Americans at Heart Mountain never forgot that they were Americans. While residing at the Relocation Center, internees set up systems for democratic governance, health care, education, farming, and community services. More than 800 internees served in the U.S. armed forces during World War II, 11 of whom were killed and 52 wounded in battle.

This dark spot on the history of America and Wyoming nevertheless created lasting friendships and an indelible imprint on Northwest Wyoming. While he was a young Boy Scout living in Cody, Wyoming, former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson met former Representative and Secretary of Commerce and Transportation Norman Mineta when the Minetas were interned at Heart Mountain. They remain dear friends today. Senator Simpson, Secretary Mineta, and the people of Northwest Wyoming have wholeheartedly embraced the efforts of the Heart Mountain Wyoming Foundation to share this history with future generations.

The Heart Mountain Interpretative Learning Center is the culmination of a 15-year grassroots undertaking to preserve the historic site and interpret what occurred there for current and future generations of Americans. The Heart Mountain Wyoming Foundation has raised nearly $5 million through private donations, including significant contributions by former Heart Mountain internees. This funding has been used to acquire 50 acres at the original site and construct the Interpretative Learning Center. This effort has been supported by the Park County Commissioners, the Cody Country Chamber of Commerce, the Powell Valley Chamber of Commerce, the Park County Travel Council and the Northwest Region of the Wyoming Business Council.

The Center will house a number of permanent exhibits and artifacts in a barracks-like structure that will capture a sense of everyday life at the Relocation Center. Visitors will learn about the lives the internees left behind and the upheaval caused by the forced evacuation from their homes. There are a number of interactive displays and exhibits to help recreate the experience. There also will be an opportunity for visitors to gain insight into the post-war challenges for internees and the tragic legacy of civil rights abuses.

The world class facility will serve as a national center for education, policy and research in collaboration with universities and historic preservation organizations. Most significantly, it will be a visible reminder of the need to balance national security with respect for the civil rights of citizens.

The Heart Mountain Interpretative Learning Center, located between Cody and Powell, Wyoming, is located only 50 miles from Yellowstone National Park and Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area. Over 1,000 internees, descendents, and supporters from across the nation will attend the Grand Opening of the Heart Mountain Interpretative Learning Center later this month. It is my hope that my colleagues and their constituents will take time to visit the Heart Mountain Interpretative Learning Center when they visit Wyoming.

I congratulate the Heart Mountain Wyoming Foundation, and applaud the opening of a learning center designed to help us never to forget the importance of the liberties granted to all of us by our Constitution.

I rise today to honor the life and career of one of the finest physicians and gentlemen I have ever met, Dr. Robert McGuire of Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Dr. McGuire's career brought to his attention and to his care thousands of women in my State, and he made their lives better, including my own. Through his skill, through his patience and attention to the people he was treating, he made the profession of medicine honorable and cherished by the people he served so well.

His career has ended so he might fight his own battles with cancer. I wish him the very best regards in his fight. I thank him for the difference he made in my life and in the lives of thousands of women in my State of Wyoming. I wish him Godspeed.

Take care, Dr. Robert McGuire.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I also rise in opposition to the amendment by the gentleman from the State of Washington.

The best way to manage wolves is to let State experts do the job. Now, that's true whether you want to increase the number of wolves in your State, like the gentleman from the State of Washington wants to do, or you want to maintain a recovered population, which is what we want to do in my State of Wyoming.

Now, the truth about current wolf management is that if Washington wants to try to increase the wolf population in western Washington, they cannot do it under the current rules. And in my State of Wyoming, when asked at our committee meeting whether the wolf was fully recovered in the State of Wyoming, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service testified that, yes, the gray wolf is fully recovered in the State of Wyoming, has been for a long time.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Reclaiming my time, I'm coming to that.

The State of Wyoming has a wolf management plan that was approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as adequate. And then subsequently, through litigation upon litigation upon litigation, the courts changed their mind, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service changed its mind, the court changed its mind again, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service changed its mind again. So this is a process that is driven by litigation, not by science, because the science and the numbers both say that the gray wolf is recovered in Wyoming.

Wyoming has a wolf management plan on the books. However, what we are saying here with this amendment is that the State of Wyoming, through its Governor, will negotiate changes to that management plan which, when agreed to with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and submitted to the Wyoming Legislature, will not then be subject to additional whipsaw litigation--that will be the end of it--returning management of wolves to the State experts that should be doing this job.

Wolf management is frozen, and it need not be. By trying to strip this language, the gentleman from the State of Washington emboldens the people who don't want Washington State--or Oregon or Wisconsin or Michigan or Wyoming or any other State--to make its own decisions using its own wildlife biologists. I believe that State wildlife experts, not D.C. cube dwellers, have the expertise and the knowledge and the passion to manage the wolf anywhere they roam.

It is the intent of this legislation as currently written to make sure that the people who have the science, the background, the knowledge to make sure that the wolf, which has admittedly been recovered--admittedly by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recovered-- to be managed in a way that ensures that ongoing recovered status and ensures it at the very level where you're able to do it, where the boots are on the ground of the wildlife biologists and the paws are on the ground of the wolf that is already recovered but that needs to be maintained pursuant to a wolf management plan.

Let's trust our States, their wildlife biologists. Let's trust my Wyoming Game and Fish Department that has been recognized as one of the best wildlife management agencies in the country.

I'm stunned that people in Washington really believe that they can do it better and make decisions for wolves they've never seen, in places they've never been, and don't trust wildlife biologists they've never met. It is much better if the people on the ground are where the wildlife are on the ground, where the interaction is on the ground, where the conditions are understood, where the geography is known, where the life expectancy, where the birthrates, where the survivability of the species can be witnessed and determined.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I rise to oppose the amendment as well, Mr. Chairman.

There is a gentleman who is a wildlife biologist by the name of Allan Savory, and Allan Savory studied the way that the buffalo grazed on the sweeping landscapes of the American West. Buffalo grazed in a manner that cut wide swaths. Concentrated numbers of buffalo would move through and graze literally everything down to the nubs, both the weeds, the buffalo grass, and all of the very nutritious hard grasses and the grasses of the Sandhills of Nebraska, very different, very nutritious grasses that we call hard grasses. Some short hard grass, and others the tall grass. But they'd take everything out. They would at the same time, through their split hooves knead the soil in a way that allowed those lands to regrow more healthy, stronger, more filled in than they were prior to this intensive short-term grazing. That's how buffalo grazed the plains of the United States before people were here.

So Allan Savory took those same practices to Rhodesia and studied the manner in which grazing occurred there, and created something called the Savory system. The Savory grazing system is now used in a number of places throughout the West, and it actually emulates the way that buffalo grazed. And that is what happens when you trail cattle and sheep across public lands in a manner which keeps them concentrated for very short periods of time where they do very intensive grazing for very short periods of time, and then get off that land quickly so grass can regenerate so you don't have the type of runoff that happens when you have some charismatic megafauna overgrazing repeatedly day after day after day in the same place.

That's why these grazing practices are appropriate, these trailing practices are appropriate, and actually create a healthier grazing situation that carries a long-term, studier, stronger, healthier grass resource to be used by wildlife and domestic animals.

That is why on a scientific basis there is great rationale for relieving people who trail livestock across public lands from the onerous, expensive obligations of the NEPA process. I appeal to the desire to use sound science in the manner in which we approach these issues and not the type of emotional arguments that are raised by people who are just philosophically opposed to grazing.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the gentleman from Utah.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, so the point is this: The administration does not object, as I understand it, to the language of my amendment. The executive order, if it were repealed, would allow FLPMA to function as it is designed in the law. The problem that has been called to my attention is that the executive order has not been repealed. Secretary Salazar communicated privately with Chairman Simpson and Chairman Bishop that he did not intend to enforce the wild lands order, but the order is still in place. So until the order is withdrawn, this amendment is necessary.

Democrats strongly opposed including this language in the committee level. They've offered this amendment today. And then the President has threatened veto because this language might be in the bill. Now given that development, my initial skepticism on including this language is long gone. I'm not even skeptical anymore. Clearly, there are those who still want the Secretary to operate outside his legal authority and declare wilderness or wild lands areas without Congress. Only Congress can do that.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Reclaiming my time, this issue is not just an academic discussion on this floor. People in the West are terrified that the Department of the Interior is going to create a new category of lands called ``wild lands'' that will be managed differently than the law provides.

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma briefly to give him a last opportunity to comment.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will point out that the underlying bill reduces CEQ to 2006 levels and caps their full-time equivalence, or their employees, at 2006 levels. So that means that they will have a reduction in force. They will lose three employees.

I might also point out that when I was the general counsel for the Governor in my State, I also ran the Natural Resources Subcabinet. We were actually, at the State level, the mirror image, where I was, of what CEQ does. We were in the position of responding to NEPA documents that were sent to us by the Federal Government from Federal agencies. And as a State, we were attempting to coordinate our responses to NEPA documents for various State agencies--the agency that regulates water, the agency that looks after State land, the agency that does environmental quality in Wyoming, the agency that does State forests, and on and on. And so our Natural Resources Subcabinet was the State equivalent and mirror imagine in the responding avenue to what CEQ is in Washington.

Now, let me give you an example of some of the things that CEQ has coordinated here in Washington and why it makes sense.

We have seen in this debate, earlier, that fighting Asian carp is a priority for the Great Lakes region. Over the past 1\1/2\ years, CEQ has brought all the Federal agencies together with the Great Lakes States to combine efforts to fight this invasive specie. So they have coordinated on an interagency, intergovernmental framework. And without the framework, it's hard to pull the Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Interior, EPA, and these groups together with the States to have a shared response to a multi-State, multijurisdiction, multilevel of government issue like the Asian carp. That is something I believe that makes it appropriate for CEQ's existence to continue.

I understand the frustrations that some people have with it, but, quite frankly, that type of coordination I think could, when managed properly, allow the Federal Government to speak with one voice where their own disparate agencies have different mission statements. So that type of coordination is important.

Mr. Chairman, for those reasons, and for the cuts that have already been undertaken in this bill, I do rise to oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I would like to point out that the request for this agency's appropriation under the President's budget was $110 million more than is appropriated and that we as a committee did cut this current budget by $10 million already.

I would also point out something that's more philosophically based and that is my own personal view, and it's shared by many of my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle: That we should be funding Federal functions while we are here in Washington and acknowledge that certain functions really can be handled as well or better by the States and that the States created the Federal Government, not the other way around, and so we should be deferring to the States for everything that is not specified either in the Constitution or is purely a Federal function.

The Smithsonian Institution is a purely Federal function. It is something that was given to the United States of America, that the Federal Government and the people of this country through us are stewards of, and I believe it is appropriate as a purely Federal function that we fund it adequately.

Now we have, as I pointed out, reduced its budget during these tough fiscal times, but as something that is purely Federal in its approach and the benefit to our Nation and indeed to the world that is provided by this great gift that was given to the people of the United States of America centuries ago, I do rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

We don't have to pass this bill to read this bill. We know what's in it. It's been online for 72 hours. The American people can go read it.

But in case you haven't read it, let me tell you what it does. It caps spending. It caps spending consistent with the discretionary spending cuts that we passed in the budget earlier this year. And it cuts some mandatory spending in 2012, setting us on the path that Moody's and S&P say they need to ensure investors that they can have confidence in U.S. treasuries.

It will create the glide path that Ben Bernanke has told us over and over that we need to bring spending under 20 percent of GDP. And it will pass a balanced budget amendment, like the vast majority of States have. This is the way to implement what we need to raise our debt ceiling.

We know that we cannot default on our debt, so we will raise our debt ceiling in a way that Standard & Poor's and Moody's have said they need to see in order to assure our borrowers that our currency is valuable, that our obligations will be met, and that we are going to get our spending under control.

As the chairman of the House Budget Committee said a few minutes ago, when we passed his budget, we passed a plan that would broaden the base of taxes and lower the rate, that would not cut Medicare for seniors, for people over 55 years of age who aren't yet on Medicare, did not touch Social Security, and yet would preserve for the American people the decisions that this country was founded on.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment and to support the underlying bill.

Water rights are a State issue. And this amendment would allow two Federal agencies to increase their own scope of jurisdiction pursuant to the Clean Water Act. Those agencies have acknowledged that this amendment would allow them to increase the scope of their jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. It is not that nonnavigable waters go without regulation. Nonnavigable waters are regulated. They are regulated in the States by State systems. In the State of Wyoming, that system is a regulatory system administered by the executive branch. In Colorado, that system is an adjudicatory system regulated through the courts.

But in every case, in the West, where water is precious and sparse, the people who control it--whether it is in my State, like the board of control and our four regions and our water commissioners, our superintendents, our ditch riders, our ranchers, our farmers, our Department of Environmental Quality--they know the names of the streams; they know the names of the people who interact with the streams, the livestock that interacts with the streams, the wildlife that interacts with the streams, the weeds, the crops, the grass. They understand these ecosystems.

State government has been regulating water for over a century in a very comprehensive, clear, boots-on-the-ground, understand the systems way of managing. Now if you take that and allow the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to expand their jurisdiction in a way that includes nonnavigable waters, it will take that regulatory scheme that is working so well, and it will bring it to Washington, 2,000 miles away from where the regulators are currently doing their jobs well every day, and put it right here in Washington, D.C., where people don't understand the scarcity of water, where people don't understand our regulatory schemes, where they don't understand our case law, where they don't understand our ditch riders, where they don't understand our superintendents, where they don't understand our boards of control, they don't understand our State engineers.

Under the Western Attorneys General Conference, there is a specific entity related to the State engineers. The State engineers in the West are the people who regulate water. They meet regularly to discuss interstate issues and water jurisdiction as well as intrastate issues. This is a well-regulated, well-understood, well-managed, well- articulated system.

To take it and decide the Federal Government, for no good reason, could do better at a time when the Federal Government is broke and we cannot expand its jurisdiction without costing the taxpayers needlessly more is a travesty, Mr. Chairman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate and honor Jackson Hole Mountain Resort (JHMR) from the state of Wyoming for their receipt of the National Ski Area Association's (NSAA) Golden Eagle Award. Having been a previous recipient of this award in 1995, JHMR yet again receives the highest honor in environmental achievement. This prestigious award is judged by industry peers and a select group of judges.

As an example to all industries, both within and without the business of skiing, JHMR has managed to produce an environmentally-friendly ski resort. They are a great example to us all of environmental achievements. The award coincides with the resort's five year anniversary of ISO 14001 certification. JHMR is one of only two resorts in the United States to have met these standards. This specific award, the Golden Eagle Award, honors their environmental excellence for ``Medium Size Ski Areas'' (200,000--500,000 visits). Businesses, such as this resort, are our hope for a more beautiful world in the future, showing us that spectacular sites do not have to come at the cost of our environmental degradation.

Jackson Hole Mountain Resort is justly proud to receive this award. Their selection shows their positive impact and contribution to a better environment. A few of their contributions, to note, are: modifications to their heating systems, reducing propane use by 20% and recycling all motor oil, along with antifreeze, batteries, and snowmelt (from grooming equipment). They have demonstrated a level of responsibility, commitment and care that deserves our recognition, support and utmost respect. Their developments and strategies are exemplary. They are a great example to us all. I commend them for their great deeds, and agree they are most deserving of this Golden Eagle Award.