Floor Statements

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1385, but not for the reason for which this legislation is intended to point out or to create but, rather, for reasons that I will outline in my remarks here this morning.

In the last Congress, a nearly identical bill passed the House by voice vote. I do not expect to change anyone's mind, and I believe that the results will probably be the same as the last vote we had in the last Congress, but I must highlight serious shortcomings with this bill that should cause Members to reconsider their positions.

First, the House has not acquired sufficient evidence to justify extending Federal recognition to the six Virginia tribes identified in this bill. In the committee hearing on H.R. 1385, we heard a lot of testimony from witnesses for the six tribes, from the Governor of Virginia, from a historian, and from the Department of the Interior. All provided interesting and often passionate statements.

Although the Department provided no position on the bill, the Department's witnesses did remark that all six groups have petitioned for recognition with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but none of the six tribes have completed the process within the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

If the Department lacks completely documented petitions, then how can we be sure that we in Congress have enough information about these six tribes?

None of the witnesses explained why the six Virginia tribes should be recognized before all of the other tribes whose recognition petitions are within and are lingering within the Bureau of Indian Affairs. About nine of these groups have completed their petitions. In this respect, Mr. Chairman, they are more prepared for a final determination than the Virginia tribes with which this bill deals.

H.R. 1385 contains ample lists of congressional findings about the history of these six groups, but there is no requirement to verify that members of these tribes can trace descendants to historic Virginia tribes. This is a basic standard that the House must observe if it wants to ensure the integrity of tribal recognition. If the House is not prepared to take additional time to study this, then we should ask the Secretary to study it and to provide us with the answers.

The committee held no field hearings in Virginia to learn more about the tribes on their home turf. It has relatively little information from county officials and from private individuals who might be interested in tribal recognition and what it means to them. This is a State without a history of recognized tribes, unless you reach back to the colonial era, and Virginia presently has no Indian trust lands. We simply do not know if there are any counties or private individuals in affected areas who fully understand that placing land in trust removes property from the tax rolls and from State and municipal jurisdictions.

On this note, the Rules Committee made in order an amendment by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) to remove some counties from the bill. This suggests to me the majority is beginning to understand that counties in Virginia are just now becoming more informed on what this bill means.

So, Mr. Chairman, prudence dictates that we put this bill on hold until these issues are vetted. If the House recognizes new tribes and acquires lands in trust for them without thoroughly examining the views of the jurisdiction where the lands are located, we potentially risk creating local problems. This is going to hamper our efforts to resolve land-in-trust controversies occurring elsewhere in the United States.

Such controversies, Mr. Chairman, do occur. We have a huge one to deal with right now. In February, the Supreme Court, in Carcieri v. Salazar, held the Department of the Interior has no authority to acquire lands in trust for any tribe recognized after 1934 unless there is a specific act of Congress authorizing it. This is a major decision that has, frankly, Mr. Chairman, shaken Indian Country, and it is a case that has caught the attention of Governors, attorneys general, and county leaders around the country. The committee has held one hearing on the subject, and I am hopeful that there will be more.

Virginia's tribes are directly affected by this decision because they were not recognized in 1934. Thus, anything done with H.R. 1385 could set a precedent for resolving the Carcieri issue. Under H.R. 1385, lands placed in trust for the Virginia tribes will be secure. Meanwhile, lands held in trust or proposed for trust status for others may not be secure. This kind of inconsistency in Federal Indian policy helped fuel the controversy that led to the Supreme Court's Carcieri in the first place.

If the solution to Carcieri is to deal with each and every post-1934 tribe's trust land application separately in Congress, then H.R. 1385 might be appropriate. If the solution is to provide the Secretary of the Interior with the appropriate authority to acquire lands in trust, then H.R. 1385 is not appropriate.

So, while the committee has held a hearing on Carcieri, there seems to be no consensus on how to resolve it. We have received no testimony from the Department, and none of the tribes, States or other concerned interests have had an opportunity to testify in the committee as of the time the report for H.R. 1385 was filed. It would be wise then, Mr. Chairman, to postpone floor action on any recognition bills until the committee acquires a better understanding of the impacts of Carcieri and what to do about it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

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

I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

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

The gentleman from Northern Virginia (Mr. Moran) made an observation about the paper genocide issue, and I have to say that every member at the committee hearing that attended that hearing and heard the testimony on H.R. 1385 were, frankly, shocked and saddened and dismayed that, in fact, this sort of action went on in Virginia, how they treated the Indian people in the 20th century. I think that goes without saying. But I do want to point out, Mr. Chairman, for the record that there was a career employee of the Bureau of Indian Affairs who heads up the Office of Federal Acknowledgement that had a different view, and I just at least want to put that on the record as we debate this issue.

He said, ``Records in Virginia do exist, and they were not destroyed. The vital records of birth, marriage, divorce, death and probate, they are in the record. Not only are they in the hands of the individuals to whom they pertain, but they are available at the local registrar level and State registrar level.'' He went on, continuing to quote, ``In preparation for this hearing, I wanted to reach into what evidence was submitted on behalf of the Virginia groups, and in 2001 this was the material that we received. And one of the group's materials were copies of vital records that were not destroyed.''

So this BIA witness went on to describe how these documents identified the persons and Indians. So it appears that there are records in Virginia, notwithstanding the fact that the State of Virginia went through this process in the last century.

So, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point that out that in the committee hearing we did hear testimony that at least in part disputed the issue of paper genocide. I wanted to make that observation in the debate today.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I advised my friend, I have no further speakers. But I just want to take a moment here to close beforehand.

So with that I yield myself the balance of the time.

I think what has been demonstrated on the floor here is the passion surrounding this issue. And I can certainly understand that passion, especially with the history, particularly here in the eastern part of the United States. And I don't expect that my opposition or my arguments are going to change the outcome of the votes, as I mentioned in my opening remarks. But as I mentioned in my opening remarks, because of the Carcieri decision, I think it is important for us to set at least some guidelines as to what process we in Congress, who have the constitutional right, by the way, to recognize tribes, at least to have a set of criteria that we should look at. And one of them ought to be at least some verification at the minimal.

I know that at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and admittedly this is regulatory, there are seven or eight steps that certainly make sense. A lot of tribes have gone through that process. So I understand the passion. I respect the passion and the work that has been done on this. But for the reasons I outlined, more of a process reason than anything else, I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.

And with that, I yield back my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 31, and I do so because I believe this bill sets a bad precedent. It extends Federal recognition to what I understand would become the third largest tribe in the country. Though the size of the Lumbee Tribe does not disqualify it from consideration for recognition, it does demand, nonetheless, that Congress exercise great caution. And I will point that out later on in my remarks.

Madam Speaker, a fundamental principle of Indian law is that a recognized tribe should be a tribe that can trace continuous existence from the earliest days of our Republic to the present. In fact, this is enshrined in one of the seven mandatory criteria that the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or BIA, uses to evaluate petitions from groups seeking recognition. The BIA process might have its problems, but at least it has a clear set of standards that a petitioner must meet.

We in Congress do not seem to have a clear standard for determining that the Lumbee Tribe warrants recognition. Legislative proposals to recognize the Lumbee has surfaced numerous times over the last century, yet none were enacted. No new information has come to light to justify passing that legislation today. Moreover, the committee applied no visible standard for determining why the Lumbees warrant recognition while other groups do not. Unless the House develops a clear, rational, fixed policy on recognition, then our act of recognizing a tribe would deem to be arbitrary. This could undermine the standing of recognized tribes everywhere.

The lack of transparent standards in H.R. 31 leads to a major issue: the tribe size and the cost of providing services to it. Two years ago when we considered the same legislation, the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, estimated that recognizing the Lumbees would cost taxpayers $480 million over 5 years based on an enrollment of about 40,000 members. Today, CBO advises that the bill is going to cost $786 million over 5 years based on a tribal enrollment of 54,000.

$786 million, Madam Speaker, is an enormous sum and it could force the BIA and the Indian Health Service to alter formulas for the provisions of service to all other tribes, possibly reducing their allocation.

A recent news article in the North Carolina paper indicates the tribal rolls are closed because of the concerns over the size of the tribe. The implication is that the tribal rolls will be reopened again after Congress passes this bill. As I said earlier, the size of the tribe is not an issue here. What is at issue is the kind of enrollment standards the tribe applies because taxpayers and other tribes want to know what the cost implications will be down the road.

Let me restate a few points that I made when the Committee on Natural Resources marked up this measure, because the objections and the concerns that I raised then have not been resolved today.

First, the Obama administration testified in support of H.R. 31, reversing the stance of the previous administration. In the committee hearing on the

bill, the Department's witness did not explain how the administration came to the conclusion that the Lumbees warrant Federal recognition. When I asked the witness who was at the Department who made the decision, his reply was, The political leadership.

The Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, is the top political leader there. I would note since the day he took office, Secretary Salazar has repeatedly stressed that his decisions will be based on the law and sound science. For example, an Interior news release quotes him as saying: ``My first priority at Interior is to lead the Department with openness in decision making, high ethical standards, and respect to scientific integrity.'' Again, this is from a news release that was sent out by the Department.

We are debating a bill about tribal recognition and the Department of the Interior is supposed to base its recognition decisions based on the research of the professional historians, anthropologists, and genealogists employed in the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

So in this new leadership at Interior, how did this new leadership at Interior and the administration arrive at support of H.R. 31? Was it because of the professional opinion of those career social scientists? Was there openness in this decisionmaking? I think the answer is no. The Department has not provided the committee with any data supporting its conclusion that the Lumbee met the same basic criteria as other tribes the Secretary has recognized.

While there are a number of other concerns with H.R. 31, let me highlight one more which is extremely important. While the Constitution grants Congress plenary authority to recognize a tribe, the Congress must respect some reasonable limits on the exercise of this authority. To do otherwise undermines the whole notion of tribal recognition and thereby dishonors all validly recognized tribes. With this in mind, the House today should, at a minimum, ensure that a tribe being formally recognized descends from a known historic tribe.

H.R. 31 fails this test. The legislation limits the Secretary to ``confirming compliance with the membership criteria set out in the Tribe's constitution.''

The tribe has testified that its members are descendants of coastal North Carolina tribes. At a minimum, the Secretary should verify that every member of the tribe descends from such historic tribes. Such verification has not been done, and it is not required under H.R. 31. It could have been done if the amendment filed by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Shuler) were made in order by the Rules Committee, but the Rules Committee chose not to make his amendment in order.

His amendment would have required the Secretary to evaluate the Lumbee recognition petition using the Bureau of Indian Affairs' seven mandatory criteria. One of the criteria requires a petitioner to show that its membership consists of individuals who descend from a historic Indian tribe.

H.R. 31, again, Madam Speaker, does not impose a reasonable standard that justifies the recognition of the Lumbee Tribe.

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

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am, in its current form, Madam Speaker.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, the motion to recommit amends the bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to verify that members of the Lumbee Tribe are descendants of the Cheraw and coastal North Carolina tribes. I don't believe this is unreasonable, and I say that because the preamble contained in H.R. 31 states that, ``the Lumbee Indians of Robeson and adjoining counties in North Carolina are descendants of coastal North Carolina Indian tribes, principally Cheraw.''

At the same time, section 3 of the legislation limits the Secretary's role in verifying the Lumbee tribal rolls only to ``confirming compliance with the membership criteria set out in the tribe's constitution.''

Thus, Madam Speaker, nothing in H.R. 31 requires the Secretary or any third party to verify that individuals enrolled in the Lumbee Tribe are descendants of the historic Cheraw and coastal North Carolina Indians.

Under the Bureau of Indian Affairs regulations, as has been mentioned several times today, one of the seven mandatory requirements that must be met to be recognized by the Secretary as a tribe is that: ``The petitioner's membership consists of individuals who descend from a historical Indian tribe or from historical Indian tribes which combined and functioned as a single autonomous political entity.'' These regulations list a wide variety of evidence that can be used to meet this requirement.

The Rules Committee, as I have mentioned and as Mr. McHenry mentioned, would not make Mr. Shuler of North Carolina's amendment in order that would have required the Lumbees to meet all seven of the BIA criteria, including the one quoted above, to obtain Federal recognition.

This motion requires the Secretary to verify that members of the Lumbee Tribe meet the equivalent of just one of the seven criteria that are applied to the other petitioners seeking recognition through the BIA process.

I believe, Madam Speaker, this is reasonable because there have been some concerns about the tribe's enrollment.

Today, the tribe claims 54,000 members, and the CBO says the cost would be $786 million over 5 years. This is an increase from just 2 years ago when they were told that there were 40,000 tribal members. Moreover, it appears the tribe is keeping its rolls closed until Congress passes this bill.

It is fair to have the Secretary verify the base rolls the tribe uses to establish membership. This verification requirement does not cancel the tribe's recognition; it merely provides a means of verifying the base rolls, something the BIA should do if the Lumbees had gone through the regulatory process.

Thus, a motion to recommit merely ensures the House has taken extra care to ensure the decision to extend recognition to the Lumbee is appropriate, because a wrong decision, a wrong decision, Madam Speaker, could have an adverse impact on all tribes.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2430, legislation to allow for the continued stocking of fish in certain alpine lakes in the North Cascades National Park Complex, including the North Cascades National Park, Ross Lake National Recreation Area, and Lake Chelan National Recreation Area.

Many of these lakes have been stocked since the late 19th century, long before they became part of the National Park complex. For decades, volunteer groups, working with the State of Washington, have stocked trout in a number of lakes in this area under carefully constructed management plans written by State and Park Service biologists. In addition, congressional consideration of the creation of the North Cascades National Park clearly indicated that fish stocking should continue. More significantly, the legislation creating the Park even identifies fishing as an important recreational use.

When questions were raised about the environmental impacts of fish stocking, the Park Service prepared an Environmental Impact Statement on the fisheries in these mountain lakes. The preferred alternative selected in the final record of decision is to allow continued fish stocking in forty-two lakes where the agency has concluded there would be no adverse impact on native ecosystems. In this report the Park Service also requested explicit authority to allow fish stocking to continue within the Park.

In order to protect this longstanding practice in the North Cascades, I introduced H.R. 2430 to ensure that fish stocking can continue. After years of consultation with local leaders on this issue, it is clear to me that communities in and around the North Cascades National Park Complex want fish stocking to continue. Many tourists visit the Park for its scenic beauty as well as for its fishing opportunities, helping make fish stocking an important component of the Central Washington economy.

Finally, I would like to thank many of my Washington state colleagues who cosponsored H.R. 2430, including Rick Larsen, Norm Dicks, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Brian Baird and Adam Smith. I especially would like to note the assistance provided by Norm Dicks, whose involvement in this issue goes back to his time as a staff member in Congress. I urge all my colleagues to support this common sense legislation and ensure that local residents and all visitors to the North Cascades National Park can continue to enjoy recreational fishing as they have for more than a century.

Mr. Speaker, since January, House Republicans have simply asked the Democrat majority in the House for a chance to debate an amendment on Second Amendment rights and to have a vote to allow citizens to carry firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges in accordance with State law.

Unfortunately, Democrat leaders have spent the last 5 months using every legislative trick in the book to obstruct a fair and open process. However, after Senator Coburn managed to force consideration of his amendment in the other body, Democrat leaders have finally cried uncle and decided to hold a debate and a vote.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud their capitulation.

During today's debate, you'll hear gun control advocates falsely claim that this amendment will increase poaching because American gun owners won't be able to resist the temptation to shoot wildlife encountered in national parks.

Mr. Speaker, their liberal base might believe this, but I doubt if the American people will. In fact, the fact is that American gun owners are simply citizens who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights without running into confusing red tape.

Opponents of this amendment will also call it unprecedented, far reaching and radical. But the fact is, it merely puts national parks and refuges in line with current regulations of national forest lands and Bureau of Land Management lands. Let me reiterate this. The Second Amendment rights are already in place in national forests and on Bureau of Land Management property.

The current policy is outdated, unnecessary, inconsistent and confusing to those who visit the checker board of public lands, and the policy needs to be changed, and this amendment does just that.

Finally, let me remind my colleagues that the current prohibition is only in place because of a lone activist Federal judge in Washington, D.C. who somehow rationalized that the Second Amendment should be subjected to environmental review and red tape bureaucracy--Second Amendment subjected to environmental review--and decided to singlehandedly throw out the previous policy. She did this, despite the fact that the previous administration had conducted months of review in a thorough public comment process.

Now, today, on this vote the House has the opportunity to right that wrong.

So, Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in restoring Americans' Second Amendment rights on Federal lands.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule and the underlying bill.

Yesterday the Rules Committee voted along party lines to keep the House of Representatives from considering two amendments I offered that would have helped school districts whose tax bases are significantly reduced by the presence of tax-exempt federal lands.

As some of you may recall, I offered the very same amendments to H.R. 3021 last year, when the interests of these school districts were also ignored by Democrats on the Rules Committee.

The bill before us today drastically expands the Federal Government's role in school construction and maintenance--activities historically funded at the State and local level--BEFORE meeting its existing responsibilities to schools that are impacted by federal land ownership.

As I have noted before, over 33 percent of my district in central Washington is owned by the Federal Government--making 11 school districts eligible for Impact Aid. I know all too well about the consequences of federal land ownership and the impact it has on the ability of schools to make needed improvements.

In Grand Coulee Dam, Washington, students attend classes in buildings more than half a century old that are literally falling apart. While local residents have agreed to pay one of the highest levies in the State of Washington, the school district remains unable to secure a bond to make improvements because the community is surrounded by federal lands and has a limited tax base.

The Federal Government has a responsibility to ensure that no child's education is shortchanged because of federal land ownership. And in my view, it's only fair that the Federal Government take care of federally impacted schools before launching a brand new spending program costing billions of dollars that's aimed at other schools that aren't federally impacted.

I offered two amendments in the Rules Committee yesterday. The first would have required that our commitment to federally impacted schools be met through full funding of the Impact Aid program before funding is spent on the new federal spending program in this bill. My second amendment would have simply given preference to federally impacted schools as the new construction and maintenance funds are distributed.

Unfortunately, Democrat leaders again blocked both of my amendments from being debated or voted on today by the full House.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government is not meeting its current responsibilities to federally impacted schools. As I said last year, we certainly have no business creating a brand new $33 billion spending program for other schools--especially at a time when the federal deficit is at astonishing levels.

Rather than passing this massive expansion of the Federal Government's role in school construction, we should refocus our efforts toward fulfilling existing obligations to schools and children impacted by federal actions.

I urge my colleagues to reject this restrictive rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 1 minute to my distinguished colleague and good friend from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the newest Member of the House of Representatives, at least for another 6 hours, until one newer than him is sworn in, Mr. Quigley from Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentlelady if she has any remaining speakers. I am the last speaker for this side and am prepared to reserve.

Then I would reserve the balance of my time until the gentlelady has closed for her side and yielded back her time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment ensures that potential water storage reservoirs and their hydropower resources are kept on the table when it comes to our Nation's future water and power supplies.

I have the privilege of representing a rural district in central Washington. Constituents in my district and throughout the Pacific Northwest have benefited tremendously from the emissions-free and renewable hydropower generated from water reservoirs in the Columbia River Basin. In fact, over 80 percent of Washington State's electricity needs are met through hydropower.

Water reservoirs, such as Lake Roosevelt behind Grand Coulee Dam and the reservoirs behind the Snake River Dam have not only provided much- needed hydroelectricity, but also deliver water for irrigation, barge transportation, drinking water, flood control and recreation purposes.

Many of our Nation's water storage reservoirs contribute to the generation of hydropower, which is, Mr. Chairman, a renewable and clean energy resource. Hydropower projects have provided emissions-free electricity for generations.

Recent debate here in Washington, D.C. has been focused on global climate policies and how wind and solar can be energy solutions for the future. I agree that these technologies should be part of our energy portfolio, but our country needs an all-of-the-above approach to meet our needs. We need wind, solar, hydro, oil, natural gas and nuclear power.

However, we must recognize that the wind doesn't blow all the time and that it gets dark at night. In my region of the Pacific Northwest, hydropower is the renewable backup resource for wind power. When the wind subsides, hydropower generation is increased to offset the loss of wind power. Without hydropower, wind generation would not be the reality that it is today.

Yet some do not recognize that hydropower is a renewable resource and fail to see the need for new water storage reservoirs that help develop and foster these and other renewable energies, reservoirs that have helped develop our Nation and will continue to provide multiple uses, including hydropower. There is simply no reason why we should discount potential new water storage and reservoirs in the future.

So to that end, Mr. Chairman, my amendment directs the relevant agencies to assess potential water storage projects that would enhance water supply, water planning and other beneficial uses.

While I pointed out the benefits of hydropower, this amendment does not predetermine outcomes. It simply puts potential water storage as a consideration when looking at our entire water supply outlook. Whether it is for drinking water, irrigation or for power generation, it puts that on the table.

So I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's working with us on this and would be more than happy to work with him.

To that end, Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished ranking member of the Science Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate again the support of the distinguished chairman and the ranking member. With that, I urge adoption of the amendment, and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 204, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I'm not in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as introduced, this bill contained sense of Congress language that the chairman talked about.

Since the severity of wildfires and cost of suppressing them have grown enormously in recent years as a result of the tinderbox conditions we have allowed to develop in this country, I understand why the bill sought to deal with the requirements of the Budget Act this way because, after all, we really have no choice but to try to bring the fires under control and limit their destructiveness.

Although, I can understand how this amendment came to be, because apparently the Budget Committee must feel differently with the massive deficits that we face under the President's proposed budget, and I can see why the Budget Committee is concerned about taking the FLAME fund off budget.

Nevertheless, I think this is the right amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I'm not opposed to the amendment.

The amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado is intended, rightfully so, to clarify the fire suppression authority under this Act as it relates to the severe insect infestation problem in our national forests.

Although I support the amendment, I must point out that prevention is far more cost-effective than fire suppression, and until we in Congress act on measures that promote sound scientific forest management and allow the related industries to survive, we are really not comprehensively addressing this problem.

Nevertheless, this is a good amendment. I support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have no objection to the amendment of the gentleman from Colorado. I know that most Forest Service employers are very frustrated over the extent to which their time is spent producing the paperwork needed to defend against or head off lawsuits. I am sure many in Congress have heard me say that as a result of these lawsuits, they spend far more time developing forest plans than implementing them. But in the case of keeping the forest fire wildfire strategy current, it makes sense to revise them from time to time.

In a few short years, drought, beetle infestation or forest life cycle can transform a forest, and what may have once been a very appropriate fire management strategy may no longer be relevant.

I hope that the Forest Service will be able to update the cohesive wildlife management strategy in a timely manner, without delays or other challenges posed by irresponsible environmental lawsuits.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment can best be described as a ``good neighbor amendment.'' This amendment will require advanced notice in writing to land owners adjacent to National Forest system lands whenever the Forest Service sets a prescribed burn.

It is important for all of us who are government officials to treat every American with respect. We owe it to neighboring property owners to let them know what we are doing when our actions may affect them.

Fires, even prescribed burns, can be dramatic events. It is simply a courtesy to keep our neighbors informed.

This commonsense amendment was included in the version of the FLAME Act that passed the House under suspension of the rules by a voice vote last year.

Some might say that the burden of notifying neighbors is too great. I suspect these are people who don't live next to national forests and they don't understand what challenges a prescribed burn can have. It is a lot more expensive to face lawsuits from private landowners who weren't given enough warning to prepare for possible problems than it might come from notifying them of a prescribed burn.

With that, Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, Einstein's definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. In order not to be a continuing example of Einstein's observation, this bill wisely requires the Secretaries to conduct a review of major wildlife incidents and report the results of the review to Congress.

My amendment simply directs that these reports include an assessment of what actions could have been taken before the fire that would have prevented or lessened the severity of the fire. I believe my amendment will increase the value and usefulness of the information gathered, and I urge its adoption.

I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the President has proposed that the Federal Government impose a cap- and-trade system aimed at limiting and reducing carbon emissions in our country. This cap-and-trade system is really a national energy tax that could cost $2 trillion. As a result of that, American families could pay up to $3,100 per year in higher energy and fuel costs.

Let's set aside the fact that our economy can't afford such a massive new tax on such basic essential services as electricity. Let's also set aside the fact that we'd be handicapping the American worker and small business by imposing such a tax when China and India are unapologetically racing to expand carbon emissions in their country.

The President's cap-and-trade scheme aims to curb manmade carbon emissions, but the bill before us today is about wildfires--and the fact is that we know very little about the massive carbon emissions created by such fires.

Yet, what little information we do have on wildfires is absolutely astonishing. For example, the 2003 Hayman fire in Colorado produced more CO2 than was produced by the entire population of the State of Colorado in a single year.

My amendment simply directs the Forest Service to gather information on the emissions of wildfires because such knowledge is an essential component in making national policy decisions on greenhouse gases that are based on facts and proven science and not conjecture and unproven consensus.

We can't afford to impose a $2 trillion energy tax on our economy and on American families and small businesses, especially when we weren't even aware of the massive carbon outputs of wildfires that the Federal Government is doing enough to prevent right now.

So I urge support of my amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico deals with what issues Federal agencies should take into account when preparing a cohesive wildland fire management strategy.

I will simply note the irony that Democrats on the Rules Committee made when they allowed this amendment to be made in order to require that the management strategy analyze how the world's atmosphere and climate might impact the frequency in severity of wildfires; and yet, my amendment to have the agencies include fire prevention practices on fire management was not made in order. Apparently, we prefer to dedicate our Federal firefighters' time to speculation about the weather and not on real on-the-ground, human-controlled actions that are proven to prevent fires from ever happening. So it seems to me our priorities, at least from the Rules Committee standpoint, might be a bit misplaced. But, nevertheless, this is a good amendment and we accept it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased the majority has acknowledged with this amendment the importance of prevention.

Whether the risk be beetle infestation or other disease, we can prevent forest fires if we manage our forests. I hope in the future we can take genuine strides to prevent catastrophic fire. This amendment is just one small piece of a much broader prevention strategy that is needed.

If the gentleman is prepared to yield back, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, clearly invasive species have a role in destroying our valuable forests. My understanding is that the grants made available under this amendment would go towards programs focused on eradication of invasives.

Much like a weed infested, untended garden, our forests are being overtaken and destroyed. This condition is completely unnecessary, but our land managers now spend most of their time dealing with lawsuits, either preparing to be sued or being sued, while our forests go untreated. This is a good amendment, and I urge adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

This amendment would direct better coordination of the National Guard with

wildfires. I think it is a good amendment, and we will accept it on this side.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I'm not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that this amendment makes it easier for communities to qualify for grants. These funds will be well spent if they actually go towards real fuel reduction. Neither taxpayers nor communities in harm's way of potential wildfires can afford to have funds used merely to nibble around the edges, avoiding tackling the real problem of fuel buildup.

This is a good amendment. I support it.

If the gentlelady is ready to close, I will yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, this is an excellent opportunity, with this amendment, for us to insist that fire prevention activities be part of the overall wildland fire management equation. Mr. Goodlatte's program to encourage cooperative management across Federal, State and private forest lands is, very simply, a positive step.

Wildfires do not read maps, and they do not respect boundaries. So by taking advantage of the non-Federal fuel reduction efforts, we can, in the long run, leverage more protection. And the one thing that this bill doesn't have enough of is protection. This is a positive step in that direction.

Will the gentlelady yield?

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and the total blockade erected by House Democrat leaders to any amendments being offered on this over 1,200- page bill, this $10 billion omnibus lands package.

This bill is a monster bill created by the Senate, stacking together more than 170 pieces of different legislation. Over 100 of these bills have never been voted on in the House.

The legislative strategy behind the creation of this omnibus bill was to make a bill--apparently like AIG--that is too big to fail.

Of course, the bill does contain some worthwhile provisions, including a few that I offered. But if we were wise, if we were wise in this House, our recent experiences with TARP and the stimulus package would serve as a cautionary tale about the need for deliberation before passing gargantuan bills.

Last week, for example, Congress loudly expressed indignation about the Wall Street bonuses. But now we learn that restrictions on bonuses were in the original legislation but they were stripped out in the final bill by someone in Congress, specifically in the Senate.

And yet here we are again, about to ensure that another far-reaching bill will move through the House, unexamined, and it with no opportunity for amendment.

However, there are many areas in this bill that need improvement. I filed, Madam Speaker, just 10 amendments with the Rules Committee on the most serious areas of concern.

Let me highlight just a few of them: Ensuring protection of our border security; producing American-made energy that will create new jobs; ensuring public access to Federal lands--and I will talk about that more in a moment--and restoring Americans' second amendment rights while on Federal lands. This was struck down last Thursday by a judge here in D.C.

On the need to protect our borders, do we know what effect the enhanced environmental restrictions under this bill will have on border security? No, we do not.

The Senate has stricken out an amendment by Mr. Grijalva of Arizona to the National Landscape Conservation System bill that was adopted in this House last April, 414-0. This unanimously approved House amendment stated, ``Nothing in this act shall impede any efforts by the Department of Homeland Security to secure the borders of the United States.'' The Senate stripped this provision from the bill and now that protection is gone.

I filed an amendment with the Rules Committee to restore this provision as it reflects the unanimous House position, as well as another amendment to apply this border security protection language to the entire omnibus bill.

We must ensure that provisions in this bill do not ban the use of vehicles and other technology to patrol and secure our border. But this rule we are debating doesn't allow any amendments to be debated or voted on by this House.

The force behind denying any amendment to the omnibus bill is so great, so great, that the House is apparently willing to fall over and play dead on border security. We don't even know who is responsible for deleting this amendment in the Senate.

If this bill becomes law without fixing this border security loophole, I fear we will likely look back in the future and say, Well, we really should have kept that safeguard in and not let the Senate strip it out, just like the Senate stripped out the AIG provision that we railed against last week.

The price Americans pay to fill up their cars is starting to go up again, yet H.R. 146 prohibits American-made energy production on Federal lands--production that would create new jobs in these difficult economic times. Our Nation can't afford to shut down the creation of jobs and we can't afford to become even more dependent on foreign oil.

The omnibus bill even locks up Federal lands from renewable energy production, including wind and solar. Again, amendments that I filed to address these issues were rejected by the Rules Committee.

As written, Madam Speaker, the omnibus bill prevents and bans public access to Federal lands in many ways. The recreational riding of bicycles and motorbikes is prohibited in over 2 million acres of public land. Wheelchair access to wilderness areas is effectively banned as well.

I would be happy to yield.

I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

I appreciate the gentleman's remarks.

Madam Speaker, there is another issue. I offered an amendment with Mr. Bishop of Utah dealing with the second amendment rights, and he will speak to that. But I want to tell the House that this is an issue to correct a Federal judge's decision from last week that bans the use of firearms under State law on certain Federal lands. We can rectify that without slowing this bill down at all.

We can rectify this, Madam Speaker, by defeating the previous question. If we defeat the previous question and allow a motion to amend the rule to take up the amendment that I offered dealing with the second amendment, then we can add that to the package and this House will have an opportunity to vote on that.

The reason I bring this up, while 2 weeks ago the House put in the Altmire amendment, at that time the nonrestriction on gun ownership on Federal lands was in place until the judge struck it down. This corrects that, and it needs to be corrected. We can correct it today by defeating the previous question and allowing us to amend the rule to take up my amendment on the second amendment.

I urge Members when we get to that point to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can amend the rule to take up this issue on gun rights that Mr. Bishop will talk about later.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill has gone through quite a process. And although this bill contains several meritorious separate pieces of legislation, and three parts of this omnibus bill are mine, I might add, the negatives in this bill and the failure to consider it under regular order of any kind of open, inclusive process outweigh any reason, in my mind, to go forward.

By now, it is well known that Republicans have tried to amend this bill to restore needed House provisions, to remove egregious provisions, and add protections for Americans' second amendment rights.

If we had been allowed to offer these amendments, we might have produced legislation almost all Members of the House could support; however, we have been blocked at every opportunity from participating in this process.

This package is largely a product of closed-door deal-making. It is designed to ensure that just enough congressional districts receive something to induce support for very controversial measures that underwent no public hearing.

The Democrat leadership likes to argue that the full House has acted on more than 70 provisions in this bill. What they don't say is that at least 100 provisions have not been considered by the full House.

Mr. Speaker, this may look familiar to some people. It is a large, large bill. Of that, only this amount has been considered by the House. It seems like we haven't learned from what past experience has taught us about trying to put massive bills through the House without having somewhat of an open process.

Every motion, procedure, and action of this body has been used to deny the House Republicans any meaningful participation in this bill. The House's failure to study these 100 provisions will have serious consequences, in my view, for an ailing economy.

Before the House rejected this package under suspension of the rules, our friends on the other side of the aisle argued that this bill is just what America needs in difficult times. Well, it seems to me the discussion in this new Congress has been around the economy and the need for American jobs. And I think that we can all agree that Americans need jobs. Although H.R. 146 might create a few jobs, these jobs will be mostly limited to bureaucrats putting up ``Do Not Enter and No Access'' signs all over America's public lands. And these few jobs will be far outnumbered by the jobs that would be killed by this bill.

Are our memories so short that we have forgotten the energy crisis of just last summer and the role that it played in the economic downturn that we experienced in the second half of last year? Evidently, the Democrat leadership's answer to this is to close off energy-rich public lands forever.

This package contains 19 provisions to block American-made energy production, locking away hundreds of millions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. More than 3 million acres of public land are permanently locked away from energy development. Now, these are public lands, in a time when our economy is slowing, in a time when we need to try to get the economy going, and no sector could be better I think than the energy sector, especially the American energy sector; yet, this bill goes the opposite way of what I just cited.

It is ironic, while Democrat leaders accuse industry of stockpiling Federal oil and gas leases, the truth is that the Federal Government, through the actions of the Democrat majority in this Congress, is stockpiling lands to block energy production.

H.R. 146 has many other problems. It could--and I say ``could''-- result in a ban on the use of vehicles and other technology to patrol the U.S. border. It bans recreational access to millions of acres of public lands. Even worse, it denies those dependent on wheelchairs, including disabled veterans, from fully enjoying public lands like everyone else. It fails to address a Federal judge's decision of only last week, when we could have acted on this, that overturned the Bush administration's regulations to protect second amendment rights in parks and wildlife refuges. In other words, to make consistent our laws on public lands. H.R. 146 even hurts civil liberties. It could mean jail time and asset forfeiture for several innocent actions by Americans.

Yesterday, we received a letter from a coalition of civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and others, who have grave concerns. And I will quote, ``The bill creates many new Federal crimes using language that is so broad that the provisions could cover innocent human error.''

These organizations also say, and, again, I am quoting, ``Above all, we are concerned that a bill containing new Federal crimes, fines and imprisonment and forfeiture provisions may come to the House floor without first being marked up by the House Judiciary Committee.''

Mr. Speaker, this bill was not even marked up by the House Natural Resources Committee. This bill was not marked up by any committee in the House. This is a bill that came over, again, over 1,100 pages, from the Senate. So this wasn't even marked up, and it has these provisions in it.

I just have to ask you, Mr. Speaker, does this sound familiar? None of the several committees with jurisdiction over this bill had any hearing on the troubling provisions within this bill.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is not how the people's House ought to work. This House is the House wherein no Member has ever served that was not elected. It

is the closest to the people. And when we have concerns, then let's debate those concerns, and let's have a vote. And I understand how that works. We have three buttons, but I generally only press two, yes and no; and, whoever has the most votes prevails. But we have been denied even that basic opportunity in the people's House on this bill.

The amendments I offered, for example, last night in the Rules Committee that were rejected, all on a party-line vote, I might add, were bills that only address the most egregious parts. We had a discussion with some of the members of the Rules Committee where they were talking about some of the provisions they worked on were carefully crafted. In fact, the distinguished chairman mentioned that. And I totally agree; I know there are provisions that have been crafted. But for those provisions in the bill that have some dissension, some difference of opinion, then let's discuss that, and then we can have a vote and whichever side prevails, prevails. That is the way the people's House ought to work. But, once again, that process is being denied with this huge bill that is slightly larger, I think, than the stimulus bill, if you want to make some sort of a comparison. But here we are again, today, going through that same procedure.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, while there are three provisions in this bill that I have worked several Congresses on, I have to say that this bill on the whole is not worthy of my support, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from California, I yield myself 15 seconds to simply say that the NRA does not endorse this bill. The NRA endorsed the gentleman's amendment that he offered 2 weeks ago, but it does not endorse this bill.

National Rifle Association of America, Institute for

Legislation Action,

Fairfax, VA, March 10, 2009.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives, H-232, The Capitol,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Boehner,

Republican Leader, House of Representatives, H-204, The

Capitol, Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leader Boehner, on behalf of the

National Rifle Association, I am writing to express our

support for the Altmire amendment to S. 22, the Omnibus

Public Land Management Act of 2009. The Altmire amendment

would ensure that the provisions of S. 22 will not be used to

close lands that are currently open to hunting, fishing,

trapping, target shooting and other forms of traditional

recreation. In addition, the amendment clarifies that the

states retain the authority to manage resident fish and

wildlife.

Encroaching development and the increasing population

demand for open space has resulted the closure of federal

lands that were once open to traditional forms of recreation,

such as hunting and target shooting. Whether it is the

closure of a trail that served as the access point for a

generations-old hunting camp or the closure of large areas to

target shooting, the sportsman's way of life has been under

attack. There are those who would exacerbate this situation

by attempting to use land designations to further close

federal lands to sportsmen. This is why the Altmire amendment

is necessary.

The Altmire amendment has already been applied to the

National Landscape Conservation System Act within S. 22. It

is critical to extend this protection for sportsmen to other

areas of the bill, specifically Titles V and VIII pertaining

to Rivers and Trails and National Heritage Areas,

respectively. This is precisely what the Altmire amendment

would do.

While the NRA takes no position on S. 22 as a whole, the

meaningful protections provided by the Altmire amendment are

critical to preserve access for sportsmen and the authority

of the states to manage resident wildlife populations. For

these reasons, we support its inclusion in S. 22.

Should you have any questions or need additional

information, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at

(202) 651-2560.

Sincerely,

Chris W. Cox,

Executive Director NRA-ILA.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), a new Member, and a new member of the Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, a member of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Broun.

Mr. Speaker, the last time I inquired about time there was a disparity. So I think I will reserve my time until we catch up.

Mr. Speaker, once again can I inquire of the time on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I will reserve my time again so we can equalize the time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, again, to equalize the time, I will reserve my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore . The time is equal on both sides. There are 9\1/4\ minutes remaining for the gentleman from Washington, and there are 9\1/2\ minutes remaining for the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Utah, a

member of the Natural Resources Committee (Mr. Bishop).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I will reserve my time. I am the last speaker on this side.

Mr. Speaker, I will reserve my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, in my opening remarks, I talked a bit about process, that we seem to have a pattern in this new Congress of taking up bills like this that are not fully vetted. This is just the latest example of that. I hope it is the last, but I am not holding my breath.

But I also made an observation in my opening remarks that there are enough individual bills in here to cover enough individual congressional districts that this bill will probably pass, and I suspect that it probably will.

I listened very intently to all of my friends on both sides of the aisle that spoke in favor of this bill. In every one of the projects they talked about, at least one way or the other, they suggested that there is a lot of work at home, there is a lot of vetting on that. And I totally agree.

When I went to the Rules Committee last night to try to address some of the problems I had, none of those projects that the Members on the other side talked about were what I was talking about with what I had problems with this bill. And that gets us then back to the point that we are making. On those areas where there is disagreement, in the people's House, Mr. Speaker, we should have an opportunity to discuss the differences and then have a vote and find out which side prevails. But all we heard today on debate on this was those that had good projects. I certainly don't argue with that. I mentioned I have three of them in here myself.

And so, the process, I guess, is what disturbs me more than anything else. The issue that I had a concern with was the issue of the judge's decision last week on second amendment rights. Nobody talked to defend that. The issue I had was the language that was taken out as to homeland security environmental concerns. Nobody came down to the floor to discuss that or defend that position. I raised concerns about the interpretation of people with disabilities having access to our wilderness areas. Nobody came down to the floor to discuss that.

Those are the issues that we should have had a discussion on, not the issues that everybody agreed upon. Had we gone through normal process, that probably would have been vetted. There probably would have been a compromise worked out so that we could have resolved the issues for everybody and a bill like this truly could have passed with well- overwhelming support.

But as it is, Mr. Speaker, because it is a bill in which a lot was vetted, in which there are a lot of unanswered questions and unintended consequences--which we see is becoming a pattern in this Congress by taking up bills that don't get a lot of time to be looked at--we will probably come back and have to make some changes. In fact, I would not be surprised that there will be a bill to address the issue of the judge's decision very shortly. I bet probably there will be a bill that will clarify the border security. Well, we could have done that with this lands bill.

So, Mr. Speaker, even though I have pieces of legislation in here, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

With that, I yield back my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and former seatmate on the Rules Committee for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, while I support the underlying goals and indeed the idea of this bill, I have fundamental concerns with what is lacking in both the bill and the rule.

This rule and bill have focused on clearing up how to budget for fighting forest fires. That is good. But the Democrat leadership is averting its eyes and its legislative power from the need to prevent forest fires from happening in the first place.

Under the Democrat majority, not a single hearing has been held on wildland fire prevention in this Congress, and only one hearing was held in the last Congress. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been provided to place more forested land under Federal control. But little has been allocated to actively manage these lands or help the Forest Service and Department of the Interior clear areas and create firewalls between populated areas and potential tinder boxes.

I note that while this rule has been much more generous, and sometimes when I say that with all the closed rules we have had, even one amendment would be generous, but while this rule has been much more generous in making amendments in order than recent examples, of the five amendments that I filed, the two which explicitly address fire prevention were not allowed by the Rules Committee, as was Congressman Herger's amendment, a commonsense, budget-neutral one that the gentleman from Florida pointed out would simply say excess funds in this account should go to fire prevention.

I don't understand what is wrong with even debating it. Keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, when we allow these amendments to be made in order, we are not saying they are going to pass. We are simply going to say that they will be made in order to debate. Why wouldn't we want to have a debate that says we have excess funds, and if there is no fires, so there is some funds left over, we will put that in fire prevention? Why, for goodness' sakes, could we not even debate something like that on the floor? But that seems to be a pattern, unfortunately, in this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, we immunize our children to prevent illnesses and suffering. We treat our homes for termites and other pests to save us from expensive extermination and repairs down the line. Farmers spray their crops to prevent plant disease and infestation and to produce healthy products. Why can't we extend the same principle to our forests? Preventing devastating forest fires or reducing their severity will save money, property and even lives.

I note that my friend from Colorado in his opening remarks made mention of a forest that is devastated by a beetle. There is nothing in this bill that prevents the beetle infestation. Now there are some amendments that may address, and frankly my amendments that I wanted to offer would address it more fully. I think that this bill of carving out something to say that the Forest Service or anybody that fights forest fires will have a dedicated sum of money to fund those, I think that is good policy. But, once again, this does not address the underlying issues, and that is really where we should be focusing.

So I hope in the future my majority colleagues will heed the words of the beloved icon of the Forest Service, Smokey the Bear, when he says, ``Only you can prevent forest fires.''

With that, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman yielding. And I'm very thankful that you made three of my amendments in order. But as I explained in my remarks regarding the Herger amendment, when you make an amendment in order, you are not ensuring its passage. All you are ensuring is you are going to have a debate on the issue. And so I wonder why you wouldn't, because there were some 20 amendments, why didn't you make them all in order and then we would have a debate on all of them.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I wish my friend from Colorado had yielded to me.

He is right. I served on the Rules Committee for 12 years. And I understand what it is like for the majority to have to control their agenda. I fully understand that. But this is the people's House. And we ought to be able to debate issues on where there may be some disagreement.

Now you're a new Member here. I hope that at some time you will enjoy, and I say that in all sincerity, enjoy having a bill on the floor under an open rule to debate under the 5-minute rule. Now I'm not sure if you know what that is, but that allows every Member to speak for 5 minutes on a rule for unlimited time. I see my friend from California (Mr. Miller) sitting here. And I remember in my first term in 1995, we had some humongous debates on the floor here on forest lands, probably some other things. And those debates went well into the night. I remember very specifically. And at end of the day, we voted. And one side won and one side lost, and we went on to the next issue. But the pattern in this Congress has been not even to have a debate. I don't expect you to totally agree with me. You're new here. Maybe you ought to go back and look at some debates that we have had in the past or look at some rules.

We are coming to a time here in this process where we call appropriations season. Appropriations season has historically been a time when there is open debate. Now, I hope I am wrong. I hope I am wrong. But I suspect that the Rules Committee will come up with what they call preprinting requirement open rules. Well, that is not an open rule. Just by definition, if you have a preprinting requirement, how can it be open? But I suspect that that is what is going to happen.

And so, one more step here where the people, I think, will be denied access to their Members, their Representatives having access to an open debate. It just seems to me that we have gone through this year in the ruckus we had on the floor with AIG last week, oh, my gosh, we were shocked because of that provision that was in the bill. It was an 1,100-page bill under which we had absolutely no chance to read it.

Now, clearly, people on your side of the aisle didn't read it. Clearly, people in the other body didn't read it, because the whole debate on that was, my goodness, how could these AIG executives get the bonuses?

And what is ironic about this, we found out now that one Senator admitted, yes, in fact, I did put that provision in there at the beckoning of the administration. We still don't know who in the administration told that Senator that that provision should be in there. But I only make that observation because it seems to me we should learn. We should learn that some of these things don't work good. Because the laws that we are passing are affecting all Americans. And if we have to come back and say, goodness, we didn't know that was in a particular bill, that doesn't do justice to what we as representatives, people's representatives, should be doing in this House.

So I'm pleased that at least some of my amendments were made in order. I wish they all could have been made in order. I would have taken the consequences if the majority of my colleagues didn't agree with my approach to that. I would hope to have an opportunity to at least debate that. But I wasn't allowed that opportunity. And I think that is a bad trend in this House, and I hope it gets more open. But I suspect that will not be the case.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the distinguished chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Rahall, for sponsoring this legislation, and I urge my Republican colleagues to support it.

This bill makes budgeting and accounting for fighting fires easier for Federal agencies and for Congress, but Mr. Chairman, as written, it does nothing to prevent forest fires. This is an accounting bill but not a wildfire prevention bill.

It is regrettable that, since taking control of the House, Democrats have not moved a single piece of legislation that gives our land managers new authority or tools to manage the disastrous situation on our Nation's forests. Funding is important, but it will not solve the problem if our land management agencies are handcuffed to wrong-headed policies backed up by special interest lawsuits.

Jobs are also at stake with the management of our Federal lands. Since 2006, Mr. Chairman, the logging, wood, paper, and cabinetry industries have lost 242,000 jobs. Two weeks ago, a Sierra Pacific timber mill in Quincy, California, closed, which means that close to 10 percent of the town's economy will be closed down. This is an

area that has had double-digit unemployment since the early 1990s. One of the main reasons the company cited for the mill closing is the lawsuits by environmental groups on every single timber sale.

On the issue of climate change and the President's proposal of a new cap-and-trade energy tax, we know that forests provide large and beneficial inventory of stored carbon and that forest fires contribute huge amounts of carbon dioxide emissions.

We lose millions of acres of our national forests to wildfire every year, and these fires and their aftermath produce billions of tons of pollutants. A medium-sized fire can release 200,000 tons of CO2, but if the burned trees are left to decompose, several times that amount will be emitted.

At a time when the Democrat majority in Congress are working to make carbon emissions the number one issue on their legislative agenda, it is troubling that action is not being taken to prevent wildfires that emit so much carbon into the atmosphere.

Instead, Congress is working overtime on imposing a cap-and-trade tax scheme that the Obama administration says may cost our economy over $2 trillion. A new report from Moody's Investor Service predicts that cap- and-trade would cause electricity prices to jump between 15 and 30 percent. This could cost American families up to $3,100 a year.

These are prices that are too high for Americans to pay, especially when the impact of wildfires is not even being considered. A better way of budgeting for fire fighting is needed, and the bill that we will be considering does precisely that, and I support that. But there is far more to this problem than bookkeeping.

The simple fact is that our national forests now have four to five times the amount of trees per acre compared to when Lewis and Clark ventured West. Today, these lands are a tinderbox waiting for a match strike.

I hope this bill is improved through the limited number of amendments that were made in order by the Rules Committee, but it is clear that after enactment of this bill there is still far, far more that needs to be done to prevent wildfires across this country.

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

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

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

As I stated in my opening remarks, this is a good bill and I commend the

chairman for introducing it. This bill passed on the suspension calendar in the last Congress. Nobody even asked for a recorded vote. So it has broad bipartisan support, yet the underlying issue is--and it's something this Congress should take up in the future--and that is to try to go to the core of preventing forest fires, and that is proper maintenance.

There is one amendment that addresses that tomorrow. I think that amendment offered by Mr. Goodlatte will make this bill that much better. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support that.

But this is a good bill. It's a start in the right direction. I hear this all the time when we have forest fires in my district--and they happen virtually every year. People want to know: Are there sufficient funds in order to pay for those forest fires?

Now we can say that there's a mechanism put in place that will take care of that, and I commend the chairman for his sponsorship of that.

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

Madam Speaker, to provide open disclosure, I am submitting the following information regarding projects that I support for inclusion in H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009.

Amount: $34,451,000

Account: Corps of Engineers, Construction

Entity receiving funds: Army Corps of Engineers located at 441 G St NW, Washington, DC 20314.

Description: Funds will be used to deepen the navigation channel from the mouth of the Columbia River to the Portland/Vancouver area.

Amount: $12,078,000

Account: US Bureau of Reclamation, Water and Related Resources

Entity receiving funds: US Bureau of Reclamation located at 115 N Curtis Road, Boise, ID 83706.

Description: Funds will be used to operate the Columbia Basin irrigation project.

Amount: $916,000

Account: US Bureau of Reclamation, Water and Related Resources

Entity receiving funds: US Bureau of Reclamation located at 115 N Curtis Road, Boise, ID 83706.

Description: Funds will be used to complete a study to address a depleted aquifer that farmers are dependent upon for irrigation water.

Amount: $145,000

Account: US Bureau of Reclamation, Water and Related Resources

Entity receiving funds: US Bureau of Reclamation located at 115 N Curtis Road, Boise, ID 83706.

Description: Funds will be used for critical Reclamation activities within Washington state.

Amount: $8,172,000

Account: US Bureau of Reclamation, Water and Related Resources

Account: Federal Highway Administration: Transportation, Community, and System Preservation

Entity receiving funds: Kittitas County Public Works located at 411 North Ruby Street, Suite 1, Ellensburg, WA 98926.

Description: This funding will be used to widen a portion of the Kittitas Highway.

Amount: $1,757,500

Account: Federal Transit Administration: Buses and Bus Facilities

Entity receiving funds: Ben Franklin Transit located at 1000 Columbia Park Trail, Richland, WA 99352.

Description: This funding will enable Ben Franklin Transit to expand its current bus facility.

Amount: $475,000

Account: Federal Transit Administration: Buses and Bus Facilities

Entity receiving funds: Grant Transit Authority located at 9 Basin Street Southwest, Suite 102, Ephrata, WA 98823.

Description: This funding will be used for a new operations and bus maintenance facility in Moses Lake, Washington.

Amount: $798,000

Account: Housing and Urban Development: Economic Development Initiative

Entity receiving funds: City of Roslyn located at 1st and Pennsylvania, Roslyn, WA 98941.

Description: This funding will be used to provide structural upgrades and other improvements to Roslyn's City Hall building, so that this 106 year-old building can continue to serve as a civic, cultural and community center.

Amount: $500,000

Account: U.S. Department of Justice

Entity receiving funds: City of Yakima located at 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, WA 98901.

Description: These funds will be used to develop a system that allows all the public safety agencies in Yakima County to integrate their data communications and records systems. This system will provide comprehensive data to all local law enforcement officials, as well as federal and state agencies. It will give the various law enforcement agencies the tools they need to address the gang and drug problems in the region.

Amount: $1,000,000

Account: U.S. Department of Justice

Entity receiving funds: US Bureau of Reclamation located at 115 N Curtis Road, Boise, ID 83706.

Description: Funds will be used for the US Bureau of Reclamation Yakima Project.

Amount: $7,793,000

Account: US Bureau of Reclamation, Water and Related Resources

Entity receiving funds: US Bureau of Reclamation located at 115 N Curtis Road, Boise, ID 83706.

Description: Funds will be used to improve the water supply for irrigation and increase flows for fish.

Amount: $500,000

Account: US Bureau of Reclamation, Water and Related Resources

Entity receiving funds: US Bureau of Reclamation located at 115 N Curtis Road, Boise, ID 83706.

Description: Funds will be used for Yakima River Basin water storage.

Amount: $2,185,000

Account: Federal Highway Administration: Transportation, Community, and System Preservation

Entity receiving funds: City of Kennewick located at 210 West 6th Avenue, Kennewick, WA 99336.

Description: This funding will extend Steptoe Street, a major roadway through Kennewick and Richland. This project will assist in relieving traffic congestion on Columbia Center Boulevard.

Amount: $570,000

Account: Federal Highway Administration: Transportation, Community, and System Preservation

Entity receiving funds: City of Union Gap located at 102 West Ahtanum Road, Union Gap, WA 98903.

Description: This funding will make improvements to Valley Mall Boulevard in the City of Union Gap. It will alleviate safety hazards and provide access to growing commercial areas.

Amount: $736,250

Account: Federal Aviation Administration: Airport Improvements

Entity receiving funds: Pangborn Memorial Airport located at 1 Pangborn Drive, East Wenatchee, WA 98802.

Description: This funding will make modifications to the passenger terminal at the Pangborn Memorial Airport to accommodate larger commercial aircraft service.

Amount: $332,500

Entity receiving funds: Washington State Meth Initiative located at 510 Tacoma Avenue South, Tacoma, WA 98402.

Description: These funds will be used to fight methamphetamine in Washington state.

Amount: $2,192,000

Account: Agriculture Research Service-- Buildings and Construction

Entity receiving funds: Washington State University's Office of Grant and Research Development located at 423 Neill Hall, Pullman, WA 99164.

Description: These funds will help construct an ARS research facility in Pullman to provide a research facility for more than 40 ARS scientists and programs.

Amount: $254,000

Account: Agriculture Research Service

Entity receiving funds: Northwest Center for Small Fruits Research located at 4845 Southwest Dresden Avenue, Corvallis, OR 97333.

Description: This funding will provide enhanced research on small fruit pathology. In addition, the funds will be used for site feasibility and design for new facilities.

Amount: $245,000

Account: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, SRG

Entity receiving funds: Washington State University's Office of Grant and Research Development located at 423 Neill Hall, Pullman, WA 99164.

Description: This money will support research into the biomass potential of aegilops cylindricum and similar grassy weeds.

Amount: $469,000

Account: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, SRG

Entity receiving funds: Washington State University's Office of Grant and Research Development located at 423 Neill Hall, Pullman, WA 99164.

Description: This funding will support the International Marketing Program for Agricultural Commodities and Trade Center which applies science and technology to develop new export marketing opportunities.

Amount: $235,000

Account: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, SRG

Entity receiving funds: Washington State University's Office of Grant and Research Development located at 423 Neill Hall, Pullman, WA 99164.

Description: This funding will support a multi-state effort to improve efficiency of the U.S. dry pea, fresh pea, lentil, and chickpea industries.

Amount: $248,000

Account: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, SRG

Entity receiving funds: Washington State University's Office of Grant and Research Development located at 423 Neill Hall, Pullman, WA 99164.

Description: Funds will be used for research on organic cropping systems, nutrient and soil management and organic seed production.

Amount: $1,037,000

Account: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, SRG

Entity receiving funds: Washington State University's Office of Grant and Research Development located at 423 Neill Hall, Pullman, WA 99164

Description: Funds will be used for research on potato production including varietal development testing.

Amount: $471,000

Account: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, SRG

Entity receiving funds: Washington State University's Office of Grant and Research Development located at 423 Neill Hall, Pullman, WA 99164.

Description: This will fund research to locate and characterize genes to use in applied barley breeding.

Amount: $307,000

Account: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, SRG

Entity receiving funds: Northwest Center for Small Fruit Research located at 4845 SW Dresden Ave., Corvallis, OR 97333

Description: Funds will be used for research on berry and grape crops, including plant breeding and pest management.

Amount: $444,000

Account: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, SRG

Entity receiving funds: Washington State University's Office of Grant and Research Development located at 423 Neill Hall, Pullman, WA 99164.

Description: Funds will be used to develop planting systems that reduce soil erosion.

Amount: $223,000

Account: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, SRG

Entity receiving funds: Washington State University's Office of Grant and Research Development located at 423 Neill Hall, Pullman, WA 99164.

Description: Funds will be used to develop virus-free plant material for wine grapes.

Amount: $173,000

Account: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, SRG

Entity receiving funds: Washington State University's Office of Grant and Research Development located at 423 Neill Hall, Pullman, WA 99164.

Description: Funds will be used to develop technologies that increase the competitiveness of the domestic asparagus industry.

Amount: $761,000

Account: Health, Resources and Services Administration--Health Facilities and Services

Entity receiving funds: Douglas, Grant, Lincoln and Okanogan Counties Public Hospital District #6, located at 411 Fortuyn Rd, Grand Coulee,

Mr. Speaker, for weeks and weeks now, Democrat leaders in both the House and Senate have engaged in parliamentary contortions to block every Representative in this body of both parties from being able to offer even one amendment to the 1,200- page $10 billion omnibus lands package that contains over 170 individual bills. Since over 100 of these bills were never voted on in the House, this giant piece of legislation needs careful review in a fair and open process. Yet, fair and open consideration is precisely what Democrat leaders have denied in this House.

Today, the House Rules Committee will meet to decide how the most recent Senate-passed omnibus lands bill will be debated and voted on in this House, presumably tomorrow. While there are many areas of this bill that need improvement, there are several that rise to a serious level of concern. Let me cite four of them:

First, addressing prohibitions against American-made energy on public lands, prohibitions that would deny job creation in the energy sector on public lands;

Second, ensuring our border security by making certain that provisions of this bill don't ban the use of vehicles and other technology to patrol our border;

Third, ensuring that public lands continue to be open to public enjoyment. That includes wheelchair access for the disabled who would be banned under this bill, as well as access by Americans using bicycles and motorized bikes for recreation.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, an area of the bill that rises to a very high level of concern after a Federal judge's ruling last week, and that is the protection of Americans' second amendment gun rights on public lands.

Specific amendments have been filed with the Rules Committee to address each of these issues. Democrat leaders should now provide the House with a chance to vote on them. But more specifically, Mr. Speaker, the House must act on the omnibus lands bill to immediately protect the second amendment rights of Americans. Last week, Democrat leaders in the House and Senate added the Altmire language to the omnibus land bill to prevent the Federal Government from banning hunting and fishing on certain types of Federal land. At the time this amendment was added, the right of Americans to carry concealed firearms on park lands and wildlife refuges was in accordance with State laws, and that was already recognized in Federal regulations.

However, last Thursday a U.S. District Court judge based in Washington, D.C. single-handedly decided to block this second amendment policy. Now there is a giant hole in the current Altmire language, and Congress must fix it. Congress must not allow one Federal judge to single-handedly deny Americans their second amendment rights on Federal land.

I have introduced an amendment, along with the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) to the omnibus lands bill that would write into law the very protections struck down by this lone Federal judge. The House must vote on this amendment to repair the big void in the current Altmire language contained in the omnibus lands bill. There should be no excuses, no more delays, no waiting for another day or another bill. The omnibus lands bill is the best place to fix what this Federal judge has done.

If we are going to pass a 1,200-page bill that dramatically expands Federal lands in our country, Congress must protect American second amendment rights while on these lands. The Constitution and the second amendment should not be pushed aside by an activist judge and a complacent Congress. House leaders must allow a vote on the Hastings- Bishop amendment to the omnibus lands bill to protect the gun rights of Americans when we take up this bill presumably tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, I have a series here of questions I would like to ask under parliamentary inquiry, and that does not count against my time; is that correct?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, as we are considering S. 22, has the gentleman from West Virginia made a motion to amend S. 22?

Further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, is this motion by the Democrat bill manager the only way that this bill may be amended under suspension of the rules?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, then, under suspension of the rules, no other Member except the Democrat bill manager may offer amendments or text directly to S. 22 to change any other provisions of the bill which have not been considered by the House or which have substantive issues like cutting off recreational opportunities, reducing border security, locking up energy sources, or high costs?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if S. 22 had been considered under an open rule, would any Member with a germane amendment be able to offer that amendment?

I think I know the answer, but further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, could the Rules Committee have issued a rule to allow Members from both sides of the aisle to offer amendments to strike objectionable provisions or restore House- passed language which was not included by the Senate?

I suspected that would be your response, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this motion to consider the Senate Omnibus Lands bill by suspending the rules of the House.

Let us be very clear about what's happening on the House floor this morning. For weeks and months, Democrat leaders in the Senate and the House, and outside special interest groups, have repeatedly insisted that the House must pass this massive Senate bill without changing a single word or it will be doomed to Senate purgatory and no further action will be taken. This was the justification given for why every Member of this House should be blocked from offering their ideas and amendments to improve or change this 1,200-page bill. Yet this morning, as I have just confirmed with the Speaker through the parliamentary inquiry, Democrat leaders are using the special suspension process to

amend the Senate bill and simultaneously block other Members from offering an amendment.

The Senate's Rubicon of not changing one word has now been crossed. S. 22 has been amended. If we change one part of the bill, then this House deserves the opportunity to consider it in an open and fair manner. Instead, the Democrat leaders are shutting down everyone from offering amendments, including Democrats who have publicly been outspoken about wanting to remove entire provisions from S. 22. I urge these Democrats and all House Members to oppose this bill under suspension and demand a fair and open process of debate.

The suspension process, Mr. Speaker, should be reserved for noncontroversial bills with little or no cost to the taxpayers. Yet, this Senate Omnibus Lands bill costs over $10 billion and consists of over 170 bills folded into a 1,200-page monster piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, this is an extreme abuse of the process for considering bills under suspension of the rules.

Under suspension of the rules, the House has only 40 minutes to debate the bill. With over 170 bills in this omnibus package, that allows just seven seconds--seven seconds--to debate each bill. And of these 170 plus bills, 100 of them have never been passed by the House. Any notion that this is just a package of bills already passed by the House is absolutely false.

Now, I know that for some Members there may be a page or two in this 1,200-page bill that does something positive for their district. In fact, three separate pieces of legislation, Mr. Speaker, that I authored were attached to this package. But I am more concerned about the other bills that have not been closely examined or been debated by the House.

This massive bill was assembled behind closed doors with the purpose of creating a package that tries to force individual Members to vote for it in order to get their own bill passed despite broad policy differences that will have serious and harmful impacts. Members of the House should consider this bill in its entirety and what it does for our country.

This bill contains 19 provisions to block American-made energy production, locking away hundreds of millions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. Under this bill, our country becomes less secure, and we must rely on foreign imports of energy to fuel our vehicles and run our businesses.

When the Federal Government shuts down energy production in America, we are sending good-paying jobs overseas. Over 3 million acres of land will be locked up from possible energy production, and new jobs won't be created when Americans desperately need them in these times. With our economy reeling, and thousands of Americans losing jobs every week, this is a poisonous policy that makes it tougher and more expensive to get America's economy back on track.

This bill also bans recreational access to millions of acres of public lands despite proponents' claims that it will do otherwise. Lands that citizens currently use for enjoyment will be barricaded from recreational vehicle use. Riding a bicycle won't even be allowed.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, this bill costs $10 billion at a time when taxpayers and the economy simply can't afford it. Our National Parks Service system can't even keep existing priorities open and in working order.

With the maintenance backlog of $9 billion on existing lands, Congress should not be passing a $10 billion bill to buy more lands to make the problem worse. This bill makes it more difficult for the Border Patrol and other law enforcement agencies to secure the southern border. And this bill makes criminals and potential felons out of children who want to collect fossils on Federal lands.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on much longer, but I only have 20 minutes for debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.

And we are considering a package of over 170 bills, with just seven seconds to debate each bill's cost.

So I urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to oppose passage of this bill under suspension of the rules and insist on the ability to consider under an open process that allows for amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this motion to consider the Senate Omnibus Lands bill by suspending the rules of the House.

Let us be very clear about what's happening on the House Floor this morning. For weeks and months, Democrat leaders in the Senate and the House, and outside special interest groups, have repeatedly insisted that the House must pass this massive Senate bill without changing a single word or it will be doomed to Senate purgatory and no further action will be taken.

This was the justification given for why every Representative in this House should be blocked from offering their ideas and amendments to improve or change this over 1,200 page bill.

Yet this morning, Democrat Leaders are using the special suspension process to amend the Senate bill and simultaneously block every other Representative from offering an amendment.

The Senate's rubicon of not changing one word has now been crossed. S. 22 has been amended. So then why isn't the House allowed to consider additional amendments except the one approved by Democrat leaders. If we change one part of the bill, then this House deserves the opportunity to consider it in an open and fair manner. Instead, Democrat leaders are shutting down everyone from offering amendments, including Democrats who've been publicly outspoken about wanting to remove entire provisions from S. 22 that they strongly oppose. I urge these Democrats and all House Members to oppose this bill under suspension and demand a fair, open process of debate on this bill in the House.

The suspension process is reserved for noncontroversial bills with little cost to the taxpayer. Indeed, other bills on suspension today include supporting the goals of International Woman's Day, urging the President to designate 2009 as the Year of the Military Family, and supporting the designation of Pi Day. Yet, this Senate Omnibus Lands Bill costs over 10 billion dollars, and consists of over 170 individual bills being amassed into a 1,200 page monster piece of legislation. This is an extreme abuse of the process for considering bills under suspension of House rules.

Under suspension of the rules, the House has only 40 minutes to debate the bill. I've been recognized for 20 of those minutes. With over 170 bills in this Omnibus, that allows just 7 seconds . . . 7 seconds . . . to debate each bill.

And of these 170 plus bills, some 100 of them have never been passed by the House. Any notion that this is just a packaging of bills already passed by the House is absolutely false.

I recognize what I have just spoken about is inside baseball, legislative process arguments, yet it is important for the American public to understand the heavy-fisted manner in which this House is being run. It's also important for all Representatives to understand that this bill has now been amended and that we should have the opportunity to consider other changes to it.

For every Member of the House, there may be a page or two in this 1,200 page bill that does something positive in your district. In fact, three separate pieces of legislation that I authored were attached to this package. However, I am more concerned about the other bills that have not been closely examined or debated by the House. This massive bill was written behind-closed-doors with the purpose of creating a package that tries to force individual Members to vote for it in order to get their own small bill passed despite broad policies that will have a serious and harmful impact. Members of the House should consider this bill in its entirety and what it does to our country.

It contains 19 provisions to block American-made energy production, locking away hundreds of millions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. Under this bill, our country becomes less secure as we must rely on foreign imports of energy to fuel our vehicles and run our businesses. When the federal government shuts down energy production here in America, we're sending good-paying jobs overseas. Over 3 million acres of land will be locked up from possible energy production and new jobs won't be created when Americans desperately need them. With our economy reeling and thousands of Americans losing jobs every week, this is a poisonous policy that makes it tougher and more expensive to get America's economy back on track.

This bill bans recreational access to millions of acres of public lands despite proponents' claims that it will protect vast new land areas for the appreciation of Americans. Lands that citizens currently use for enjoyment will be barricaded from recreational vehicle use.

Riding a bicycle won't even be allowed. The harm to American's outdoor enjoyment is so outrageous that even ESPN has covered it.

This bill costs $10 billion at a time when taxpayers and our economy simply can't afford it. Our National Parks System can't even keep existing properties open and in working order. With a maintenance backlog of 9 billion dollars on existing lands, Congress should not be passing a $10 billion bill to buy more land and make the problem worse.

This bill makes it more difficult for the Border Patrol and other law enforcement to secure our southern border by restricting vehicle access onto specific lands. This bill would make criminals and potential felons out of children and others who collect fossils on federal lands.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on much longer, but we have only 20 minutes for debate and we're considering a package of over 170 bills, so we have just 7 seconds to debate each bill's cost and effect upon domestic energy production, American jobs, recreation access to public lands, and border security. I urge my colleagues to oppose passage of this bill under suspension of the rules and insist on the ability to consider it under a fair, open process that allows for amendments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

(Mr. SMITH of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to a very valuable member of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Speaker, how much time on both sides remains?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis), a new member of the committee.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I think we are kind of out of balance here.

I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire of my friend from West Virginia how many speakers he has.

I will reserve my time.

I will reserve.

And I have two speakers, including me.

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of my friend how many speakers he has left?

Including you?

Why don't I reserve my time, and we'll be even.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a new member of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I understand that I am ready to close on my side. If the gentleman from West Virginia is prepared to close after I speak, I will go ahead.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a point. There's some reference here to the NRA and what their position is on this bill. I just want to say that there was a letter passed to all Members that NRA has no position on this bill. They are neutral.

Mr. Speaker, because under suspension of the rules Members cannot offer amendments directly to S. 22, so, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the gentleman from West Virginia to yield for the purpose of an amendment to his motion to strike the provisions of S. 22 which can criminalize rock-collecting on Federal lands?

Mr. Speaker, let me try another one. There are several issues here. May I ask the gentleman from West Virginia to yield to me for the purpose of an amendment to his motion to guarantee that S. 22 will not prohibit or delay energy development on millions of acres of Federal lands affected by this bill?

The gentleman won't yield. Mr. Speaker, I will try one more time.

May I ask the gentleman from West Virginia to yield to me for the purpose of an amendment to his motion to guarantee that S. 22 will not prohibit recreational access for all Americans to the millions of acres of Federal lands affected by this bill?

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that this is an extraordinary process. Suspension of the rules for bills are generally for noncontroversial issues. This is a $10 billion authorization bill, and it was amended. It was amended. But nobody else, including those that I referenced here earlier, had an opportunity to come to the floor and offer their amendment in their way to try to perfect this bill.

So, I am urging my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. When it's defeated under suspension of the rules, the majority can take this back to Rules, have an open rule so we can debate this process, I think, in a very reasonable way.

Because, keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, we were told, ``No amendments on this bill or the Senate will take it down to their purgatory.'' That didn't happen. So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time and urge a ``no'' vote.

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