Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, it is nice to see that the assault on the authority of this branch continues. It is sad that it continues from within, and it is interesting to hear westerners talk about issues that are particularly acute in Western lands.

I happen to hail from a State that is 87 percent owned by the Federal Government. The key word there is ``owned.''

If you want to protect natural resources that are Federal--which, by the way, this law takes into account--the Federal Government already owns them. You do not have enough authority by virtue of ownership interest over the last 110 years, almost, to protect things? Things have not changed.

I have heard criticism about the mining reform law of 1874 from my colleagues. Here is something from 1906, and it is like, if you can't protect it by being the owner, as the Federal Government--under the land management auspices of multiple Federal land use agencies, I am wondering why--and I heard somebody say these areas enjoy tremendous support of the people--what is the problem with allowing the people to participate in the process of monument designation?

Why is it awful for these people who want these areas, want to enjoy them, to say, hey, you know, we are thinking of making a monument of this, and even though you control it by virtue of ownership and countless regs? We want to use the regulation that applies to that, to let the people who enjoy them so much participate in the process. We want to cede all authority to the executive branch because we happen to disagree on some things?

Let me tell you, as a member of the Republican side of the aisle who has been advocating for the creation of 96,000 acres of wilderness in a bipartisan context with my colleague from Nevada--which I can't get through yet. I am frustrated too.

I fail to see the harm in allowing the people that so much appreciate these Federal lands to participate in their further designation, adding another layer of administration, as monuments.

Let's, please, defend our authority as this branch, and let's support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this week, at its Public Media Summit in Washington, D.C., the Association of Public Television Stations (APTS) honored Gail Sande, Member of the Board of Trustees, KNPB Public Broadcasting in Reno, with the 2014 National Advocacy Award for her exceptional efforts in support of public television.

Said Patrick Butler, president and CEO of APTS, ``Gail is a tireless advocate for public broadcasting, helping to advance bipartisan support of public broadcasting in Congress. She has demonstrated tremendous effectiveness on both sides of the Hill and both sides of the aisle.''

Gail is the immediate past Chairman of the Board and stepped down after serving in that position for three years. She is a Trustee of the National Association of Public Television Stations. Gail serves on the Nevada State Board for the Humanities and is a board member for the First Tee of Northern Nevada and the American Heart Association.

She has been a dynamic member of the Reno community for the past 37 years. Some of Gail's activities have included serving as vice president and development chairman for the Lear Theater, a member of the Reno Tahoe Young Professional Network advisory board, treasurer of Young Audiences, president of the Roy Gomm Parent Facility Association, treasurer of the Sons of Norway, president of Law Wives and director of community relations for the Assistance League of Reno/Sparks.

A graduate of the University of Nevada at Reno--go Wolf Pack--Gail was an operations officer at First National Bank of Nevada until 1977, when she retired from the business world to be a stay-at-home mom and community activist.

Congratulations on this well-deserved honor, Gail, and thank you for all you do to make Northern Nevada a better place.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of retired Nevada Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, who passed away Friday at the age of 71.

A graduate of Bishop Manogue High School and the University of Nevada in Reno, Bernie was a high school government teacher in the Washoe County School District. Also, Bernie was a colleague of mine for 14 years in the Nevada Assembly, ruling the Assembly Judiciary Committee with an iron hand for many of those sessions. But behind that iron hand and that gruff surface was a gentleman who had a heart of gold and was basically a loveable teddy bear.

When you talk about a life well-lived, Bernie checked all the boxes. His family, his community, students, constituents, colleagues, and the State of Nevada can all attest to the fact that Bernie was a good man. I am privileged to have called Chairman Anderson my friend. Nevada is better off because of his service.

I offer my sincere condolences to Bernie's wife, Clyda; their children; his family and friends.

Rest in peace, my friend.

Mr. Speaker, Mike Landsberry, a math teacher at Sparks Middle School, passed away just about 50 hours ago. He was 45 years old, an Alabama native, high school athlete, coach, husband, brother, dad, marine, Nevada Air Guard senior master sergeant, and a friend.

Mike Landsberry observed the horror of an active shooter at his school Monday morning, and simply moved without hesitation, instinctively, into harm's way to protect others. In so doing, Mike made the ultimate sacrifice in service to the end to his students, his school, and his community.

Coach, you humble us all with your warrior spirit and compassion. They will be your lasting legacy. Thank you for your service, and may you rest in peace.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in recognition of the retirement of Chief Master Sergeant Kenneth D. Gray.

Ken Gray served for 26 years in the Air Force medical field achieving the rank of Chief Master Sergeant. During his service, he served several years overseas including two tours in Iraq. As a decorated officer, he received many awards including the Meritorious Service Award and the Air Force Commendation Medal.

Ken Gray has always had a mind for public service and I thank him for his duty to his community.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that our colleagues join me in praising the accomplishments of Chief Master Sergeant Ken Gray and recognize his achievements in service to our Nation.

Mr. Chairman, having a real debate on this issue is something that I wholeheartedly support.

We probably ought to start with the facts. First of all, you've heard much about the overly broad definition. H.R. 761 deliberately contains a broad definition of strategic and critical minerals. Here are some of the reasons why:

In 2006, prior to the worldwide economic downturn, there was great concern over the future availability of platinum, group metals, and copper. At the time, projections in demand for copper indicated that by 2016, 30 large-scale copper deposits would have to come online to meet worldwide demand. At the time, there were not enough copper deposits in the permitting pipeline to make up for the projected downward curve.

And you have heard much about sand and gravel. Even sand and gravel and other construction mineral materials can be in short supply or not available, as the USGS discovered in 2009 during the great California shakeout. What they discovered during that was that, in its assessment of scope and damage and materials needed for construction in the event of a large-scale earthquake, USGS discovered there were not enough sand, gravel, and other construction materials available in the region to meet the affected area's reconstruction needs.

So when you talk about the ability to foretell the future and you say, well, we should just limit things to the i-u-m ending minerals, I say you probably ought to think about what it takes to get a bill through Congress to respond to those things because it's less timely than the Federal permitting process.

Much has been made about getting rid of NEPA review. You know, when all else fails, read the bill. Take a look at page 7. And when you look at lines 4 through 9 there, these are not the words that you would be using if you were trying to get rid of the NEPA process. Starting up at page 6, line 24, it says, ``The lead agency with responsibility for'' permitting. Then you go down to page 7, line 5, it says, ``if the procedural and substantive safeguards of the permitting process alone,'' they must find that those are there. Look at line 5, ``if the procedural'' are found. That is unlimited discretion in an executive branch agency.

So don't tell me that we're getting rid of NEPA, because the bill would have been written differently if we were trying to get rid of

Mr. Chairman, only in Washington would we be having a debate about whether 4 years is okay or 2\1/2\ years is okay when we're talking about a jobs bill. And only in Washington would we talk about cherry-picking when we're talking about the vast majority of the production that is sought for permitting, and the vast number of jobs that is created is not--I want to make this very clear so the record is clear--is not handled within 3 years.

Now, it may be true that it's less than the Bush administration, which is fine. Let's assume that it is.

But when you're talking about primarily issues that deal with Western lands whose States are at or near a majority of Federal ownership, and you want to talk about the middle class, and you want to talk about generating jobs, and you want to say, hey, by the way, you can take as long as you want; we don't know if you're going to have a job in that industry or not because there are no rules.

Only in Washington would we be defending no time limits whatsoever. To say 30 months is a bad idea, with language that says, if both sides agree, you can take longer, is not an unreasonable environmental or administrative stance.

Nobody wants a nice, crisp denial in 30 months; and by the way, if the application should be denied, then I presume that it will be denied.

But what we're seeing now, and you can find no legislative history for this anywhere in any of the applicable environmental regulations and statutes, of which all still apply, there is nothing that says, by the way, if nothing else works, just see if you can drag it out as long as possible and hope that that capital goes away. Because when you talk about permitting attractiveness, it's not what these folks are those folks say, it's where the capital goes. And the capital isn't going here.

And the strategic interest of having to go to China for your rare- earths or having to go to other countries to produce those is not apparent.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Rhode Island for the eloquent description of what the underlying bill does. I tend to agree with his description on how critical this legislation is.

I am surprised at the tone, though, when we already have multiple rules, regulations, statutes on the books that talk about import and export.

I am surprised at the tone when we talk about the danger of producing these materials in this country when right now we're not producing many of them, and we are entirely reliant upon those with whom we compete globally and militarily to attain these.

I would suggest to you that while well-intentioned, that this matter is, in fact, already taken care of under existing law; but let's not forget the underlying purpose of the bill. It's about jobs.

You want to talk about the middle class? You want to talk about the economy? You want to talk about the western half of this country where over 40 percent of many of those States are owned by the Federal Government, where people who are elected by nobody within the State are making decisions about permitting? You want to talk about permitting times and how long it takes to do that? By the way, did you hear that if it isn't grown, it has to be mined?

The purpose of this bill is to put people to work and put us back in control of supplying those minerals for the building industries, the communications industries, the manufacturing industries, all of that. By the way, not that anybody wants to trade with any of the folks mentioned in here specifically and you have the whole executive branch to take care of that, but there is that thing called ``balance of trade,'' which is something we could use some help with.

Mr. Speaker, I urge your vote against the motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a true ambassador of the Silver State, Congresswoman Barbara Vucanovich, who was the first person to hold the Second Congressional District seat from Nevada and who died yesterday, peacefully, after a brief illness. She was 91 years old.

She was elected to the House of Representatives in the same year that Harry Reid--a name that may be familiar to some in this part of the building--was also elected to the House of Representatives from Nevada. She served 14 years, which is the second-longest tenure of any Member of Congress from the State of Nevada.

A champion of rural constituents, concerned with mining, grazing, and water issues, it might also interest you to know that she was a national leader on the issues of the early detection and treatment of breast cancer and of the repeal of the 55-mile-an-hour speed limit. She was also the lady who led the fight in the House to create the only national park created in the lower 48 States during the Reagan administration--the Great Basin National Park in Nevada.

She was most notably, though, not only the dean of the Second Congressional District, but she was also somebody who set the standard by which we can all learn, Mr. Speaker, and that is this: it was never about Barbara Vucanovich when she served in these Halls; it was about the people who gave her the job. She embodied public service and humility.

For that, Godspeed, Barbara. We wish you well, and thank you for a life well lived and for serving the people of the Silver State.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to thank Chairman Culberson and Ranking Member Bishop for their effort on bringing forth a good bill that addresses the needs of our veterans and maintains our commitment to providing them with the benefits that they earned and deserve.

I rise with this amendment for the first time since I've been in this body because of the existing claims backlog, which is over 600,000 claims nationwide.

As a member of the primary committee of jurisdiction and the primary subcommittee of jurisdiction on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, I can tell you that, in dealing with this number of claims, we are not making mission in the Department of Veterans Affairs. I can also tell you that the proposal to spend $44 million, according to the Veterans Affairs testimony in front of our committees, to clear 50,000 of

those claims in the backlog is, quite simply, more of the same. That's about $900 a claim and will leave you with 550,000 claims when it's done this year.

I appreciate the opportunity of coming technology, but I can tell you this: if you represent a district that's in California, New York, Arizona, Indiana, Virginia, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio, Maryland, another Texas hit, Boston or Mississippi, which is the majority of Members in this House, then guess what; you've got a majority of those claims in your district offices.

I say it's time for this House to take action and say this: don't cut a single regional office's budget. This amendment does not attempt to do that. This amendment says take that $44 million and allocate it for personnel in those 15 offices that all have over a year of processing time.

By the way, while we're mentioning that, I want to give you a quote that is from Under Secretary Hickey that basically says:

Quite frankly, we have a resource allocation model that

doesn't make any sense.

That's before the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Let's try something new. Let's put the staffing where those offices are that are in need of it most. Two of them are in California and two of them are in the Lone Star State. Chicago also needs help. You name it. Let's try that instead of just doing what we have been doing. It adds no money to the bill, and it also does not take any money away from existing offices.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say this. Even though staffing at the VA's 58 regional offices has increased by almost 300 people since September 2010, because of turnover and loss of more than 2,000 workers temporarily paid through stimulus funds, the VA regional offices are severely understaffed. Overtime will not be the answer. At a majority of the regional offices, including those in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Waco, and Oakland, the VA presently employs fewer people than it did 2 years ago, according to their own internal documents.

Let's take the leadership on this issue and do something that's a little different than, quite frankly, a resource allocation model which the determined Under Secretary says makes no sense.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, true healthcare reform will lower costs, improve care, provide greater patient choice, and increase access to care for all Americans. Congress missed an opportunity in 2010 to achieve these goals in the extensive legislation enacted by Democrats. As a result, we must go back to the drawing board and consider real options to address the rising costs in our healthcare system. As we pursue these goals, we should look to solutions that have already been effective in reducing costs and meeting the needs of patients.

Skilled home healthcare is one example of the type of effective care that Congress should protect. In 1972, the US Department of Veterans Affairs established the Home Based Primary Care Program (HBPC) in order to meet the needs of its growing population of chronically ill veterans. This program established a novel and creative model of care for the VA's growing population of chronically ill Veterans--providing skilled and high quality care to these patients, and promoting their independence by providing this care to patients in their own homes.

The results of this program have been remarkable. Studies show that this program has provided high quality care and resulted in great satisfaction among patients. What is truly impressive, though, is that this program resulted in a substantial reduction in nursing home stays and hospitalizations for its program participants. The HBPC has achieved a 62 percent reduction in inpatient hospital days and an 88 percent reduction in nursing home days, achieving a 24 percent

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2606) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to allow the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in the Gateway National Recreation Area, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 2606, introduced by Congressman Michael Grimm, authorizes construction of a lateral pipeline off the coast of New York City. The pipeline will pass under the Gateway National Recreation Area and deliver natural gas to residents of Brooklyn and Queens.

Under current law, the National Park Service does not have the authority to approve the pipeline. Therefore, Congressman Grimm introduced H.R. 2606 to allow the project to move forward, benefiting not only New York residents but also visitors to the Gateway National Recreation Area.

H.R. 2606 has bipartisan support and is supported by the National Park Service. The House approved this legislation in February. It has passed the Senate with noncontroversial amendments, and we are now acting to send this to the President.

I urge adoption of H.R. 2606 and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from the Empire State, Mr. Grimm.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Jacob ``Jake'' Dalton of Reno, Nevada as he represents his country in the 2012 Olympic Games in London as a member of the U.S. men's gymnastics team.

Jake, a 2009 graduate of Spanish Springs High School and scholarship recipient at the University of Oklahoma, has the reputation of a fierce and proven competitor. Only 20 years old, Jake is already a champion, winning two NCAA titles in 2011 and the all-around gold in the Winter Cup Challenge in 2011.

To earn his place on the team, Dalton excelled in the U.S. Olympic trials in San Jose, California, winning both the vault and the floor exercise. His teammates are Jonathan Horton, Danell Leyva, Sam Mikulak, John Orozco, and

alternates Chris Brooks, Steven Legendre, Alex Naddour. This men's gymnastics team is considered the best since 1984 when the United States won gold at the Los Angeles Olympic Games.

Jake, like all other Americans participating in the Olympics, gives our country a great sense of pride. I join my fellow Nevadans and the rest of the country in wishing good luck to Team USA and Jake as he tries to bring home the gold to the Silver State.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time.

I find it interesting that we are sitting here having a discussion about regulations in this context. I believe that it is the regulations that are the by-product of this process that we engage in here. It's called ``legislation.''

The regulatory process is not the fourth branch of government that has no accountability to anyone and that can basically do whatever the heck it darn well pleases. The agencies that we are talking about here today, none of which exist in the Constitution, were created by this Congress, which means, if we created you, we can darn well talk about the regulations that you provided.

When I hear words like ``ideology,'' ``cynicism,'' ``really bad policy,'' what is the danger in predictability, for instance, in the timing of the regulatory process?

There is nothing in this legislation which changes the substance of agency discretion in how they go about their business. What we are talking about here is the process, the process by which you go to provide some predictability and stability to those people who are trying to talk about investing capital, hiring workers and things like that.

I urge your support. I thank Mr. Griffin and Mr. Ross for their efforts in this area.

Madam Chair, I'm going to follow on the theme from my colleague from the Garden State: Why? Why an 11\1/2\-page bill that does two things; sets a 30-month--not rock-hard, no pun intended--time limit on Federal permitting decisions for mines and says, if you don't like that decision, you've got to sue in 60 days?

Why are you not talking about what's the problem with 2\1/2\ years to talk about the permit? What's the problem with providing some predictability to the timing of the permitting process? What's the problem with not stringing people out under NEPA for over a decade for mine decisions? Why are we not hearing about that?

The giveaway stuff is phenomenally entertaining. This does nothing to tax law. This does nothing to safety law. This does nothing to supplant NEPA, and this does nothing to supplant any State fix. This is an 11- plus-page bill that says you've got 30 months--and by the way, if you both agree, you can use more than 30 months. Now, what's the translation of that? God forbid we have collaboration between an applicant and a Federal land use agency in this process.

Why are you afraid of collaboration? Why are you afraid of setting a time limit? And where in the 1969 NEPA law--since we're talking about old stuff--does it say this is a marathon, and if you can outwait them--forget about the facts, forget about the science, forget about the technology--we're going to obfuscate and delay and hope that you will go away? Because, you know what--my hat's off--it's become a great weapon in this.

But when less than 1 percent of the surface area of Federal land in this Nation is impacted by mining, I think what it's really about is we don't want any predictability for this because we're basically against an industry.

Everybody's got a definition of ``strategic.'' When you talk about transportation, medical devices, national defense, the economy, I think those are strategic and critical things.

So I would urge your support on this, to bring some collaboration, truly, instead of making this an administrative marathon for purposes of permitting.

Madam Chair, I would just briefly indicate--and I want to thank you for finally looking at section 102 and talking about the bill. I appreciate that. It's a great day in my young career that that has happened.

Let's look at what section 102 does that is so insidious for the wheel of giveaways, which by the way we want to borrow and paste over it. Instead of what you've got, how about the wheel of takeaways? Takeaways from national defense, takeaways from communications, takeaways from national infrastructure, takeaways from balance of trade; oh, and let's talk about takeaways from living-wage jobs without standing benefits, some of which are, in fact, union jobs. So the wheel of takeaways we won't bore you with, but that wheel can go both ways.

Section 102, interestingly enough, if you like this, this is a bad thing. It requires best practices, Madam Chair, for things like considering State agency reports that have jurisdiction over the issue. That's a pretty frivolous takeaway. It already exists.

Or how about considering best practices for conducting reviews concurrently? Oh, my God, the Republicans are giving something away, conducting reviews concurrently. Oh, my goodness. How about expediting rather than delaying the process?

Madam Chair, I appreciate the comments.

I would just like to point out, for the Record, since we're talking about Western abandoned mines, what's your definition of abandoned mine? Because if it's where somebody pushed up a little dirt and that's considered an abandoned mine, quite frankly, we're pretty proud in Nevada of the job that our Division of Environmental Protection has done on abandoned mine projects. We collaborate with the Feds.

Quite simply, I believe the phrase was used earlier today, it's a solution in search of a problem. We're getting on it. We're doing very well. And quite frankly, I hope the Chair is not on this committee, but when you see a 12\1/2\ gross proceeds tax subject to the appropriations process of my colleagues here, no thank you very much.