Floor Statements

I thank my colleague from the Beehive State.

I want to start out with, obviously, support for the rule. I think the rule is very open in the context of the legislation.

For those that haven't reviewed the legislation, it's about 11\1/2\ pages long. It's available out here; it's available online. I recommend you to do it. Because when we talk about what it really does, it's not a wheel of giveaways. When you talk about strategic and critical minerals, here are some words from the bill: ``Strategic and critical minerals means minerals that are necessary.''

Here's some thoughts to ponder: national defense and national security. Now, do you know what those minerals were 10 years ago, and do you know what they're going to be 10 years from now? It's not meant to be as specific--and my colleague from Colorado is absolutely right, these are broad definitions because, you know what, we don't do this every day. We're not going to check this every year and spend time like this on it. So when you talk about some flexibility there, it's not an accident; it's supposed to be broad.

Here's another thing: strategic and critical. How about the Nation's energy infrastructure? Kind of important if you care about things like energy, regardless of what side of the fence you're on.

A couple other things. Strategic and critical, those minerals, to-- here it is out of the bill--support domestic manufacturing. Oh, my goodness. How about support agriculture? Don't care about that.

How about support housing, telecommunications? There was a mention of health care. Are those strategic and critical for the lifestyle or the health and welfare of this Nation?

Strategic and critical. Transportation infrastructure. Oh, and the last couple of things, the Nation's economic security and balance of trade. God forbid that we think about those things when we talk about the minerals industry. Are those broad? They absolutely are.

But here's the part that nobody mentions. There is nothing in those 11\1/2\ pages that say that a Federal land manager can't, in response to an application, say, my first finding is that it is not a critical and strategic mineral.

So if somebody comes in for sand and gravel, and it's not that important, then guess what? Under the regulations that the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior are doing, I assume they'll give them the ability to make that finding. And if somebody doesn't like it, under this bill they've got 60 days to sue them on it. But we don't want you to know that because we're going to spin wheels and talk about the giveaway of the day.

By the way, while we're giving stuff away, please show me in the bill where it says that you get a certain result?

And when we talk about reducing the time, this says, both sides can execute agreements that say 30 months. Okay? Guess what? It also says, oh, by the way, if both sides agree, you can extend the 30 months. Now, for those who are familiar with the process and how that works, tell me how an applicant is benefited by a nice, crisp 30-month ``no.''

So if there's an issue about water quality, or there's an issue about anything that is being talked about--oh, and can I see the repeal sections on NEPA? I don't see that language in here.

You know, I don't envy Federal land use managers. It's a tough job. And when you look at this, see the red? That's federally-owned property. This is to talk about the time it takes to process a permit request to mine on federally-owned property.

So, with all due respect, and plenty of respect for my colleague from Colorado, who's in this, knows it, 36 percent of his State is federally owned, no disrespect to the birthday boy who's somewhere south of 1 percent.

When you talk about economic development, regardless of whether you're riding an elephant or a donkey, guess what? This complicates it. So, when you talk to those Federal land use managers locally and you talk about things, just a couple more things here, because we can't have this. I mean, this is awful stuff. If we talk about enhanced government coordination, permitting review, engage other agencies and stakeholders early in the process, coordinate and consult with project proponents and opponents. I mean, I'm sorry.

And by the way, where's the part in the NEPA bill that was enacted in 1969 that said what we're really trying to do here is see how long you can wait with that application pending?

So guess what? If you get a ``no,'' you get it in 30 months. Or if there are legitimate issues that aren't taken care of in 30 months, why wouldn't you, as an applicant, say, you know what? We'll execute something, as provided in this bill, to say you get six more months. Going off to court is not the optimal thing for anybody.

We talk about additional giveaways or whatever. Nobody gets anything out of this other than they get a time certain in the review

process. And if there's more time needed, then guess what? It provides for that.

What's the idea here? Collaboration between Federal land managers and stakeholders, all stakeholders. If you're an applicant, you want a ``yes,'' but there's no magic in getting a 30-month ``no.''

My final point is this. When you talk about the changes that have been made by the present administration in permitting time, I find it incredibly interesting to hear in committee that that permitting time was actually less than what this proposes.

This cuts nobody off. It's a good place to talk, and it gets rid of the part that is never in NEPA, which is, we're going to outwait you and hope you go away.

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

Mr. Chairman, the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act, in addition to developing our abundant oil and natural gas reserves, is also important for the purposes of recognizing another part of the energy sector, which are our mineral resources. An often-forgotten component of America's economic engine and comparative advantage over other nations is our mineral and, yes, coal production. Minerals and mine materials are the raw ingredients needed by every sector of our economy.

This amendment is simple. It would prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from moving any aspect of the Solid Minerals program administered by the Bureau of Land Management and merging it with the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, the OSM. This amendment is necessary because, currently, the administration continues to proceed with plans to combine these two entities despite the fact that it has met with heavy bipartisan resistance and also resistance from stakeholders, including, yes, even environmental groups.

Last year, Secretary Salazar announced his intent to combine the OSM and a portion of BLM's Solid Minerals program through a secretarial order. It appears to be in vogue these days--executive orders, secretarial orders. The problem missing here is: resort to Congress. Previous administrations have looked at this and have concluded in the record that congressional action is needed to do this. So here we are, trying to forestall yet another secretarial or executive order that flies in the face of congressional authority.

In March of this year, the Department of the Interior indicated a desire to continue to evaluate this. This will result in unnecessary costs to taxpayers as it is duplicative and flies in the face of previous administrations.

More importantly, OSM should not have the responsibility for leasing Federal coal. Under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, which was passed by this House, States are responsible for the permitting and the regulation of coal mining and abandoned-mine land cleanup. Additionally, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act expressly prohibits the commingling of employees of any Federal agency that promotes the development or use of coal--responsibilities of the Solid Minerals division of the BLM. It is a clear conflict of interest.

Finally, the OSM does not have offices in all Federal Western States, and hard-rock mining does not fall under their jurisdiction, nor does it have any experience in the broad range of mineral commodities regulated by the BLM.

I ask for the Chamber's support of this amendment that would stop the Department of the Interior from merging the operations of the BLM and

I yield to the gentleman.

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

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from the Buckeye State.

Mr. Chairman, I would just say that the goal of the amendment is to keep from picking up the newspaper in the morning and reading about a secretarial or executive order that has combined two agencies that the record is replete with evidence that the executive branch and the Secretary does not have the authority to.

So when we talk about oversight and the proper thing to do in these instances and when we talk about debate it on its merits, as my colleague from the Bay State has indicated, I would love to do that. That requires that Congress act, not the Secretary of the Interior and not the President of the United States.

Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Thank you to my colleague from the Evergreen State.

Twilight zone, partisan as can be, package of bad ideas for the Nation. Interesting phrases when you look at title IX.

Title IX is about 10,500 acres adjacent to the city of Yerington. This 10,500 acres is a known copper and iron ore deposit since about 1975. On this 10,000 acres and in title IX, you are seeing nothing that waives anything of environmental significance, not NEPA, not the National Historic Preservation Act.

The city's going to pay for the land. We're not giving it away. All the costs associated with transferring the land are to be borne, no cost to the government.

The District and State Bureau of Land Management offices were silent in terms of this proposal. There are no mining issues, cleanup issues, surface water, groundwater, environmental, none of those issues, none at all, abandoned mine sites.

And by the way, in this particular county, which is the leading county for unemployment in the State of Nevada, which I am sorry to inform you, we still lead the Nation in unemployment, this represents a transfer of less than 1 percent of Federal land in Lyon County.

So, when we talk about open space preservation, guess what? There is 99 percent left. Don't think you've got that one either.

Oh, by the way, there were some concerns about 90 days being too soon to transfer this, and there were some concerns about whether it was mandatory or not. Did you hear the part about 1975 known deposits? So you want to change the bill to ``if you feel like doing it, go ahead, and by the way, take as much time as you want''? No, thank you. No, thank you to ``if you feel like it, and take as much time as you want.''

So, when you hear about bad ideas for the Nation, this is about the responsible, multiple use of public resources that gores no one's environmental ox.

Oh, and here is another part that may be of significance: 800 jobs-- no cost to the Federal Government. This is a State where there are loan guarantees for renewable energy to the tune of $1.5 billion, and we've got 136 jobs to show for it. Eight hundred jobs--no cost to the government.

When the Office of Management and Budget talks about ``they like to work through the community,'' I've got news for you: title IX is supported by everyone in the State of Nevada who has a voice as a shareholder in these. There hasn't been a single voice raised in opposition to this. By the way, they've been working on it for 4 years. So, if you think there's a problem with the appraisal process, did I mention it's going to be appraised for the value? There is nothing more transparent, nothing more responsible for land use that can be 800 jobs--oh, oh, and the average pay is about $75,000-plus per job. Did I say ``no cost to the government''? I'll quit saying that.

If you want to do something for the people of the State of Nevada, get behind this bill. I want to thank my Democratic colleagues who supported the bill in committee, and I look forward to their being advocates on the north side of the building.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 100th anniversary of the birth of Thelma Catherine ``Pat'' Ryan Nixon in Ely, Nevada.

Pat was born the youngest of four children on March 16th, 1912, in the small mining town of Ely, Nevada to William M. Ryan, Sr., a sailor, gold miner, and truck farmer of Irish descent and Katherine Halberstadt, a German immigrant. Thelma Catherine Ryan was nicknamed ``Pat'' because of her Irish heritage. In fact, the family always celebrated her birthday on the Irish holiday of St. Patrick's Day, March 17th.

Pat and her family moved to a small town near Los Angeles when she was just a year old. She grew up with typical Western self-sufficiency. It has often been said that the mining community in Ely and her family's own straightened circumstances helped mold her into the strong person that she became.

Upon enrolling in college in 1931, she unofficially dropped her given name Thelma, replacing it with Pat and occasionally rendering

it as Patricia. On June 21, 1940, Pat married Richard Milhouse Nixon at Mission Inn, Riverside, California. The two met while they were performing in a theater production of ``The Dark Tower.'' During World War II, she worked as a government economist while Richard served in the Navy. She campaigned tirelessly alongside her husband as he ran for Congress, the Senate, and, later, the Vice Presidency.

On January 20th, 1969, Richard Milhouse Nixon was sworn in as the 37th President of the United States. Pat became First Lady, the first, and so far only, woman from Nevada to serve in that role.

While in the White House, Pat publicly advocated for women to become more involved in the political process. She also used her position as First Lady to encourage volunteer service, opened the White House to more visitors, and added 600 paintings and antiques to the White House collection. She also traveled extensively, earning the unique diplomatic standing of ``Personal Representative of the President.''

Patricia Nixon passed away on June 22, 1993, and is buried at the Richard Nixon Birthplace and Museum in Yorba Linda, California.

March 16, 2012, marks the 100th anniversary of Patricia Nixon's birth in Ely, Nevada. I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating and recognizing the varied, significant contributions that Pat Nixon made throughout her life, particularly as the First Lady of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, today, in Nevada, a funeral service is being held for William J. ``Bill'' Raggio.

When you think of Nevada public service in the modern era, Bill Raggio's name tops all lists. When you think of legislative leadership in the Silver State, Bill Raggio's name tops all lists. When you think of self-made individuals in Nevada, Bill Raggio's name, once again, tops all lists.

It is with sincere sorrow that I rise on the floor of the United States House of Representatives on this day to memorialize a native son of the State of Nevada, a husband, a dad, a community and statewide leader, a role model, and a friend with whom I had the honor and privilege of serving the people of Nevada for many years.

My condolences to Bill's daughters, Leslie and Tracy, and to his wife, Dale.

God bless you, Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Heath Morrison as the 2012 National Superintendent of the Year award winner at the American Association of School Administrator's National Conference on Education on February 16, 2012, in Houston, Texas.

Dr. Morrison came to the Washoe County School District in 2009 after serving as a community superintendent in Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland. Prior to serving as superintendent, he served as a middle and high school principal and a teacher in Charles County, Maryland. Dr. Morrison holds a Ph.D. in Educational Policy and Planning, a Masters of Educational Administration from the University of Maryland, and a Bachelor of Arts in Government from the College of William and Mary.

The American Association of School Administrators bases its selection of Superintendent of the Year on four criteria: leadership in learning, communication, professionalism, and community involvement. Dr. Morrison led the development and implementation of the District's five-year strategic plan to enhance the quality of education for the District's 63,000 students and to reduce the dropout rate. With his leadership, between 2009 and 2011, the Washoe County School District's graduation rate jumped from 56 percent to 70 percent across all student groups. This was due in no small part to Dr. Morrison's commitment to go door- to-door, finding children who have dropped out of school or are regularly truant and working with them to return. He has also established a Parent University to engage parents in their children's education and created the Community Compact, a program that involves the local community in the success of its students. Washoe County has also achieved significant test score gains, has narrowed the achievement gap in many subject areas, and has made great strides to ensure all students graduate ready to pursue college and highly skilled careers during his tenure. Dr. Morrison truly lives out the school district's motto of ``Every child, by name and face, to graduation.''

Other awards and honors received by Dr. Morrison include the 2012 Leadership through Communication Award from the American Association of School Administrators, the National School Public Relations Association, and Blackboard Connect, as well as the Distinguished Educational Leader Award from the Washington Post.

I know that my fellow Nevadans and I believe the selection of Dr. Heath Morrison as the American Association of School Administrators 2012 National Superintendent of the Year is a fitting recognition of his many accomplishments as the Superintendent of Washoe County School District. Educators significantly and permanently influence the lives of our children. Dr. Morrison's vision and leadership in the Washoe County Schools illustrates that when parents, teachers, and the local community all work together, there is nothing they cannot accomplish. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in praising the accomplishments of Dr. Heath Morrison and recognizing his actions to be an exemplary model for all those teaching America's youth today.

I want to thank my colleague from the Empire State.

Recently a leader in the other House said, ``I hope this Congress has had a very good learning experience, especially those newer to this body.'' Essentially saying that you new people need to learn how we do things here in Washington.

Well, as the newest Member of ``how we do things here in Washington'' for about 122 days, I can assure you that the people who gave me this job know how we do things here, and they're tired of it.

They understand that Washington has a fatal spending problem. They understand that the answer to every question is not more Federal spending. That is the problem--more Federal spending. I find it interesting to hear my colleagues from both sides of the aisle talk about, we need to pay our bills. We need to talk about what we incur as bills before we take more money from others.

This is not a problem that we got here by ourselves in a partisan manner. It was in fact a bipartisan problem. But to treat the solution as one that requires only a one-sided solution or another gets us to this point that I find it incredible that people would talk about wreaking havoc on the economy and also about sending the wrong message for confidence.

For the first time in the history of this Nation, we've had our credit rating downgraded because of what we're doing here. This is not about whether we will pay our bills in the near future or not. This is about having the courage to start talking about how the problem is spending. Yes, there are loopholes, and yes there are others who may be able to pay more. But why on Earth would you ask them to pay more into this system of spending that we have created which is in no way accountable to any of those folks who are paying?

So I can tell you this for those folks that are new and perhaps need to understand how things are done here in Washington: the people who gave me this job understand very well how things are done here in Washington, and they're tired of it. And you know what? They're right.

I thank my distinguished chairman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, 85 percent of the land in Nevada is controlled by the Federal Government. Perhaps no other State in the Nation lives with a more daily, direct impact of the presence of the Federal Government and its regulatory regime than the Silver State.

Community-driven development proposals that would generate economic growth often take years longer than they should because of layer upon layer of regulatory, mandatory gymnastics. Home builders, agribusiness, mining, manufacturers, retailers, the resort and hospitality industries, small business in general all lament the gymnastics that they have to go through to get a permit or even to comply with existing regulations.

All of that effort in a State, which I am sorry to have to sit up here and remind you, 85 percent of the land controlled by the Federal Government, highest unemployment rate in the Nation, highest foreclosure rate in the Nation. We are trying to generate economic development, and it's taking years to get a permit because of regulatory regimes. There is no one that will indicate that that is not the case.

So when we talk about this issue before us today--and I congratulate my colleague from Kentucky. When we talk about the job of Congress in an oversight sense, I think it is entirely appropriate that you revisit the regulations that are promulgated not out of thin air, but as a result of the statutes that pass these two Houses. And to revisit that point and make sure that those regulations bear resemblance to both sides of the aisles' legislative intent where they're supported is something we ought to guard zealously; because, the last time I checked, the Federal-elected officials in the executive branch numbered two. And it doesn't matter what side of the aisle they come from or what party they come from, I think it's appropriate for those 535 who send those measures to those folks, check back to make sure that's being done appropriately.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Helen J. Stewart as ``First Lady of Las Vegas'', and honor her statue which will be raised at the Old Las Vegas Mormon Fort State Historic Park on December 3, 2011 in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Helen, with her husband Archibald, three children and one on the way, arrived in the Las Vegas Valley in 1882 and resided on the land located around the abandoned Mormon Fort situated near what today is the intersection of Las Vegas Boulevard North and Washington Avenue. Later left with four children and another on the way after the death of her husband in 1884, she became a rancher and business woman and presided over the operations of the ranch. She began buying land and became the largest landowner in Lincoln County. She later sold her land to the railroad in 1902 and hence forth the city of Las Vegas developed.

As the new town expanded, Helen became active in the community serving in many leadership roles such as one of the founders of Christ Episcopal Church, charter member of the Mesquite Club, president of the Las Vegas branch of the Nevada Historical Society, supporter of women's suffrage, first woman elected to the school board on the Republican ticket, and as a friend to the Paiute Indians who worked on her ranch, sold ten acres of land to the federal government to be used as an Indian school and semi-reservation which remains tribal land today.

On July 26, 2010 the Historical Commission of the Las Vegas Centennial awarded the ``Friends of the Fort'' $99,000 for the Helen J. Stewart statue to be sculpted by Benjamin Victor of Aberdeen, South Dakota.

Both the State of Nevada and I recognize the statue of Helen J. Stewart to be a fitting recognition of the many ``firsts'' that this exceptional Nevadan lady forever known as the ``First Lady of Las Vegas'' accomplished in her lifetime.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, brand new colleagues, for your courtesies. I will endeavor to do the best I can to bring honor to this House and help you with the work that we have to do.

I was told that the longer you talk, the less popular you are; so I yield back my time.

Thank you very much.