Floor Statements

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this incredibly important piece of legislation. It is an important step back to regular order and reasserts congressional control over Federal spending.

The Energy and Water Development portion totals $34.06 billion, an increase of $777 million above fiscal year 2013. The bill provides critical increases for our nuclear weapons stockpile and our Nation's water infrastructure while supporting a balanced investment in our energy resources.

I want to thank the ranking member of the subcommittee, Marcy Kaptur, and former chairman of the subcommittee, Rodney Frelinghuysen, for all of their hard work in bringing this bill through to the House floor in regular order. I would also like to recognize Senators Feinstein and Alexander for their partnership in putting together a truly bipartisan bill.

Madam Speaker, these Members are passionate advocates for their positions; and not surprisingly, their priorities are not always the same as mine. But I can say with confidence that the long hours we all put in during the last month have paid off. The Energy and Water portion of the omnibus is a true compromise which strengthens common priorities.

The largest increase in the Energy and Water bill is to support our nuclear weapons stockpile. There is no room for mistakes in this work. The reliability of the most destructive weapons ever developed depends on it, as does our national security.

The bill also increases funding for the Army Corps of Engineers by 749 million over the fiscal year 2013 spending level. These funds will go to support our Nation's ports, waterways and flood control infrastructure--work which literally touches every one of our districts.

Finally, let me say, Madam Speaker, that I want to second what Mr. Moran just said. While most Americans--in fact most of us--were enjoying the holidays with our families, the staff of the Appropriations Committee on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the rotunda were here at work trying to get this done, and we owe them our gratitude for the incredible time that they spent doing this.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Gerald L. Beck for more than 38 years of service to educating Idahoans and on the occasion of his retirement from his current position as President of the College of Southern Idaho (CSI).

During his time at CSI, Dr. Beck has been a strong advocate for promoting academic excellence in Southeastern Idaho as well as supporting economic development in the local community. Through Dr. Beck's work prior to joining CSI--which included starting a small business and working two regional managerial positions--Dr. Beck gained the experience necessary to begin a long and successful career educating those who now contribute to the economic development of Idaho

Perhaps the most meaningful impact Dr. Beck has made is his role as an educator and administrator. Dr. Beck started his career at CSI as a technical instructor and went on to hold positions as the Coordinator of the Trade and Industrial Division, the Dean of Continuing Education/ Summer School, and the Executive Vice President/Chief Academic Officer. In his time at CSI Dr. Beck was able to integrate the higher education curriculum to support economic growth in southeast Idaho which created a mutually successful relationship between the college and local community.

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank Dr. Beck for his service and commitment to higher education in Idaho I wish him well in the next chapter of his life alongside his wife Barbara, children, and grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, the mission of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is to seek and improve the quality of knowledge in the medical sciences, and to apply that knowledge in a meaningful way. The NIH fulfills this mission by maintaining high standards of scientific integrity, public accountability, and social responsibility. The NIH also enriches many colleges and universities across the country, because, though many Americans are not aware, a large portion of the budget is sent out to all fifty states in the form of extramural research grants. Through these grants, better education yields higher return on public investment in medical research.

Thanks in part to research performed by the NIH, the life expectancy of a baby born in the United States is now 79--which is three decades longer than one born in 1900. Not only are we living longer, but our quality of life is improving. According to the NIH, the proportion of elderly with chronic disabilities has dropped by almost one third over the last 25 years.

Research and development in the medical field is the key to curing not only cancer, but also a host of other diseases that impact millions of Americans. For citizens who suffer from pancreatic cancer, one of the deadliest major cancers, such funding is not just necessary, it's urgent. It is critical that Congress do whatever is possible to support pancreatic cancer research at the NIH and the National Cancer Institute (NCI). In meetings with my constituents who have shared their stories about pancreatic cancer, it has been clear that we could do more to find a cure for this disease.

It is crucial that we, Members of the United States Congress, continue to support the NIH and its subsidiary, the NCI, by providing sustained and predictable funding. In these times of record debts and deficits and reduced budgets, it remains important that Congress continue to prioritize what is most important. The NIH is truly a national treasure. It is a light that we must not let fade.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Nicholas Cavarocchi Sr., a tireless advocate for oral health research, on the occasion of his retirement from CRD Associates and as the principal consultant for the American Association for Dental Research (AADR) after 33 years.

Throughout his career, Nick has worked on every facet of health policy, from organizing an industry/patient coalition that led to the creation of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases at the National Institutes of Health to co-founding the Ad Hoc Group for Medical Research, the preeminent advocacy voice for supporting biomedical research. As a former senior health advisor to the House Appropriations Committee he worked to sustain NIH and Public Health Service programs that improve the health and well-being of millions of Americans.

As the lead consultant for the AADR, Nick worked to educate members of Congress about the value and importance of the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research. Throughout the past 33 years much progress has been made as a result of NIDCR supported research, which helped reduce the burden of oral disease and led to better oral health for tens of millions of Americans. Through AADR, Nick helped to mobilize thousands of oral health researchers throughout the country, encouraging them to reach out to members of Congress and tell us about the tremendous strides that have already been made and the promise dental research holds for further advances against oral disease and other disorders.

Mr. Speaker, this month a longtime champion for oral health, and a friend, is closing a chapter and opening a new one. I wish Nick all the best in his retirement and in this new phase of his life.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), a valued member of our subcommittee and an advocate for Indian issues.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, 521 years ago, an explorer named Christopher Columbus sailed west from Europe in an attempt to find a new route to the East Indies. Instead, he landed in the Bahamas, and as the story goes, he named the local inhabitants ``Indians.''

I note the irony that today has been designated Columbus Day, and here we are debating a bill to reopen key parts of the government so the United States can honor the treaty obligations our forefathers made to the American Indians--the first Americans.

The bill before us today is a good thing because it gives us an opportunity to continue to highlight the poverty and other hardships that exist today in Indian Country as a result of the long, complicated, and difficult history of relations between the United States Government and more than 500 other sovereign nations that were here long before we were.

So while we recognize and honor Columbus for his impact on our own Nation's history, let us also recognize and honor the first Americans for their proud history and the sacrifices they made, and continue to make, for this great Nation.

That is why I would encourage everybody to vote for this bill. Frankly, I hope this bill isn't necessary. I hope that we can find a resolution to the differences that exist between Republicans and Democrats and that we can reopen all the government, as Mr. Moran just stated is necessary. I agree with him fully. We need to get the government open again, and we need to address the issue of the debt ceiling.

It is heartening to know that leadership in the Senate, and hopefully in the House and the White House, is having some quality time together and that maybe we can come to a resolution before more dire things happen and we can get this government open, but I don't know that that is going to happen.

In the absence of not knowing that that is going to happen, wouldn't it be wise to have at least some of these bills that fund some key elements of our government ready to go in the Senate so that we can open some areas that I think have bipartisan agreement that need to be funded and need to continue?

I said in my opening statement Saturday that Indian issues have been bipartisan on our committee. They have been supported by both Republicans and Democrats whether it was under Mr. Dicks' leadership when he was chairman, Mr. Moran's leadership when he was chairman, or under my leadership. It has been a bipartisan issue to try to meet our treaty obligations and the moral responsibilities we have to the first Americans--American Indians.

I want people in Indian Country to know that regardless of the vote on this resolution, whether people vote for it or against it, that bipartisanship will continue. We will continue to work together to try to make sure we address these critical needs in our Nation and our treaty and moral obligations we have.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's motion.

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the instructions contained in the motion violate clause 7 of rule XVI, which requires that an amendment be germane to the bill under consideration.

As the Chair most recently ruled on October 11, 2013, the instructions contain a special order of business within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules, and, therefore, the amendment is not germane to the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 371, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 80) making continuing appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Indian Education, and the Indian Health Service for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 80, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

I yield for a parliamentary inquiry.

Parliamentary Inquiry

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

I rise today in support of this important legislation to continue funding for the Bureaus of Indian Affairs and Indian Education and for the Indian Health Service. This bill focuses on education, law enforcement, health care, and many other vital services to American Indians and Alaska Natives.

Mr. Speaker, long ago, the Federal Government made treaty commitments to American Indians, who, in return, ceded the vast lands that make up the United States today. Visit just about any Indian reservation today, and you will quickly realize that the Federal Government hasn't even come close to living up to its end of the bargain.

My colleagues on the subcommittee who are on both sides of the aisle and my predecessors before me, Mr. Moran and Mr. Dicks, who chaired this committee, have been working hard over the past several years to address the critical needs and challenges in Indian country. Even in declining budget environments, on a bipartisan basis, our committee continues to make funding for Indian country a priority. That is why I doubt my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle will oppose the merits of this bill. They might oppose the strategy of getting here, but they probably won't oppose the merits of the bill. It is something on which we agree on a bipartisan basis.

For the past 11 days, the House has been attempting to reopen parts of the government without further delay and without trying to extract any further concessions from the Senate or the President.

Mr. Speaker, you can't go wrong by trying to do the right thing. Right here, right now, those of us who care about Indian country have been given an opportunity to do the right thing. Let's not waste this opportunity by pointing fingers and arguing over everything other than the topic at hand. The topic at hand is Indian health, Indian education and the BIA. This is the hand we have been dealt. Let's do the right thing. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Daines).

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a valued member of our subcommittee and probably the largest advocate for Indian issues in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 528, Making continuing appropriations for the Food and Drug Administration for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes, I was unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 370, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 70) making continuing appropriations for National Park Service operations, the Smithsonian Institution, the National Gallery of Art, and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 70, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

Well, here we are again, Mr. Speaker. We were here yesterday, with the Republicans trying to open the government back up and the Democrats opposing opening the government back up. But, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this important legislation to fund the operations of the National Park Service, the Smithsonian Institution, the U.S. Holocaust Museum, and the National Gallery of Art.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke yesterday about some of the effects of the government shutdown, which began a couple of days ago. With each passing day, we hear of more and more impacts resulting from the shutdown across the country and in our Nation's Capital.

I want to remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that all 401 National Park Service units in the United States, 19 Smithsonian museums and galleries, including the National Zoo, the Holocaust Museum, and the National Gallery of Art, remain closed to the public. This legislation, if adopted, would reopen these national treasures to the American public.

Mr. Speaker, the government shutdown is having a real impact on real people and on the national economy. I remind my colleagues that it is estimated that the local economy is losing up to $200 million a day, with the National Zoo, Smithsonian museums, Holocaust Museum, the National Gallery of Art, and other popular attractions closed to the public. This doesn't even begin to measure the national and international impacts of these closures.

Think of the families, the veterans groups, the groups of students who all have saved for months and, in some cases, years to travel to our Nation's Capital from across the country to visit the Air and Space Museum, the Lincoln Memorial, the World War II Memorial, the National Zoo, Ford's Theater, or the National Gallery of Art.

This government shutdown has a real impact on real people. Think of the families who made reservations to visit Yosemite or Yellowstone or the Statue of Liberty and now find these national parks shuttered today. This government shutdown, again, has real impacts on real people.

Think of the impact the government shutdown is having on Ford's Theater, one of the most hallowed National Park Service historic sites in our country. Not only are tourists denied entrance to the historic theater, but the shutdown has forced evening performances of the theater to be moved to another location because of the budget impasse.

Think of the young people who have a National Park Service permit to get married at the Jefferson Memorial this Saturday. Their families are arriving from all over the country, over 130 people, for what should be the happiest day of this new couple's life. But because of the government shutdown, they are not able to get married at the Jefferson Memorial and are now scrambling to find an alternative location to get married.

Let's pass this bill so this couple and millions of Americans across this country can enjoy our national parks and this couple can get married at the Jefferson Memorial.

There's a photo on the front page of today's Washington Post showing National Park Service employees putting up barricades around the Martin Luther King Memorial on The National Mall. Remember, this is open air, accessible to the public 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, and we are putting barriers around it.

Just down the street, barricades were put up around the World War II Memorial--again, a memorial accessible to the public 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Fortunately, these temporary barriers didn't stop a large group of visiting World War II veterans, members of the Greatest Generation in their eighties and nineties, many of them in wheelchairs, from storming the barricades so that they could witness the memorial built in their honor of courage and sacrifice.

Tourists visiting Washington, and, indeed, many furloughed Federal employees are, today, finding actual physical barriers to prevent them from experiencing our open-air national monuments honoring Lincoln, Jefferson, King, and our World War II heroes.

At some point, Congress and the President will overcome their differences over Federal funding. But, isn't it ironic and even cynical that when the government shuts down, the President's administration actually builds physical barriers at sites that are otherwise open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year?

How cynical is that?

Now, some people say they put those barriers there to protect them from vandalism. So we use the Park Police to put up and protect the barriers, but not the monuments. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

To my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle and to the President, I say this: If you seek a solution to this government shutdown, if you seek a bipartisan solution, Mr. President, you can start by tearing down these barriers.

Let's open our national parks. Let's open the Smithsonian, the National Zoo, the Holocaust Museum and the National Gallery of Art.

Why are the House and Senate Democrats denying the American people the right to visit these treasured sites?

To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I will close with this thought. By opposing this legislation, you are voting to keep our national parks closed, to keep Yellowstone closed, to keep Yosemite closed, to keep the Statute of Liberty closed, to keep Ford's Theater closed.

You are voting to keep the Smithsonian closed. You are voting to keep the National Zoo closed. You are voting to keep the Holocaust Museum closed. You are voting to keep the National Gallery of Art closed.

We should not be using our national parks, the Smithsonian, the National Zoo, the Holocaust Museum and the National Gallery of Art as hostages for the Democratic ``my way or the highway'' shutdown, and that's exactly what this is. This is the Democratic ``you either agree with us, or we will shut the government down.''

We just simply wanted to go to conference, but no, that's not good enough either. We can't go to conference to talk about these differences, so let's shut it down, and that's exactly what the Democratic Party has done.

Mr. Speaker, this is a commonsense bill, and I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it. Let's reopen these national treasures.

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

Mr. Speaker, it just stuns me that the gentleman from Virginia is unwilling to put his constituents back to work in opening and working in our national parks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), the Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.

I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have on either side?

Mr. Chairman, it is now my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Riverside, California (Mr. Calvert), a valuable member of the Interior Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to the

gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), who represents what may be one of the most beautiful places in this country, Yosemite National Park.

Mr. Speaker, I am now happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. Speaker, I am disgusted that the gentleman from California would actually use the word ``jihad'' on the floor of the House. We should all reject his comments and he should be censured, but I won't call for it.

I'm the last speaker, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, most people might not realize that Mr. Moran from Virginia and I are pretty good friends and we share a lot relative to our Interior Subcommittee. But I will tell you, what it reminds me of, when I'm listening to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, is if you say something long enough and often enough, maybe you will get the American people to believe it.

Nobody over here voted to shut down the government. In fact, every time we passed a bill and sent it to the Senate, it was to keep the government operating. Did it include more than that? Yes, it did. And it was rejected by the Senate. So we sent them another one with another offer. They rejected it. We keep sending them things.

Finally, what we said to them is: Let's go to conference and work out our differences. But no, they won't even sit and talk to us. So the distinguished minority whip from Maryland says: Let's do this; pass our idea, do it my way, and then we'll negotiate.

Well, that's just backwards. We need to go to conference and settle our differences and get a bill out here that keeps the government operating. That's what everyone here wants to do.

It is not a Republican shutdown. It is a Democratic ``my way or the highway.'' You agree with us or we will shut the government down. That's exactly what the minority party has done here.

I would encourage my Members to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I object.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's motion.

Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the motion to recommit. This motion is not germane and as such is a violation of rule XVI, clause 7, which states:

No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.

This motion deals with a proposition unrelated to the matter addressed by the joint resolution and brings in a matter under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules, which fails the committee of jurisdiction test, and therefore is a violation of rule XVI, clause 7.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 70) making continuing appropriations for National Park Service operations, the Smithsonian Institution, the National Gallery of Art, and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 70 and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

I rise today in support of this important legislation to fund the operation of the National Park Service, the Smithsonian Institution, the U.S. Holocaust Museum, and the National Gallery of Art.

The effects of the government shutdown, which began at midnight last night, are already being felt across the country and in our Nation's Capital. As of this morning, all 401 National Park Service units in the United States, 19 Smithsonian museums and galleries, including the National Zoo, the Holocaust Museum, and the National Gallery of Art, were closed to the public. This legislation, if adopted, would reopen these national treasures to the American public.

Mr. Speaker, the American people woke up this morning to the headlines that read: ``The Capital of the Free World: Closed Until Further Notice.'' It's no surprise that the government shutdown has had an impact on real people and on the economy. On our National Mall, tourists yesterday raced from one museum to another, trying to see as many sights as they could with the government shutdown looming.

It is estimated that the local economy could lose up to $200 million a day with the National Zoo, the Smithsonian museums, the Holocaust Museum, the National Gallery of Art, and other popular attractions closed to the public. This doesn't even begin to measure the national and international impact of these closures.

In the case of the National Park Service, 21,379 employees across the country were furloughed today. This has an impact on real people. Families who long ago made plans to visit Yosemite or Yellowstone or the Statue of Liberty found these sites and others shuttered today. This has an impact on real people. I heard on the news about a group of World War II veterans who arrived at the World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C., today and found that the site had been barricaded. That didn't stop them from entering the memorial built to honor their sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, this is a commonsense bill, and I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to just respond. The gentleman from Virginia is correct in that this is no way to run the government.

I would remind the gentleman from Virginia that we did pass resolution after resolution, and we sent them to the Senate to keep the government operating. Unfortunately, they were rejected by the body on the other side. Now, I suspect that you might have a different take on why that was done. So, finally, we said let's go to conference to try to work out our differences. No, they wouldn't even do that. They rejected that.

So is it fair to punish those people who have planned for months, sometimes years, to bring their families to Washington, D.C.? They've saved. They've put aside money so that they could come out here to show the American people our National Capital or to go to the Yellowstone National Park or Yosemite. Is it fair to punish them? This opens them and keeps them open for those people so that they can enjoy those natural things that you and I both love. There is absolutely no reason to punish them.

The gentleman from Virginia has his own time.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky, Hal Rogers, the honorable chairman of the full Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend from California (Mr. McClintock), who represents one of the most beautiful places in America, Yosemite National Park.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Montana (Mr. Daines), that has Glacier National Park in it.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

You say we could reopen the government, yes, if we put the Senate CR on the floor. We could also open it if the Senate would bring up the House CR and pass it. So there are different ways to address this.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind the gentlelady, my friend from California, that there is a process. And it's called, when the House and the Senate disagree on something, they ask for a conference. And they go to conference and they try to work that out.

But my good friends on the other side of the rotunda chose to say, No, we don't even want to talk about it. We don't care what you want. We don't want to talk about it. And so they were unwilling to go to conference to discuss it.

The other thing I would notice--I don't know that it is beneath the dignity of this House to make sure that when the World War II veterans--who are scheduled to come here tomorrow to fly the colors and celebrate at the World War II Memorial but are presently barricaded out--to make sure that that memorial is open so that they can enjoy it. I don't know that that is beneath the dignity of this House. That is all this bill is trying to do.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao).

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

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

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

I would urge all my colleagues to support this legislation. In spite of the Democratic majority leader on the other side of the rotunda's shutdown plan, the fact is every Republican wants the government to stay open.

We've passed several bills over to the Senate and asked them to take them up that would have kept the government operating. And at last we said, okay, you won't go for our plans; let's go to conference and talk about it.

But, no, they wouldn't even do that, wouldn't even go to conference to talk with us about it. It was shut it down. That's exactly what they wanted. In fact, all the time leading up to this, the only people talking about shutting down the government were my friends on the other side of the aisle.

Republicans did not want to shut the government down, and so now what we're trying to do is to open up parts of the government and see if we can get some consent on that.

I would have thought my friend from Virginia who loves the national parks just like I do and loves the Smithsonian and knows the importance of it, particularly to this area, would have been persuaded by the $200 million in revenue that comes in because of the Mall and the tourists that come here. But, apparently, that's not good enough.

What you need to do is quit holding the national parks, the Smithsonian, the Holocaust Museum and others hostage to your desire to shut down the government. That's what's going on here.

You think we're holding the Affordable Health Care Act hostage. You're holding our national parks hostage.

And remember, we've got millions of people that have sat down, made plans to visit their national parks. They may have been planning for 6 months. They may have been planning for several years to save the money to visit Washington, D.C., to visit our Nation's history, or to go to Yosemite or to Glacier National Park or the Grand Canyon. If you've never been there, you need to go to them; but all of a sudden now they can't go.

Do you find it strange that, as Mr. Hastings said during his debate, the World War II Memorial is open to the public. There are no doors. There are no gates. You can walk through that at any time, day or night. It is just on the Mall.

Yet when the government is shut down, the Obama administration decided to put a barricade around it. For the first time they put a barricade around it so that you couldn't even walk through it.

We've got World War II veterans planning to come here tomorrow now asking--average 85 years old--they're asking the airline if they can refund their ticket and get them at another time.

If they do it another year, a lot of those 85-year-old people won't be with us. They're coming here because they want to visit their memorial, the World War II Memorial.

But, no, the Obama administration has put barricades around it. Does that sound to you like maybe they're trying to make this as painful as they possibly could?

I think so. All we're trying to do is reopen the national parks, the Holocaust Museum, the Smithsonian and the National Gallery of Art because they're important to the people that want to come here.

Are the other institutions that were mentioned during this debate important?

You bet they are. We would like to open every single one of them; and we will keep trying, in spite of the opposition from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Reclaiming my time, as I mentioned, this is not the way to run the government, absolutely not the way to run the government. Everyone on this side of the aisle agrees with that.

But the fact is we have a difference between the House and the Senate. And what do you do when you have a difference between the House and the Senate?

Should it have been done 2 months ago?

Sure. It wasn't. We are where we are today, and now we need to sit down and work out the differences between the House and the Senate, and I suspect we

have a difference of opinion of how we came to this point.

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage all my Members to support this to keep our national parks open so that the families and their children can enjoy these national parks, and we will work on the rest of the government, trying to make sure that we get it open and get around this Democratic shutdown of the government.

Mr. Speaker, I urge this bill's passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the chairman. I appreciate him yielding.

Madam Speaker, I have to tell you that I agree with the statement of my good friend from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky). In fact, most people sitting on the Floor are on the Appropriations Committee and agree with him that we

need to get back to regular order. I can tell you that our chairman and the ranking member have been trying to get us back to regular order where we pass individual appropriations bills and get them done. So far we haven't been able to do that, so it's necessary to do a short-term

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, Mr. Moran and I have had this discussion six or seven times on this very amendment over the past few years; and, once again, I rise to oppose it. Contrary to what the gentleman from Michigan just said, I do understand the issue; and, frankly, understanding it is why I am opposed to it.

In 2006, the Supreme Court determined that the EPA and the Corps of Engineers did not have the authority to regulate nonnavigable waters under the Clean Water Act. Now, you might disagree with that Supreme Court decision. Tough luck. They made the decision, and we follow the decisions of the Supreme Court.

In accordance with this decision, the term ``navigable waters'' has long been the phrase used to limit Federal intrusion with regard to the Clean Water Act's authority. Nonnavigable waters are currently regulated by the States. Everybody who stands up and talks assumes that if it is a nonnavigable water that nobody is regulating it. In fact, the States are regulating those things.

However, last year the Corps of Engineers and the EPA issued guidance that would expand the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act to nonnavigable, intrastate waters, effectively resulting in a massive expansion of the Federal Government's authority to increase the number of waters subject to the water quality standards--including irrigation canals, ponds, drainage ditches, and other things.

Deciding how water is used should be the responsibility of State and local officials who are familiar with the people and local issues. If all intrastate waters are regulated by the Federal Government, the language could be broadly interpreted to include everything within a State, including groundwater.

As a result, the reach of the Federal jurisdiction would be so broad that it could significantly restrict landowners' ability to make decisions about their own property and local government's ability to plan for their own development.

The language in the bill protects the authority of the States to prevent the Army Corps from expanding its regulations to include intrastate bodies of water under the Clean Water Act for any reason other than drinking water standards.

Clarity is needed on this issue, and the gentleman from Michigan mentioned clarity. But I will tell you, clarity simply for clarity's sake is not an answer. Death is a clarity. It's not necessarily the outcome you want, though.

So doing this just so you have clarity in it is not the right direction to go. Congress does need to provide that clarity, but not the agencies through the regulatory process. The Supreme Court has already determined that the Army Corps does not have the authority to do what it is proposing, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment offered by my good friend from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 876, the Idaho Wilderness Water Resources Protection Act. This bipartisan, noncontroversial legislation is a technical fix intended to enable the Forest Service to authorize and permit existing historical water diversions within the Idaho wilderness.

A few years ago, one of my constituents came to me for help with a problem. The Middle Fork Lodge has a water diversion within the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness Area that existed before the wilderness area was established and is protected under statute.

The diversion was beginning to leak and was in desperate need of repairs to ensure that it did not threaten the environment and watershed, but it turned out that the Forest Service did not have the authority to issue the lodge a permit to make the necessary repairs.

As we looked into this issue, we discovered that the Forest Service lacked this authority throughout both the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness, where there are 22 known water developments, and the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, where there are three. These diversions are primarily used to support irrigation and minor hydropower generation for use on non-Federal lands. While the critical situation at the Middle Fork Lodge brought this issue to my attention, it is obvious to me that this problem is larger than just one diversion. At some point in the future, all 25 of these existing diversions will need maintenance or repair work done to ensure their integrity.

H.R. 876 authorizes the Forest Service to issue special use permits for all qualifying historic water systems in these wilderness areas. I believe it is important to get ahead of this problem and to ensure that the Forest Service has the tools necessary to manage these lands.

For these reasons, I have introduced H.R. 876. This legislation, which was passed by the House during the last two Congresses, allows the Forest Service to issue the required special use permits to owners of historic water systems, and it sets out specific criteria for doing so. Providing this authority will ensure that existing water diversions can be properly maintained and repaired when necessary and preserves beneficial use for private property owners who hold water rights under State law.

I have deeply appreciated the cooperation of the Forest Service in addressing this problem. Not only have they communicated with me the need to find a systemwide solution to this issue, but at my request, they have drafted this legislation to ensure that it only impacts specific targeted historical diversions--those with valid water rights that cannot feasibly be relocated out of the wilderness area.

H.R. 876 is bipartisan and noncontroversial. It is intended as a simple, reasonable solution to a problem that I think we can all agree should be solved as quickly as possible. I am hopeful that we can move this bill through the legislative process without delay so that the necessary maintenance to these diversions may be completed before the damage is beyond repair.

I urge my Members to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Laurel Sayer, a member of my staff and one of the finest public servants I have ever met. While I am happy for Laurel that her long career as a Congressional staffer has culminated with her well-earned retirement from this body, I am equally concerned by the hole her absence will leave in my office and the challenge my remaining staff faces in filling the void.

Laurel began her service in my office not long after my election to Congress in 1998. She had served with then-Congressman Mike Crapo for several years and I consider my successful effort to lure her away from his office one of my earliest, and finest, achievements.

For the last 14 years, Laurel has been the anchor of my staff in eastern Idaho where she led my outreach efforts regarding natural resources, arts, and conservation issues. She was also my lead staffer on issues related to the Idaho National Laboratory and its talented workforce. Her compassion, insight, knowledge, and reliability were often critical to my constituents dealing with the peaks and valleys of the federal government's support for nuclear energy and the work of the laboratory.

In a district that spans almost two dozen counties and roughly half of the State of Idaho, you spend a lot of time driving back roads, visiting small communities, talking politics in farmer's fields, and marveling at the stunning geography of the American West. Laurel has always been the best traveling companion a Congressman could ask for on those long trips across the state.

We've been backpacking and fishing in the Boulder-White Coulds. We've worked together to open a wheel-chair accessible trail in central Idaho and to assist Custer County in their economic development needs.

Laurel is a great advocate for the arts, and will remain so in her life after Congress. A few years ago we visited Idaho's rural communities with National Endowment for the Arts Chairman Rocco Landesman and watched Idaho's Shakespeare Festival share its talents with schoolchildren. Laurel and I have spent many hours in book stores large and small and have been in perpetual pursuit of the best chicken fried steak in Idaho. And we think we found it in Salmon, Idaho.

Laurel and I have shared a lot of laughs, many successes, a few failures, and a tremendous friendship over the past 14 years. Laurel has been loyal, fair, honest, and dependable. She has provided wise counsel, constructive criticism, and the not-so-subtle nudges those of us who work in this body need from time-to-time. She has been a fierce advocate for my priorities but the source of measured advice when things didn't go our way. In short, she has been a valued adviser, supporter, and friend for as long as I have been in Congress. What more could any of us ask of our staff?

Laurel's presence in the office and in the communities of eastern Idaho will be deeply

missed by me and by everyone who works in my office. While we are going to miss her, we are comforted by the fact that she vows to remain in the Boise area and visit us often. We're going to lean on her frequently for the same advice, constructive criticism, and gentle nudges she always offered and hope to see her regularly on the trail, in the museum, or at a play.

In closing, I would simply like to thank Laurel for her hard work, her tenacity, her good counsel, and most of all, her friendship.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 125, on motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1765, I was unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''