Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, thirty years ago, in August of 1982, a little-known band from Georgia took the stage at a new music venue at 3730 North Clark Street in Chicago.

Five hundred tickets were sold for 5 dollars each, and Chicagoans gathered in ``the big room'' to watch R.E.M.

The show was a huge success, and the Metro Chicago has been an influential music venue ever since.

Celebrating their 30th anniversary this month, the Metro continues to hold an important place in the Chicago music and performing arts scene.

There is a long list of memorable moments, including performances by music legends like James Brown, Bob Dylan, the Ramones, Smashing Pumpkins, and my personal favorite, Poi Dog Pondering.

The Metro has always been a venue that has provided a platform for new music talent to start their careers the old fashioned way, by sending in a demo and booking a slot.

Their dedication to independent music comes from the enthusiasm of owner Joe Shanahan, a south side Chicago native.

In the late 1970s, looking to better connect the music community of his home town, Joe started hosting parties for performing artists out of his loft apartment in the city.

It was not long until his musical gatherings outgrew his small space.

He eventually converted an old community center into a venue, and he has been bringing Chicago the best local and national talent ever since.

Shanahan, an icon in independent music promotion, stays involved in the community as well by serving on the boards of the Chicago Children's Choir and Rock for Kids, a charity that provides music education to underserved children in Chicago.

Without a doubt, the Metro and Shanahan's influence on the Chicago music scene is beyond measure.

Music before money always has been the message, and because of this commitment, the Metro has helped shape Chicago's cultural landscape.

For 30 years the Metro has contributed to the music scene in Chicago, and for 30 years fans have flocked to it.

Congratulations on three decades of rock.

We'll be lining up for thirty more years of great music to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and express my gratitude to Robert D. Grant, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Chicago office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He is retiring from his position as head of the Chicago FBI after an outstanding 29 years of distinguished service to this country.

In 1983, Mr. Grant began his career with the FBI and has since served in Memphis, New York, and San Antonio, along with several different assignments at FBI headquarters here in Washington, D.C., including Chief Inspector.

Mr. Grant spent his time with the FBI committed to improving all areas of operations and has brought tremendous changes to fruition. In 2005, Mr. Grant became the head of the Chicago office, where he is now the longest serving agent-in-charge in the history of that office.

During his time in Chicago, Mr. Grant has overseen numerous widely- recognized investigations, from corrupt public officials to our most violent criminals.

He was at the forefront of the indictment and convictions of several high-ranking members of the Chicago Mafia and played a key role in the arrest of two Chicago men on charges related to the 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai, India.

Throughout his career, Mr. Grant has received numerous accolades for his impressive service, ranging from local community group recognition to the 2008 Presidential Rank Service Award.

While acknowledging Special Agent-in-Charge Grant today for his three decades of service, we also reaffirm our appreciation to all of the brave men and women of the United States law enforcement community, who work every day to protect our families and keep our country safe.

Once more, we thank Mr. Grant for his integrity, leadership, and dedication to the FBI and our country. And we wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Patrick Van Grinsven, a vital member of my staff for over the past 3 years.

Friday, July 20th was Pat's last day serving the people of the Illinois Fifth Congressional District. He has served with distinction since June 2008 when he joined the staff of my predecessor in office, the Honorable Rahm Emanuel. In April 2009, after I was sworn in, Pat joined my staff as a Legislative Correspondent and now departs as a Legislative Assistant.

Pat began his career in public service when he became an intern in the office of his hometown Congressman, the Honorable Rahm Emanuel. Pat quickly moved up and in late 2008 he was promoted to Staff Assistant. After Congressman Emanuel left to become President Obama's Chief of Staff and I was elected as his successor, Pat joined my office as a Legislative Correspondent to continue serving the Fifth District. Pat managed all my constituent correspondence--an exceptionally difficult task amidst the controversy of the 111th Congress. In 2010, I promoted Pat to Legislative Assistant and since then he has handled some of my highest priority issues including transportation, veterans, postal, and labor. As the longest-tenured staff member serving the Fifth District in Washington, DC, Pat will be sorely missed.

It has been a pleasure to work with Pat over the past 3 years. He is passionate and serious about his work and he has a great sense of humor, an underrated trait in Congress. As a native Chicagoan, Pat is an ardent supporter of the Cubs, Bulls, Blackhawks, and Bears. We will also miss his devotion to soccer or, as I like to call it, weed hockey.

Mr. Speaker, I wish Pat the best of luck as he begins a master's program at the School of Advanced International Studies at the Johns Hopkins University. I thank him for his service to the Illinois Fifth Congressional District.

Mr. Speaker, 2 nights ago, six people were shot inside of 15 minutes in my home city of Chicago. Seven more victims were killed just last weekend by gunfire, including two 16-year-old boys. In Chicago, this year alone, over 200 people have been killed in shootings. And nationwide, every day, 34 people are killed by guns.

In the hours following the horrific tragedy in Colorado, we paused to reflect and send our prayers to families grieving an unimaginable loss. But now is the time to have a national discussion about how to stem these epidemic levels of gun violence.

I wish this tragedy in Aurora were an isolated incident, but it seems to be part of a recurring pattern: 19 people were shot, and eight were killed in Tucson in 2011; 29 people were shot, and 13 died at Fort Hood in 2009; 21 people were shot, and five were killed at Northern Illinois University in 2008; and 17 people were wounded, while 32 people died at Virginia Tech in 2007.

When will we have enough? When will we stand up and say we may not be able to stop every crime, but we can stop some of them and at least minimize the damage of others?

The gun lobby doesn't want us to have this conversation. First, they accuse anyone who tries to spark a national debate about how to mitigate gun violence with exploiting the deaths of innocent people. Yet no one was accused of exploitation when, after Hurricane Katrina, we discussed how to improve FEMA's emergency response, or after a deadly salmonella outbreak, when we debated how to improve public safety.

After such national tragedies, society should engage in a discussion about how to address and potentially prevent such tragedies from happening again. We might not all agree; but this is a democracy, and this is how public policy is made.

Next, the gun lobby seeks to stymie debate by arguing that guns don't kill people, people kill people. I don't buy this argument. I don't buy that there's nothing we can do to stop criminals and the mentally ill from killing if they want to. Sure, we can't stop them with 100 percent certainty; but we can make it a lot harder for would-be assassins.

We can ensure every gun is purchased after a background check, rather than only 60 percent of guns, as is the current case. And we can reduce the fatality rate by banning assault rifles and high-capacity magazines that are designed exclusively for killing dozens of people at once.

Finally, the gun lobby tries to argue that any attempt to regulate gun access is an attempt to restrict all gun access. This is simply not true.

There is such a thing as commonsense, middle-ground gun reform, and most gun owners support it. Eighty-one percent of gun owners support requiring a background check on all firearm purchases.

Yet 40 percent of U.S. gun sales are conducted by private sellers who are not required to perform background checks. These private sellers operate at gun shows where anyone can walk in and buy whatever gun they want. Convicted felons, domestic abusers, the severely mentally ill, and even people on the terrorist watch list can--and do--go into gun shows and buy any gun they want.

Ninety percent of all Americans also support strengthening databases to prevent the mentally ill from buying guns. But, sadly, 10 States have still failed to flag a single person as mentally ill in the national background check database, and 17 other States have fewer than 100 people listed as mentally ill. Over 1 million disqualifying mental health records are still missing from the database.

Finally, we must have a conversation about getting assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, machines designed exclusively for killing people, off the streets. When you have a 100-round clip on your gun, you are not

protecting your home. You are hunting people.

Let's be clear, this is not about restricting anyone's Second Amendment rights. The Supreme Court has ruled and made clear the right of Americans to own guns. But while reaffirming the Second Amendment, the Court was careful to note that the amendment is not limitless. Justice Scalia explained in Columbia v. Heller that ``like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.''

Can we stop every shooting? No. But can we reduce their frequency and deadliness? Absolutely. Can we do it while still respecting the Second Amendment? Of this I am certain. But the first step toward keeping dangerous guns out of the hands of dangerous people is to begin the conversation. Let's break the silence, stop the violence, and start that conversation.

Mr. Speaker, if anecdotal evidence were science, I would be standing here proclaiming that global warming is real, just step outside. It is severely hot, oppressive, simply unenjoyable. Often, I feel as if I'm standing behind an 18-wheeler blowing heat and exhaust in my face. But no, I'm just walking my dogs in Chicago no less. Chicago, the city of snow. Yes, snow, the stuff that emboldened those who said that global warming was a farce. ``Just think about that snow piled up against your door,'' they said.

But global warming is part of a larger climate crisis--climate change. It is something the Union of Concerned Scientists say includes such events as more extreme storms, more severe droughts, deadly heat waves, rising sea levels, and more acidic oceans, to name a few. You might have noticed I'm citing the Union of Concerned Scientists, not the group of folks who notice anecdotally that the weather was extreme. It would do us good to heed the words of science and not the remarks of a few casual observers.

I don't make my case that global warming is real because it's hot, just as it doesn't follow that global warming isn't real when it's cold. Extreme weather is climate change. Over 200 peer-reviewed scientific studies have concluded that global warming is real and potentially catastrophic. No scientific peer-reviewed studies have found the opposite--none.

As of July 3, 56 percent of the continental United States was experiencing drought conditions. This marks the largest area affected by drought in the 12-year record kept by the U.S. Drought Monitor. Scientists note that temperature records reveal a long-term trend for warming that has been picking up speed. The first decade of this century was the warmest on record, according to NOAA's State of Climate in a 2010 report. It is real because science tells us so.

We have sustained 1,644 record heat days from January to June of 2012. We have endured 631 days of record rainfall. We have shoveled our way out of 98 days of record snowfall. The prolonged heat wave this past spring included the hottest March since recordkeeping began in 1894. There were 671 records that were broken, according to the National Weather Service. April marked the end of the warmest 12-month stretch ever in the United States.

What does all this snow, rain, heat, drought, ocean acidity, and raging forest fires mean? Scientists say it's global warming. Scientists say that our warming climate is causing more and more extreme weather events, and they can and will get worse by our inaction.

Several weeks of snowmageddon, which prompted taunts of Al Gore by Congress, do not disprove scientific fact. At the same time, the brutality of today's untenable heat does not solidify my stance any more than the snow disproves Al Gore. Local temperatures taken as individual data points have nothing to do with the long-term trend of global warming.

To get a real hand on global reading, scientists rely on changes in weather over a long period of time. Looking at high- and low- temperature data from recent decades shows that new record highs occur nearly twice as often as new record lows.

So, no, my belief in global warming isn't sprung from a conversation with my neighbor nor a straw poll of people I'm sitting and sweating with at a Cubs game. My belief in global warming is borne of a respected acknowledgement of sound science that tells us that global warming is real.

As Winston Churchill said, ``I never worry about action, but only about inaction.'' My concern--my fear--is that we have gone too far to save the planet we've neglected to protect because we've traded science for reading the wind.

Global warming is real, and the extreme weather and sound science demonstrate that this is so. Let us know the crippling fear of inaction no longer.

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

Mr. Chairman, I join my colleague from Illinois to offer a bipartisan commonsense amendment to the Department of Defense appropriations bill.

Our amendment cuts $988 million from the bill, which the committee added but the Navy did not request, for a 10th DDG-51 destroyer. It also puts the savings toward deficit reduction.

Let's back up for a minute and explain how we got here. As part of the Department of Defense's new strategy, they are realigning force structure by reducing ground forces and making new investments in more agile sea and air forces. Toward this end, the Navy has entered into a multiyear procurement--or MYP--arrangement to purchase nine DDG-51 destroyers over the next 5 years. In order to fulfill one year of this MYP arrangement, the Navy requested just over $3 billion in the FY13 budget, yet the committee took it upon itself to give the Navy an extra billion dollars it didn't request and likely doesn't need for a 10th destroyer.

To be fair, there was talk of purchasing a 10th destroyer, but on March 29, 2012, Sean Stackley, the Navy's acquisition executive, testified before a House Armed Services Subcommittee that he thought through competition he could get 10 ships for the price of 9. He notes in his testimony that the Navy has ``competition on this program--two builders building the 51s, and the competition has been healthy.'' He goes on to explain how he hopes to get a 10th ship out of the multiyear arrangement, saying ``our top line allowed for nine ships to be budgeted, but when we go out with this procurement, we're going to go out with a procurement that enables the procurement of 10 ships if we're going to achieve the savings that we're targeting across this multiyear arrangement.''

Mr. Stackley ends by explaining that the Navy can use leverage and competition to get 10 ships for the price of

nine, and he thinks they have a pretty good shot. But rather than letting the Navy do its job, and letting the competition acquisition process work by putting the billion dollars on the table up front, the committee cut the legs out from underneath the competitive process. The addition of the extra billion dollars for another ship by the committee ends competition and negotiation, and puts a billion dollars on the table that we don't have to spend.

Why not let the acquisition process take its course, and see what happens? I don't think we need the 10th ship, and I'm not completely convinced we need the other nine either. But even for those who do support a 10th destroyer, cutting this funding now does not preclude them from adding it later if it's needed.

Unfortunately, this is one of the many examples of Congress supplanting its own parochial interests for that of the military and what's best for the country as a whole. This defense bill and all those before it are riddled with funding for weapons, bases, and projects we don't need to keep America safe. Rather, these bills include projects that support special Member interests back home. We can no longer afford to allow the desire to stimulate local economies to drive our defense and foreign policy. As we emerge from a deep recession and face a deficit topping $1 trillion for the fourth straight year, we must right-size our budget.

Mr. Chairman, in terms of the ability to let Mr. Dold speak, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Quigley

Amendment No. 14: Page 24, line 14, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $988,000,000)''.

Page 25, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $988,000,000)''.

Page 153, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $988,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the World War II veterans who traveled to Washington, DC, on July 11, 2012 with Honor Flight Chicago, a program that provides World War II veterans the opportunity to visit the World War II Memorial on The National Mall in Washington, D.C. This memorial was built to honor their courage and service to their country.

The American Veteran is one of our greatest treasures. The Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen who traveled here on July 11 answered our nation's call to service during one of its greatest times of need. From the European Campaign to the Pacific Asian Theatre to the African Theater, these brave Americans risked life and limb, gave service and sacrificed much, all while embodying what it is to be a hero. We owe them more gratitude than can ever be expressed.

I welcome these brave veterans to Washington and to their memorial. I am proud to submit the names of these men and women for all to see, hear, and recognize, and I call on my colleagues to rise and join me in expressing gratitude.

Russell J. Abbott, Elizabeth M. Adamo, Kenneth H. Amdall, William B. Barnard, Philip Basic, Marvin D. Berns, Joseph A. Berttucci, Forest Black, Edward N. Boersma, Robert Bourdage, John A. Brodinski, Michael P. Cernyar, Leonard E. Chapp, Bernard J. Chesner, Daniel L. Chorney, Raymond E. Crotty, John A. Deora, Xenophon Doudalis, Robert C. Ellis, David Epstein, E. John Faassen, Natale Fazio, Peter A. Ferro, Ruthe C. Foster, Walter C. Gardynski, August Genge, Jr., Owen Gillespie, Helmuth Goering, Kent Goldbranson, W. Leonard Gregory, Lad Gregurich, John F. Gruber, Lewis Hague, Rueben W. Helander, Raymond F. Henders, James H. Hurley, Howard J. Jacklin, William N. Johnson, Raymond G. Kapinus, Edward Kelby, Vette E. Kell, Arthur M. Koblish, Ronald E. Kregel, Sophie E. Kulaga, James Lamont, Donald L. Lawler, Richard H. Leadbetter, Albert Lee, Howard D. Levinson, Philip J. LoMonaco, Louis Lowy, Raymond Lowy, Teddy A. Madej, Alvin B. Manheim, Randall E. McMinn, Eugene S. Mikos, John R. Minerick, Salvatore Morello, William R. Morrow, Glen E. Nelson, Henry L. Offerman, Edwin Ogonowski, Arthur Olsen, Calvin Parmele, Myron Petrakis, Raymond Anthony Pfeifer, Martin A. Poenisch, Daniel C. Reese, Amos John Roberts, John Patrick Roche, Ray Rooney, Frederick Rosenow, Eugene H. Seibert, Richard A. Siver, Donald E. Skelton, Charles A. Smith, Ora L. Smith, Richard L. Soderlund, Thomas E. Sullivan, Arthur R. Tessmann, Jasper C. Tromp, William John Unger, Jack Vollriede, Owen F. Wagener, Harry R. Warren, Joseph G. Wegrzyn, Oddie Wiley, Raymond A. Wilke, Ferguson L. Willis, William Fred Wilson, William F. Wolf, Arthur W. Youngberg.

Those bringing this contempt vote say they want to talk about gunwalking and how to stop it. Okay, let's have that conversation.

They say they want to stop gun trafficking and keep our ATF agents safe. Well, then let's properly fund the ATF, which has the same number of agents since 1970.

They say they want to stop gun trafficking. Well, then appoint a permanent ATF Director, which the agency hasn't had in 6 years.

They say they want to stop gun trafficking. Well, then let's pass some laws which actually deter straw purchasers. Straw purchasers can currently buy thousands of AK-47s, lie on their paperwork, and the penalty is equivalent to a moving violation.

They say they want to stop gun trafficking. Well, then let's give the agents in the field what they've been asking for: the ability to track multiple purchases of long guns. These long guns include AK-47s, variant assault weapons, and .50 caliber semiautomatic sniper rifles, the weapons of choice for international drug cartels.

They say they want to stop gun trafficking. Well, then let's close the gun show loophole which currently allows anyone to purchase any gun they want without background check. Felons, domestic violence abusers, those with severe mental illness, even those on the terrorist watch list can currently walk into a gun show and purchase any gun they want.

Yes, 2,000 guns were allowed to walk to Mexico, but the truth is tens of thousands of guns flow across our border every year because of those lax gun laws. But those bringing this contempt vote don't want to have this conversation, and they aren't serious about stopping gun trafficking. They simply want to embarrass the administration, even though the committee's 16-month investigation found no evidence the Attorney General knew about gunwalking, even though there was no evidence of White House involvement in gunwalking, all of which Chairman Issa admitted on national TV last week.

So if we're going to talk about gun trafficking, let's be clear: this is about politics, not safety.

Offered By: Mr. Quigley

Amendment No. 14: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the World War II veterans who traveled to Washington, DC, on June 19, 2012 with Honor Flight Chicago, a program that provides World War II veterans the opportunity to visit the World War II Memorial on The National Mall in Washington, DC. This memorial was built to honor their courage and service to their country.

The American Veteran is one of our greatest treasures. The Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen who traveled here on June 19 answered our nation's call to service during one of its greatest times of need. From the European Campaign to the Pacific Asian Theatre to the African Theater, these brave Americans risked life and limb, gave service and sacrificed much, all while embodying what it is to be a hero. We owe them more gratitude than can ever be expressed.

I welcome these brave veterans to Washington and to their memorial. I am proud to submit the names of these men and women for all to see, hear, and recognize, and I call on my colleagues to rise and join me in expressing gratitude.

Nick Angelopulos, Olin Apgar, James E. Atkinson, Albert Augustyn, Douglas Babitzke, David Baruch, John M. Campbell, Lester Catlin, John Ciolek, Joseph T. Connelly, Edward W. Connelly, Peter J. Cortopassi, Eldon L. Cueno, Charlie L. Davis, Donald DeKraker, Thaddeus J. Dobrowolski, Francis Duffy, Ladimir F. Dvorak, Bernard Ellman, Melvin Elmhorst, Eugene T. Entrican, Peter Eugenis, Alfred Evinger, Robert M. Flynn, Charles Ford, Rogers P. Freedlund, Wilbur Lee German, Lawrence E. Gilford, Frank J. Gliwa, George Griner, Eugene E. Hainchek, Martin A. Halloran, Harold M. Halsten, William V. Hervoy, Elden E. Holzwart, Ernest Hoskins, Richard H. Hyde, David S. Jameson, Evert P. Johnson, Edward S. Killian, Edward Kozlow, Ralph H. Krichbaum, William E. Krueger, Clarence E. Kuhlman, Walter Leslie, Aaron H. Levin, Louis G. Limperes, Edmund Lozano, Frederick Ruiz Maravilla, Emil L. Marcotte, Donald J. Marsaglia, Henry Alvin Mathews, William McNabola, Robert A. Mortensen,

Frank J. Muehlbauer, James M. Muirhead, John Mullen, Thomas J. Mulligan, Harold Nicodem, Lawrence E. Nielsen, John S. Opitz, Robert D. Pasquale, Angelo J. Pasquesi, William Payne, Sr., Frederick Thomas Pennix, Joseph Persico, Edward Richards, Kenneth Richardt, Walter Schauer, Arthur Shapiro, Joseph W. Sheade, William S. Sherwood, William F. Shipp, Edward Skrapka, Donald Frank Slapak, Calvin Sleeman, Robert N. Smedberg, Arne Sorensen, Salvatore Sparacio, Donald F. Spitzer, Lyle Claude Springer, Robert Steege, Conrad L. Steindler, Lester Strejc, Evan B. Stubbs, Benjamin Sultz, Edward Telman, William L. Tiffin, Alexander T. Valos, Joseph J. Waickus, Reginald R. Watt, Bentley Weitzman, Bobby D. Whisler, Sidney Winters, Richard N. Wunderink.

Mr. Speaker, today the House will vote on yet another environmental ruinous bill. This motion would instruct surface transportation conferees to retain the language of H.R. 2273, which prohibits the EPA from regulating coal ash.

Coal ash is the toxic combination of mercury, boron, aluminum, thallium, sodium, and arsenic that is produced by burning coal. Shockingly, people living near unlined coal ash ponds have a risk of cancer that is 2,000 times greater than EPA's acceptable level.

This motion would disallow the EPA from doing its job. Allowing the EPA to enforce safeguards against coal ash pollution would help to avoid disasters like the 2008 spill in Tennessee, where a dam holding more than 1 billion gallons of toxic coal ash failed. That spill destroyed 300 acres and dozens of homes, devastated wildlife, poisoned two rivers--and apparently taught us nothing.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this latest attempt to bar the EPA from saving lives and preserving the environment.

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

Mr. Chairman, 2 years ago, the largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry ravaged the gulf coast. We passed legislation, we convened commissions, and we swore that we would learn. Have we? I fear the answer is no, and I'm not the only one.

In April of this year, the Presidential panel that investigated the explosion gave the Obama administration a B, the oil industry a C-plus, and Congress a D for refusing to act on any of the recommendations of the commission.

The bill that stands before us today seeks to increase domestic oil and gas production and reduce regulation of the energy industry. I've said it before and I'll say it again, sometimes this place feels like Groundhog Day, and I am Bill Murray. So, in the spirit of deja vu, I am offering an amendment today that mirrors legislation I introduced in the 111th Congress as a response to the BP oil catastrophe.

The amendment would reconfigure the existing presumption that extraction comes first and conservation comes second. The measure would change our Nation's Outer Continental Shelf policy and mandate precaution from a derivative that may imply that protection of the environment is secondary to expeditious development; declares that protection and maintenance--and where appropriate, restoration--of ocean ecosystems and coastal environment is of primary importance; makes clear that OCS leasing, exploration, and development will be authorized in limited areas of the ocean only when science shows that those initiatives can proceed with minimal risk to the health of ocean ecosystems; protects Important Ecological Areas, or IEAs, by requiring the Secretary to consider geographical, geological, and ecological characteristics of the OCS areas. And finally, it amends the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to require specific precautions for areas with particular physical or environmental characterizations from OCS leasing.

In the Commission's review, one of the chairmen stated:

Across the board, we are disappointed with Congress' lack of action. Two years have passed since the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon killed 11 workers, and Congress has yet to enact one piece of legislation to make drilling safer.

Let us do one thing to make our public safe, to keep them healthy, and to spur economic development through conservation and the creation of green jobs.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Having respectfully heard the argument, I would stand on the statements we have made and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, Americans have a penchant for believing that more is always better.

That unfettered and unabridged access will solve problems.

H.R. 2578, the Conservation and Economic Growth Act, purports to create jobs by violating or eliminating over 35 laws that currently govern our land, air, water, and importantly, our Nation's borders.

The idea follows that in giving the Department of Homeland Security free rein to traverse the roughshod lands around our borders, we'll be safer.

But, the Department of Homeland Security didn't ask for this access, nor do they believe it's warranted.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told a Senate subcommittee in March that unrestricted authority over public lands was unnecessary for the Border Patrol to do its job and was ``bad policy.''

And, we're not just talking the lands on the collar of America's borders.

No, this bill would disrupt your vacation in Cape Hatteras by lifting necessary current restrictions regarding the use of off-road vehicles.

The bill would allow corporations to dip right into Alaska's Tongass National Forest, allowing for trees that started growing before the Revolutionary War to be felled.

And, if someone decided that development of surveillance equipment in a national park was a good idea--say on Chief Mountain in Glacier National Park--it could be installed without any public comment or even internal review process.

This last point was made by two farmers and ranchers from the Mexico and Canadian borders, with more than a century of land-use between the two.

These folks who work the land, who have toiled to create and produce what the land will provide to them and their families for years, those who know it best--oppose this bill.

``In Arizona,'' the gentlemen write, ``we are concerned that poorly designed roads and fences will damage ongoing range land restoration work.

Private landowners have spent thousands of dollars and manpower hours restoring these lands to their original state, which could all be compromised by these bills.''

Another veteran publically denounced the bill in an op-ed, stating, ``As a veteran, a patriot of this nation and a Californian, I can't stand by while these lands are threatened. I'm proud to have worn this country's uniform and I want to continue serving. That's why I've chosen to follow in the path of the great Teddy Roosevelt--a man who was both a soldier and a conservationist--and stand up for our public lands.''

That's right.

A veteran, a rancher, a farmer, the Secretary of Homeland Security, are NOT extolling the virtues of a true wild, wild west.

The stewards of the land know that in order for crops to flourish;

In order to protect the Sweet Grass Hills, in Montana, a sacred location for many tribal ceremonies--and a vital source of water for surrounding communities that it is protected from mining and most motorized travel;

In order to preserve the incredible natural beauty and uniqueness that makes this land great;

We must protect it.

Over 100 years ago, Teddy Roosevelt addressed a crowd in Kansas, a state that knows its lands.

``I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land,'' he said, ``but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us . . .''

``Of all the questions which can come before this nation, short of the actual preservation of its existence in a great war--

There is none which compares in importance with the great central task of leaving this land even a better land for our descendants than it is for us.

I fear we miss the mark on today's legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in my opposition.

Mr. Chair, since late 2009, the Army Corps of Engineers has been working on a study of the Great Lakes and Mississippi Interbasin--

``To evaluate options and technologies to prevent the spread of aquatic nuisance species between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River.''

Recently, the Corps indicated this study may not be completed until March 2016.

When it comes to aquatic invasive species, 7 years is 7 years too long.

Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio introduced and passed an amendment to the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Bill, ensuring that the Corps finishes their study no later than July 1, 2014.

Further, the amendment ensures that the Corps fully examines the feasibility of all options, including permanent hydrological separation.

I can't help but stand here today and express my sincere disappointment for the missed opportunities in the legislative vehicle before us.

The Energy and Water Appropriations bill that we consider on the House floor this week is not only missing this vital amendment, but its priorities are way out of whack.

The bill increases funding for the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile, as well as for fossil fuels programs and nuclear energy research and development.

Meanwhile, funding would be reduced for a wide range of very important activities including: Army Corps of Engineers projects, Energy

Department science programs, advanced energy research, defense and non- defense environmental cleanup activities, nuclear non-proliferation programs, and most renewable energy programs (including solar, wind, water and geothermal programs).

But, to the point at hand--the Great Lakes and the terrifying prospect that we might continue standing still on this issue of invasive species prevention.

First and foremost, I must recognize the hard work and bipartisan effort from the Senators, including Senator Durbin, and am hopeful that this provision is preserved throughout the appropriations process.

After all, this amendment does not tell anybody what to do.

It simply recognizes the urgency of the Asian carp threat to the Great Lakes and compels the Corps to quicken its study of solutions in the face of a potential catastrophe that no one wants.

The Great Lakes make up 20 percent of our fresh water and are home to a fishing and boating industry worth 7 billion dollars annually.

The Lakes are a priceless treasure for the millions of people who live in the region.

We must do all we can to encourage a speedy creation of an action plan to block Asian carp from entering the Great Lakes.

In 1998 the late Senator Paul Simon predicted wars would be fought over water.

Let us not pretend this is near as drastic as war.

But, at the same time, let us not neglect or fail to acknowledge that the importance of today's actions will weigh heavily on the successes of tomorrow. I urge the Committees to preserve and protect Senator Brown's amendment and hope that the final Energy and Water package looks far better for our land, air and water than it does today.