Floor Statements

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

I rise today to offer an amendment to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill that strengthens our efforts to have a secure and prosperous border. As you know, these issues are foremost in the thoughts of people across this country. As was noted by my friend and colleague from Arizona, Mr. Flake, his amendment acknowledged the reality that strengthening the ports of entry should be a national priority. His amendment was accepted as a means to begin to increase and pay attention to that national priority. It's a jobs issue, and it's a security issue.

Land ports of entry are the economic drivers for the U.S. economy and also the front line for facilitating legitimate trade and travel while preventing unauthorized entry and contraband from crossing the border. Along the nearly 2,000-mile border with Mexico, U.S. Customs and Border Protection carry out this mission in 42 land ports of entry located in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas. While significant investments in the border have been made in recent years, including the opening of three new crossings in 2010, more is demanded.

Staffing at our land ports of entry have been severely overlooked, compromising our national and economic security. While a necessary buildup of border enforcement has occurred over the last 10 years, that proportional increase and attention to customs and ports of entry has not occurred.

It is estimated that in Arizona alone, our ports of entry need 500 additional officers to meet a staffing need: 250 at the port of entry in Nogales, 50 in Douglas, and 150 in San Luis. Nationwide there is a need for up to 5,000 additional CBP officers. These shortages are alarming and they have alarming consequences.

A 2008 GAO report said ``weakness in traveler inspections exists at our Nation's ports of entry.'' And according to this report: ``Field office managers said that staffing shortages created vulnerabilities in the inspections process.''

In 2008, the Department of Commerce found that the ``cumulative loss in output due to border delays over the next 10 years is estimated at $86 billion.'' Our economy and indeed our security will continue to be compromised unless we take strong measures.

My amendment seeks to redirect within the account of border infrastructure additional funds for the personnel sorely needed.

Let me just end by indicating some facts and points of reference. U.S.-Mexico bilateral trade reached nearly $400 billion in 2010. Mexico is the third-ranked commercial partner of the U.S. and second largest market for U.S. exports. Mexico spent $163 billion in U.S. goods in 2010. Twenty-two States count on Mexico as their number one or two export market, and it's the top five for 14 other States. One in every 24 workers in the Nation depends on U.S.-Mexico trade for their employment.

This is an issue of the economy. It's an issue about jobs. My amendment merely addresses a reality: from unobligated and enhancement funds within the budget to transfer $30 million to begin that initial step to bring our ports of entry and customs to a full force in terms of staffing and to begin to expedite legitimate trade and end long waiting periods, improve our economy, and, yes indeed, continue to provide the advanced security that we need on those borders.

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

Point of Order

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2060, as my colleague described, does several things, including providing water and economic certainty to the city of Prineville and the Ochoco Irrigation District. It does so in a way, however, that provides certainty for the city and agriculture, but not the future needs of the environment.

The legislation also mandates how Reclamation is to operate and manage the Prineville Reservoir through the first-fill provision and removes some flexibility on Reclamation's part to mitigate and adapt to changing conditions.

We still do not fully support the first-fill provision but understand that there are ongoing negotiations that look at providing the certainty that the city needs while protecting the environment. Stakeholder-driven processes are the best way to answer our community's needs, and we look forward to working with our colleagues in the Senate and on the other side of the aisle to ensure that all needs are met and protected.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2512 would seek to address the abandoned Three Kids Mine in Nevada. The Three Kids Mine site is an abandoned manganese mine and mill near Las Vegas. Today, the abandoned mine has open mine pits and significant volumes of toxic manganese tailings containing arsenic, lead, and diesel fuel, which the BLM has said pose significant risks to public health, safety, and the environment. H.R. 2512 would direct the BLM to convey the Federal portions of the Three Kids Mine site to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Henderson, Nevada, and require remediation and reclamation of the site.

We support the goals of H.R. 2512 to clean up the toxic abandoned mine site and commend the sponsors of the legislation on their innovative thinking with respect to addressing this problem; however, the estimates of the cost addressing this abandoned mine site are large and uncertain. According to the Bureau of Land Management, the cost of reclaiming and remediating this abandoned mine site is estimated to be between $300 million and $1.3 billion.

We continue to have concerns about who would assume responsibility for these costs should the cleanup be abandoned for any reason in the future because this legislation would release the United States from all liabilities related to the Three Kids Mine site, including under environmental laws such as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.

Such a release of liability for the United States could mean that in the event that the developer is unable to complete the cleanup of the Three Kids mine, there may be no responsible party. We also have concerns about the precedent that could be set by waiving the liability of the United States for the cleanup of the site if we are trying to ensure that private entities are held responsible for cleaning up other sites.

However, while we continue to have some concerns regarding the process outlined by the legislation, we do support the goals of H.R. 2512 to reclaim this abandoned mine site, and we do not oppose the legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, while the precedent of waiving the liability of the United States for the cleanup and reclamation of the site is of concern, of equal concern is the fact that Henderson has grown into the site, and grown closer and closer. BLM has stated they don't have the resources to provide the money to clean the site adequately, so it just sits there.

This developer, and if the consent decree is binding, as has been indicated by the sponsor, is an opportunity. While it is not a perfect opportunity from my perspective, it is indeed an opportunity to deal with that cleanup and not just have the site sit there in perpetuity without any attention as everything else grows around it.

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

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

As my colleague stated, H.R. 3263 authorizes storage of nonproject water in Lake Thunderbird Reservoir. The ability to store water at Lake Thunderbird Reservoir will provide reclamation and the managers with flexibility in managing the system.

The administration supports H.R. 3263, and we have heard from the tribes around the region who do not object to this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, if I might inquire of the chairman if he has any additional speakers.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 241, sponsored by the gentleman from California, provides for the conveyance of 5 acres of land from Los Padres National Forest to the White Lotus Foundation. This conveyance allows for better access to a retreat area owned by the foundation.

We have no objections to this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 292, a bill that ratifies an agreement between the United States, the Bering Straits Native Corporation and the State of Alaska by transferring certain Federal lands to the Bering Straits Native Corporation and the State of Alaska.

S. 292 is the result of years of negotiations between the parties regarding overlapping land selections made by the Bering Straits Native Corporation under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and the State of Alaska under its Statehood Act.

The bill reasonably and sensibly finalizes each party's interests in the land around Salmon Lake, an area of great importance to the people of the Bering Straits region.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the gentleman from Alaska will be pleased to know that the production of fossil fuels from our public lands is at a record high, and the percentage of our oil from imports is dropping every year.

The bill before us today resolves competing land claims. We support that.

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

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

Many years ago, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration fenced off two small parcels of land plus a portion of a street outside of their Pascagoula, Mississippi, facility for security purposes. Recently, NOAA has been using this property for storage and parking. NOAA would like to secure this land, which is now back under the ownership of the City of Pascagoula, to accommodate the storage and future expansion of their facility.

In exchange for these two parcels of land, NOAA proposes to transfer real estate to the City of Pascagoula to develop waterfront property for the purposes of creating a public green space as part of the overall redevelopment plan in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. NOAA and the city have both identified the parcels of land to be considered for this transaction, and NOAA is prepared to contract for the land surveys and appraisals necessary to prepare the acquisition and disposal documents. They have both expressed written support for this land exchange.

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

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

I rise in support of H.R. 1740. This legislation seeks to add these river segments to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The legislation passed the House by voice vote last year. Congressman Larsen has been a consistent advocate for this legislation. On behalf of the river and his constituents, we applaud his hard work.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the sponsor of the legislation, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of the legislation, and I commend Congresswoman Pingree for her hard work.

H.R. 2336 moves forward a study of 11 miles of the York River to determine if it is qualified to be protected as a Wild and Scenic River. This is a good piece of legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the sponsor of the legislation, the gentlelady from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me thank the chairman for moving the legislation forward. I'm very appreciative.

H.R. 4222 is an important piece of legislation that will enable the Pascua Yaqui tribe of my district in Arizona to consolidate its landholdings and remove two isolated undeveloped parcels of land from the Bureau of Land Management responsibility.

The two 10-acre parcels are islands of trapped Federal land surrounded by Pascua Yaqui land on all sides. The tribe is developing a golf course in this area, and conveying these two parcels to the tribe will make managing the land easier for the tribe and the Federal Government. Without this legislation, the tribe would have to design around the parcels, slowing down the project, and weakening economic development that will benefit the entire Pascua Yaqui community and the residents of Pima County. Passage of this bill will further the Federal Government's responsibility to enhance tribal trust resources.

I worked with BLM to ensure that the language of the bill would allow for environmental review and a public comment period in line with the National Environmental Policy Act and am pleased to report that the bill we are taking up today is supported by the Agency. I wish to thank my colleagues and the leadership within the Natural Resources Committee for bringing this bill forward and for hopeful passage in this session.

I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 4222, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for saving this very complicated and important piece of legislation as the last item that we deal with here today. My appreciation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Michael Johnson for his twenty-two years of dedicated service at Tucson Airport Authority. In this time, Mr. Johnson designed and constructed airport capital improvements that significantly enhanced the safety of civilian and military aircraft operations in the airport movement areas at Tucson International Airport and Ryan Field.

I also commend Mr. Michael Johnson for his additional eighteen years of aviation consulting work at Tucson International Airport and Ryan Field. His engineering achievements improved aviation safety and promoted economic sustainability.

Madam Speaker, the House Republican version of this bill rolls back existing protections for immigrants who are victims of domestic violence and strips provisions in the Senate version that protect Native Americans and LGBT abuse victims.

Republicans have decided to use this non-partisan issue to push their war on women further than many of us thought possible. This new bill says that if a Native American or immigrant--documented or not--is the victim of abuse, the government should turn a blind eye. This is a cold, heartless vision of what law enforcement means to the American people, and it's hard to find words strong enough to reject it.

The House bill eliminates an existing confidentiality clause known as the self-petitioning process that allows abused women to apply confidentially, if appropriate, for protected immigration status. If the clause is removed from current law, women legally in the country because of a pending marriage who suffer abuse would not be able to keep their applications for permanent status private from their abusers. Boyfriends or husbands would be able to revoke the citizenship application, making the abused woman revert to undocumented status and limiting her legal options.

Men shouldn't be able to abuse women and control their access to law enforcement at the same time. This is a scary scenario that we shouldn't even have to contemplate.

Currently, Federal and State law enforcement officers have exclusive authority to prosecute misdemeanor domestic violence crimes committed by non-Indians on Tribal lands, many of which are known to go unprosecuted for logistical and other reasons. The Senate VAWA reauthorization bill lets Tribal law enforcement exercise jurisdiction over such cases, while the House version maintains the status quo. The unfortunate situation of abused Native women has been ignored for far too long. The law should protect all women from abuse, wherever they live. Republicans found an awful lot of nerve to deny equal protection to millions of Native American women for no reason I can tell.

The Senate version includes a provision that helps colleges and universities increase violence-prevention education and reduce dating abuse and sexual assault. The House version does not include that language. The Senate version prevents any entity that receives Federal anti-abuse grants from turning away LGBT victims when they have suffered from domestic violence or abuse. The House version is silent on the issue.

According to a National Network to End Domestic Violence report, ``Domestic violence impacts one in four American women over their lifetimes, and 15.5 million children are exposed to domestic violence each year. Victims rely on services to escape violence and rebuild their lives. When victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence or stalking take the difficult step to reach out for help, many are in life-threatening situations and must be able to find immediate refuge.''

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4089 and yield myself such time as I may consume.

This legislation is completely unnecessary. If enacted, it would actually harm hunting and fishing on our public lands.

Today, April 17, 2012, nearly 85 percent of Federal lands are open for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. These activities have always been an essential part of Federal land management, and they always will be.

Yes, hunting and shooting are facing ever increasing pressures from development, from pollution and habitat destruction. Areas that were once fertile and open hunting grounds are now condominiums or strip malls.

The reality is that Federal public lands and Federal land managers are the last bastion of a hunting tradition many have enjoyed for generations. While so much private property is closed to hunters, the Federal lands remain open.

But instead of recognizing the value of these lands and the expertise of these dedicated land managers, instead of recognizing the complexity of balancing the competing demands of our public lands, supporters of this bill accuse local land management professionals of opposing hunting and claim that officials here in Washington and we here in the Capitol know best how to manage wildlife thousands and thousands of miles away. The legislation and its supporters are wrong on every count.

As part of the analysis of H.R. 4089 by the Congressional Budget Office, CBO found that hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting are allowed on most Federal lands under current law. The problem this bill claims to solve actually does not exist. What's worse, this

bill is not designed to improve the quality of our public lands or our public recreation, rather, it is another in a string of legislative proposals put forth by the majority intended to devalue and degrade our public resources.

Since the beginning of this Congress, Republicans have pushed for unlimited oil and gas development on Federal lands, even waiving important environmental assessments designed to make sure energy development doesn't destroy wildlife and surrounding communities.

Republicans have rejected efforts to put safeguards on offshore drilling to protect important coastal ecosystems.

Republicans have fought to sell Federal lands on the cheap or just give them away.

Republicans have tried to cut off funding for new habitat through the Land and Water Conservation Fund; they support dams and other development in and along wild and scenic recoveries; they even push for uranium mining near the Grand Canyon in my beloved State of Arizona.

Supporters of this bill will claim to love wildlife, but they attack wildlife habitats every chance they get.

At every turn, we've argued that our parks, forests, and monuments are important for recreation, for wildlife, and for water. We have argued against these development proposals because we believe that these lands provide economic benefits to the surrounding communities.

For supporters of this legislation to come to this floor and claim they have seen the light, that all of a sudden they realize Federal public lands are valuable, is not credible.

This bill is not intended to save Federal lands or to support Federal land managers. This bill is designed to wrap them in red tape, place obstacles in their path, and intimidate them by making them seek permission from agency heads in Washington before they can do their jobs.

This bill is about scoring political points with outside groups, even if it means harming our precious public resources.

Not only is H.R. 4089 bad policy, it is an expensive piece of legislation. Again, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, forcing the Federal land management agencies to scrap decades of careful planning and then forcing them to redraft all of these current plans according to the dictates of politicians here in Washington will ultimately cost $12 million.

On a day when the majority has voted to deem the Ryan budget in place, a budget we are told is necessary, even though it will devastate our seniors, our students, our families, our environment, the majority is asking the House to vote for $12 million in new spending that is both unnecessary and harmful.

Hunting and fishing and recreational shooting are commonplace on Federal lands. The only step this Congress could take to endanger these activities is to pass H.R. 4089.

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, just to make sure that the record is clear, as I mentioned, much of our public lands--and CBO mentioned that as well--are open to hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting.

I think it's important to see how that translates into acreage:

BLM lands, 245 million acres, 95 percent open;

Park Service, 84 million acres, 70 percent open;

Fish and Wildlife, 150 million acres, 57 percent open;

Forest Service, 193 million acres, 95 percent open.

The real threat to access to our public lands for hunters, anglers, and recreational shooting is the privatization of these very important public resources, degraded habitat due to lack of funding, and development that disrupts habitat and water quality.

The majority frequently laments that Federal lands dominate the West and are robbing local communities of important resources. They have promoted taking these same lands and giving it to the States, liquidating others, and intensely developing what is left. If that is the pattern of land management that the majority seeks for our public lands, then hunters, anglers, recreational and people that enjoy our open spaces and public lands will be more endangered by that public policy than by a problem that this bill attempts to address that doesn't exist.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, my State and my colleague's, Congressman Flake's, State, and my district are both blessed with Federal lands, both Forest Service Bureau of Land Management areas. The debate over access for shooting has been fierce for many, many years. We've had closures of some areas because shooting activities, in particular, using saguaro cactuses as targets, was impacting the lands, and the ironwood, which is an endangered bosque that is one of the few left in our Nation and certainly in the Southwest.

These processes by which communities go through an arbitrary, cookie- cutter approach at the national level in terms of recreational shooting robs the local community of their ability to impact and their ability to be able to negotiate compromise and draw consensus on appropriate shooting ranges and sites.

I would suggest that here in Washington, D.C., whether it's Congress or the officials here in Washington making those decisions for Arizona, for our respective districts, that the reaction from the public will not be a good one insofar as they have been robbed of the opportunity to find a workable solution for all the parties involved.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

If I may, if I could inquire from Chairman Hastings as to anymore speakers. I am prepared to close.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dams, derricks, distress sales--that has been the agenda of the majority until today regarding our public lands. Today, an epiphany. We need to protect wildlife habitat, water quality and access for hunters, fishermen, anglers, and recreational shooting. Promoting more hunting and fishing activities on Federal land involves ensuring the habitat is protected, acquiring new lands to expand existing habitats, funding wildlife and habitat management and continuing to ensure that our parks, forests, monuments, and wildlife areas remain in public hands.

So if we're going to have a discussion about access for a very wide and broad issue of hunting and fishing on our public lands, we should do that, have a

serious discussion. I invite the majority to enter into that, a serious discussion about the funding for fish and wildlife habitat, a serious discussion of land acquisition to increase access and availability for hunters and fishermen and clean water programs that would ensure that that habitat is protected.

Hunting and fishing are under attack, but they're under attack from privatization and development, not from Federal land managers.

This bill says that top-down Washington knows best, knows the best management and that that is the way to go. We support letting local land managers and local communities do their job. You can't say you trust CBO when you like the score and don't trust CBO when you don't like the score. A vote for this bill is a vote to spend $12 million. It's that simple. A vote for this bill is to continue the philosophy of dams, derricks, and distress sales of our public lands under the guise--under the guise--of solving a problem for hunters and fishermen in this country that does not exist on the public lands.

Four out of five acres is available for hunting and fishing on our public lands. I would suggest that that is not just a question of being enough; that is about access and opportunity on our public lands for those activities. Let's not jeopardize them.

Vote ``no'' on H.R. 4089, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we do not object to this dab of lipstick on H.R. 4089.

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

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to emphasize the point that nearly 85 percent of

all public lands are already open for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. Whether we are talking about Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management--including national monuments-- National Park Service lands, or Forest Service lands, in each and every case the majority are open for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting.

My amendment would only trigger the provisions in title I and II of this legislation if less than 75 percent of Federal public lands are open for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. I can't think of any other use that occurs on 75 percent of our public lands.

I understand that some individuals are upset about some specific court decision or specific local closures, but we need to keep things in perspective. Right now, more than 4 out of 5 acres are open for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. Given that, do we really need Federal employees in D.C. making decisions about which lands to close or, worse yet, have Congress make that decision?

My State and my district are both blessed with Federal lands. Debates occur all the time about shooting ranges, and they have been very fierce, as I mentioned earlier. Local land managers have worked with local groups and communities to come up with solutions, including providing access on other Federal lands. Unless we see significant closures across the landscape, I think we should allow local managers to make local decisions based on local input.

The problem this bill claims to solve does not exist, but this amendment would allow the provisions of the bill to kick in if this problem ever actually developed.

I would urge support of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the argument that nothing to do with hunting and shooting has happened yet but there may be a secret plan to do so after the election, that's as preposterous as it is ridiculous. The problem does not exist, and this bill would do real harm.

The example that my good friend, the chairman, used about urban encroachment and development speaks to the point that we have been trying to make in this legislation, that the greatest threat to hunting and fishing and recreational shooting is exactly that--development, privatization, and unregulated extraction--as we were talking about around the Grand Canyon and uranium mining. Those threats to our public lands are the threats and the trends and the public policy that is being promoted by the majority that will limit and deny access to public lands to hunters, fishermen, and recreational shooters.

Right now, as we stand, BLM, 245 million acres, 95 percent open to those activities; Park Service, 84 million acres, 70 percent open to those activities; fish and Wildlife, 150 million acres, 50 percent open to those activities; Forest Service, 193 million acres, 95 percent open to those activities, ``those activities'' being hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting.

If we want to protect access and protect the opportunities for hunters and fishermen in our public lands, I would urge the approval of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Fleming amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There are a few points that I really believe need to be made. The decision to eliminate dog deer hunting in this forest was made only after more than half a dozen public meetings, a comment period that resulted in a 1,000 comments which were thoroughly reviewed. In fact, the policy has been amended in response to those specific local concerns.

The justification for this policy is not only to prevent trespassing, though this is one reason it is necessary. The forest has a checkerboard pattern of non-Federal lands mixed in with Federal lands. Dog deer hunting results in deer running over long distances and hunters pursuing them and at times discharging firearms on the run. In an area with private homes, the Forest Service determined that this was simply too dangerous.

The Forest Service has collected input from local residents and not hunters who fear for their safety during dog deer hunting season. To be clear, while the decision was ultimately approved by the region in Atlanta, the policy was developed by the local Forest Service staff who work on the forest.

Lastly, this amendment is redundant and wasteful because a rule already in place meets the requirements of the proposed amendment. The current rule already covers the smallest portion of forest possible because with the checkerboard lands the rule must cover the entire forest to be effective.

While public safety is the primary justification for this rule, preventing trespass is another reason for the rule and why it was put in place.

The Fleming amendment would throw out the current rule and then require a new rule that meets the exact same requirements. This is redundant, a waste of time and money.

Finally, according to the Forest Service, the State of Louisiana already prohibits dog deer hunting on State lands, so this is simply consistent with State policy. This amendment should be defeated.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, with that, I will close. The contradiction is very important.

The majority talks about local control, local control. In this instance, you have the State of Louisiana that has prevented this, that has prohibited this type of hunting on its lands, and that is a local decision to be honored, but it is okay to honor that decision, but on Federal lands we want to make an exception and set a precedent.

I would suggest that the contradiction in this amendment merits its defeat.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Thank you.

I rise in strong opposition to the Foxx amendment and in strong support of National Monuments and the Antiquities Act.

Following in the footsteps of Teddy Roosevelt, who used the Antiquities Act to protect the Grand Canyon, and Franklin Roosevelt, who used it to protect the Grand Tetons, 16 Presidents--eight Republicans and eight Democrats--have used the Antiquities Act to designate approximately 130 national monuments. In more recent history, President George W. Bush used the Antiquities Act to designate the largest national monument in history. Most recently, President Obama used the act to preserve an enormously popular Fort Monroe in Virginia.

These special places might have been lost to development or destruction had the 59th Congress not authorized Presidents to use the Antiquities Act to

move quickly to protect Federal lands. And that is worth repeating: the Antiquities Act allows designation of national monuments on Federal land only. This land is already owned by the Federal Government, and the claim that there is some kind of land grab going on is totally false.

Our national monuments are valuable, popular tourism designations that serve as powerful economic engines. Headwaters Economics studied 17 large national monuments in 11 Western States and found positive impacts to the local economies and employment.

The Antiquities Act has served present and future generations well for more than a century, and there is no need for this amendment. National monuments do not harm private property rights, and they improve the quality of life in surrounding communities while saving historic, cultural, and scenic resources for our children and our grandchildren.

The Foxx amendment will hobble the Antiquities Act by giving States a veto over Federal designations on Federal land, and it would do so based on criticisms of the act and of national monuments that are patently false. The Foxx amendment should be defeated, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, let me thank Mr. Honda for his yeoman work on the budget.

The Republican majority is asking the American people to, once more, accept the premise that a trickle-down theory of economics is the path to solvency, balanced budget, and fiscal responsibility. Well, this trickle-down theory, as promoted, all it has done is create a dry opportunity for the middle class in this country.

Unemployment is up, and it has increased the number of poor and unemployed in this country, and this kind of insecurity has led us to the situation that we're in.

Our budget, the Progressive budget, Budget for All, reintroduces something fundamental to the American people, its values and its moral imperatives that have made us a great Nation.

Our budget is about fairness in burden and fairness in all. There should be no privileged group that receives that 40 to 50 of the benefit from the tax cuts. That money is needed in this society, and our budget asks for shared burden and shared responsibility.

We create jobs. We front-load jobs in this. We are about fiscal responsibility, reducing the deficit and balancing the budget; and we, more importantly than anything else, invest in the American people. We invest in our people, our greatest resource.

We save and promote Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid from the destructive plan that's being promoted by the Republican majority. This Budget for All by the Progressive Caucus, we are providing the American people and this Congress with a choice and a contrast. Do we repeat the mistakes of the past and pass a budget that's being recommended by the Republicans that takes us down the same destructive economic path that we've been on?

Or do we go in a direction that promotes equity, fairness, fiscal responsibility, and, more importantly, puts the American people back to work and offers their families the opportunities that we all have been able to benefit?

The Progressive Caucus budget is a budget of choice, a budget of fairness and, above all, returns us to our values as America.

Mr. Speaker, this proposed rule seeks to waive House rules requiring disclosure of any earmarks in the underlying bill, H.R. 2087. Therefore, pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the rules of the House, I make a point of order against consideration of this rule.

Mr. Speaker, the majority frequently congratulates itself for adopting a policy ``banning'' earmarks. Republican leadership often points to the earmark ban as an important accomplishment in improving the legislative process.

It should be noted, for the record, the provision requiring the disclosure of earmarks was inserted into the rules of the House during the 110th Congress, under a Democratic majority.

The American people might be surprised to learn that, despite claims of strict opposition to earmarks, the majority is bringing a proposed rule to the House floor that would not only allow an earmark in the underlying bill, but even waives the basic requirement that such an earmark be disclosed.

Clause 9 of rule XXI of the rules of the House specifically states that it shall not be in order to consider a rule that waives the requirement to disclose earmarks, and yet the rule the majority is seeking to call up specifically states, ``All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.''

And the question of whether the underlying bill, H.R. 2087, contains an earmark is critical. If enacted, the bill would transfer full ownership of Federal land to a county in Virginia. All parties agree the land has an appraised value of $815,000, but the bill would transfer this Federal land to the county for free. The county is in the congressional district represented by the sponsor of the legislation.

This is not county land; this is Federal land. The county has been granted limited authority to control this land as long as it is used for public recreation. According to the deed, the county cannot sell the land or rent it or lease it or develop it. Only H.R. 2087 will give the county this land with no limitation.

I suspect that every Member of this House would like to be able to pass legislation giving his or her constituents an $815,000 windfall.

Mr. Speaker, either this is an earmark, and the majority should follow its own rules and not bring this rule or the underlying bill to the floor, or this is not an earmark, and the waiver should be removed from the rule. Either way, the proposed rule is a clear violation of House rules and should not be taken up by this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, under current law, the county controls these 32 acres of Federal land, but the deed clearly states that the county may not sell or lease the land or use it for anything other than public recreation. The county received control of the land with those restrictions in 1976, free of charge.

The underlying bill, H.R. 2087, will remove all restrictions from the deed. The county would be free to sell the land or lease it or do whatever it wants with it and pocket any and all revenue. This is clearly an $815,000 windfall for the county created specifically by this bill.

Regardless of whether you agree the bill is an earmark, the proposal from the Rules Committee to waive the earmark disclosure rule should also be cause for concern. If H.R. 2087 contains no earmarks, why is the waiver necessary? Why have an earmark disclosure rule if you just waive it every time you bring a bill to the floor?

Any Member who has ever claimed to oppose earmarks should insist that the rule waiving the disclosure requirement be rejected.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, reading from the remarks to the Natural Resources subcommittee from Thursday, September 15, by the sponsor of this legislation, he stated a recent appraisal valued the land at $815,000, which is more than $25,000 per acre.

There is economic gain for the county, and waiving the disclosure only adds to the confusion that the public feels when we say we have a ban on earmarks and yet we are waiving rules that would disclose that and fully be transparent as to the kinds of decisions we're making with public lands.

The CBO is unable to value what public land is worth. It's certainly here in the testimony of the sponsor of this legislation. The appraisal value is listed, and that, to me, leads to the conclusion that this is an earmark and that the rule that is presently before us should be rejected.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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