Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroic efforts of Colonel Bernard Francis Fisher of the United States Air Force.

Colonel Fisher was with the 1st Air Commando Squadron and was awarded the Medal of Honor for his conspicuous gallantry on March 10, 1966 in the Republic of Vietnam.

A Special Forces camp was under attack and hostile troops had positioned themselves between the airstrip and the camp. Colonel Fisher observed a fellow airman crash on the airstrip. In the belief that the pilot was injured and in danger of capture, Colonel Fisher decided to land and attempt a rescue. Directing his own cover, he landed and taxied the full length of the runway to rescue the pilot. Colonel Fishers' aircraft was struck 19 times. In the face of fire, he applied power and took off at the overrun airstrip.

It is for the risking his life above the call of duty that I am proud to honor and remember the actions of Colonel Bernard Francis Fisher.

Honoring Lieutenant Thomas R. Norris

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroic efforts of Lieutenant Thomas Rolland Norris of the United States Navy.

Lieutenant Norris was a SEAL Advisor and was awarded the Medal of Honor for supreme bravery in action from April 10 to April 13, 1972 in Vietnam.

During the three-day period, Lieutenant Norris and a 5-man team established a Forward Operating Base (``FOB'') deep within heavily controlled enemy territory to conduct a rescue of several downed pilots. Although the first pilot was located and rescued on the evening of the first night, a second pilot was still missing. On the last day, Lieutenant Norris and one Vietnamese, dressed in fishermen disguises, travelled in a sampan up-river and located the last pilot. Lieutenant Norris and his companion were then able to safely return the pilot for medical care and evacuation.

It is for his outstanding display of leadership and courage that I am proud to honor and remember the actions of Lieutenant Thomas Rolland Norris.

Honoring First Lieutenant Brian Thacker

Mr. Speaker, during the past week, we have heard about a series of major violations of our civil liberties, including the fact that NSA is collecting the phone records of tens of millions of Americans. This wholesale snooping on innocent Americans is an unacceptable violation of one of our most basic freedoms--the right to privacy and to be free from government surveillance--and one of many unintended but predictable consequences of the USA PATRIOT Act.

I proudly voted against reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act three times because of its potential for abuse, and more people are starting to see that abuse. Even former Vice President Al Gore, not someone I normally agree with, had the right response to the NSA report. He tweeted:

In a digital era, privacy must be a priority. Is it just

me, or is secret blanket surveillance obscenely outrageous?

And I tweeted back:

Crazy, but I agree!

Of course, what's happening with the NSA is just the latest example of the government abusing its power.

We've all heard about the IRS scandals, in which one of the most powerful agencies in the government deliberately targeted conservative organizations for audits and other forms of harassment.

We've all heard about what happened with FOX News reporter James Rosen, whose phone was tapped by the Justice Department even though Attorney General Eric Holder testified before the House Judiciary Committee ``that potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, that is not something that I have ever been involved with, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.''

Needless to say, what Mr. Holder said under oath is sharply at odds with what happened to Mr. Rosen, and I joined with my Judiciary Committee colleagues in sending a letter to Mr. Holder requesting that he appear before the committee again to explain these discrepancies.

Then, just last Friday, it was reported that the NSA and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, including Google, Facebook, and YouTube. Who knows what we'll find out next.

When thinking about all these scandals, I'm reminded of what James Madison wrote in Federalist 51 in the early days of our country:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If

angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal

controls on government would be necessary. In framing a

government which is to be administered by men over men, the

great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the

government to control the government and, in the next place,

oblige it to control itself.

In recent years, many Members of both parties have forgotten Mr. Madison's lesson, a lesson that infuses our founding document, the U.S. Constitution, that government powers must be limited because governments, by their very nature, have a hard time ``controlling'' themselves.

During the Bush years, many Republicans ignored that truth; and in the Obama era, many Democrats have ignored it, too.

What's happening with the NSA, the IRS, the DOJ, and other agencies should correct the misguided idea that it's okay to give the government more powers so long as the ``right'' party is in power. Because parties change. And to quote Madison again:

Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.

For all of these reasons and more, I voted against the USA PATRIOT Act, which, despite its nice name, was written in such a sweeping way that it opened the door for the NSA to invade the privacy of millions of Americans. That is because the USA PATRIOT Act's section 215 allows the FBI to seek the production of ``tangible things'' to obtain foreign intelligence and to protect against clandestine intelligence activities.

But since it does not require that either the caller or the recipient of the call be a foreign agent or located abroad, you can see how the FBI could be tempted to collect broad swaths of data concerning Americans' phone calls to detect patterns of activity, as many analysts suggest may have happened in this case. That is why, last Thursday, I joined several of my House colleagues in sending a letter to FBI Director Mueller and NSA Director Alexander requesting more information concerning their data collection activities.

Given public outrage about the NSA's abuse of power, it is time for Congress to reexamine all sections of the USA PATRIOT Act, and I am hopeful my colleagues will join me in starting that reexamination.

Now is the time to work together to reduce the scope of government power before it becomes so large and so impenetrable that regaining our freedoms becomes almost impossible. Now is our moment, and we must seize it.

I object.

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

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is just one more illustration of Democrats being unserious on immigration reform. We don't even need to talk about the merits or whether the MTR is good policy or bad policy. For my friends on the other side, it has always been just good politics.

Before I came to Congress, I was an immigration attorney for 15 years. That was one of the finest 15 years of my life. I have seen how broken the system is, and I have seen how few people there are on the other side who actually want to fix the problems instead of just playing political football. And sadly, the captain of the political football team is sitting in the White House. Actually, today he is sitting somewhere else doing more politicking.

Actions speak louder than words. I actually agree with the minority on this. The President of the United States made a promise to fix a broken immigration system during his first term, a promise which he could have kept, by the way, without making a single compromise. He had a majority of both Houses of Congress, a filibuster-proof majority for 2 years, and he did absolutely nothing. The other side could have had 100 percent of what they wanted when they controlled the House; the Senate was filibuster-proof, and they had the President.

When they wanted health care legislation and they wanted good policy, they passed it without any help from the Republican Party. But somehow, they come here today, and they claim that they could not pass immigration legislation during those first 2 years and that they actually want to do something about immigration reform.

Why didn't they solve it then? Because the political football would have gone away. The game would have been over, and they would not have been able to play this political football game every 2 years.

I want reform. I want no more games.

So now we sit here in a familiar position. Our side proposing solutions, their side asking for concessions. And each time we grant one concession, three more arise.

This year, just this year in this Chamber, the President of the United States said he wanted a STEM bill. He said that it didn't have to be comprehensive. This was his exact quote:

But if election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on

a comprehensive plan, let's at least agree to stop expelling

responsible young people who want to staff our

labs, start new businesses, defend this country. Send me a

law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship. I

will sign it right away.

My friends, this is that bill. It is exactly what the President asked for. And what has he done now? He's pulled the football away again. He now says that, in fact, it does need to be comprehensive:

The administration is deeply committed to building a 21st

century immigration system that meets the Nation's economic

and security needs, but it has to be comprehensive.

So he went from saying that he didn't need a comprehensive bill to saying that he needs a comprehensive bill. He says now that he, in fact, needs comprehensive reform when he said a year ago that he didn't.

How do I feel? I feel like Charlie Brown. My friends, this is a good bill. The President continues to move the ball. The Democrats continue to move the ball. Every time Republicans want to do something positive on immigration, on the economy, they keep moving the ball away from us. Let's stop being Charlie Brown.

My friends, this is a good bill. It will strengthen our economy, it will create jobs, and it is exactly what the President asked for a year ago. Let's call his bluff and send him a bill to create jobs and opportunities here in America.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise today in support of the STEM Jobs Act of 2012. This bill addresses one of the bipartisan issues we ought to be able to solve here in the House of Representatives.

Both President Obama and Governor Romney have spoken about the need to reform our immigration system in order to keep more of the best and the brightest minds in America. I am very pleased to have worked with Chairman Smith on this bill, and I want to thank him for his leadership. I also want to thank Mr. Goodlatte and the majority leader for their commitment to bringing this jobs bill to the floor.

The future of our economy is in the STEM fields. New printers from Hewlett-Packard, new semiconductors from Micron, and new phones from Apple all rely on retaining the world's best and brightest students and on harnessing their ingenuity to create jobs here in America. Even in an economic downturn, there aren't enough U.S.-born graduates to meet the needs of high-tech employers. Right now, foreign-born students are benefiting from our education system and are then going home to compete with us.

This legislation allows us to retain their skills and innovation. We know that every American with an advanced STEM degree creates two to three new American jobs. We are replacing a broken, inefficient visa program with one that works, rewards innovation, and makes jobs for our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the other side talk about this bill all day today. This other side controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency for 2 years and did nothing to improve the immigration system. They didn't pass immigration bills, yet the President campaigns on the issue of immigration reform. Once again, faced with actually passing a bill that improves the immigration system, they're making a stand against immigration reform and against economic growth.

Let me clarify one thing. I have a great deal of respect for Congresswoman Lofgren. She and I have talked about this issue for the entire 1\1/2\ to 2 years that I've been here in Congress, and I recognize that she's been a leader on this issue over the years. I'm also an immigration attorney. I've been an immigration attorney for 15 years. I must clarify that unused diversity visas have never rolled over, and to oppose this bill on those grounds is just proof that this is more about politics than policy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing my constituent, Gys Jansen van Beek for his heroism and service to the United States of America during World War II. Mr. van Beek emigrated from the Netherlands in 1948 and has been a resident in my state of Idaho since 1954.

I pay tribute to those resistance fighters that are now, or have, worked and served in harm's way seeking liberty and freedom. Many men and women have aided the United States

in the fight for freedom from oppression during and since World War II; this is homage to one such man. Mr. van Beek was an active member of the Dutch Resistance during World War II. Members of the Dutch Resistance were instrumental in aiding refugees and enemies of the Nazi regime. It has been conservatively estimated that between fifty to sixty thousand individuals were directly involved in resistance activities, with hundreds of thousands more offering assistance.

Tens of thousands of resistance fighters lost their lives as a direct result of their courageous efforts. Capture meant imprisonment, deportation, relocation to concentration camps, and many times certain death. Mr van Beek aided several British, Canadian and American downed fighter pilots during World War II. One such individual, 1st Lieutenant Howard Moebius, P-51 pilot from Wisconsin, wrote of the experience in his book, ``The Valley of the Shadow''. Without the efforts of Mr. van Beek, these gentlemen would surely have perished during the war. Mr. van Beek placed himself and his family in danger with his resistance efforts.

Van Beek's courage and determination earned him decorations from the governments of Canada, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and the United States after the war. It is fitting that we honor Mr. van Beek for his service and also be reminded of the many others who assisted in the liberation efforts. We often forget about the Resistance Fighters who sacrificed much in an effort to bring peace and freedom to millions. Acts such as those by Mr. van Beek, provide us all with a model of courage in the face of atrocity. I stand today to convey appreciation to Mr. van Beek for his selfless acts of service to our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I stand with a heavy heart in support of today's contempt resolution. It puts us another step closer to holding the Attorney General accountable for this severely flawed operation and his failure to cooperate with Congress.

The Attorney General has not only failed to produce all the relevant documents; he has misled this Congress and thereby prevented us from uncovering the truth. So how can the Members of the minority say that an investigation is superficial when we don't even have all the documents?

When the Attorney General was before the Committee on Oversight last year, I brought to light his historical pattern of willful ignorance. I highlighted his lack of knowledge when under oath. He knows nothing, he says nothing, and he seeks for nothing. Never in my life have I met a man more unconcerned with the search for the truth.

I've since become even more disturbed by the depth to which Mr. Holder and his allies will sink to stonewall justice.

Yes, this is an unprecedented day, I agree with you. But not until now have we had an Attorney General have to retract so many statements made to the Congress of the United States, the duly elected Representatives of the people of the United States.

Let us vote to support this motion for contempt.

Mr. Speaker, once again I sit here and I'm amazed by the language that is being used. We've had numerous hearings. We've had numerous investigations. We've had a lot of people come before Congress and give us false information. And the reality is that I hear again and again from the other side that there is no evidence of coverup; there is no evidence of coverup.

But the reality is that we have only received 5 percent of the documents that we have requested. There is no way for us to know exactly what happened, who knew, and what did they know, unless we receive all of the documents. All we're asking the Attorney General to do is to provide the documents that we have requested. We wouldn't be standing here holding these contempt proceedings if he had given us the documents. And that's why I ask everybody in this body to actually vote for contempt.

I rise in support of title XI, the Grazing Improvement Act of 2012.

Livestock grazing is an important part of the rich ranching tradition in America. One need look no further than at the iconic images of cowboys driving huge herds of cattle across open land to realize how big a part ranching has played in American history. Today, my home state of Idaho produces some of the world's finest-tasting lamb and beef, which makes its way to dinner tables across America and as far away as Korea. Food production is a major part of Idaho's history and is an integral part of our cultural fabric and our economic security. These traditions are under attack, and we must preserve them for future generations.

Ranchers are proud stewards of the land. Their reputations and financial security depend on this basic fact. Yet, the process to review the very permits which allow them to produce food has become severely backlogged due to lawsuits aimed at eliminating livestock from public lands. The local Federal land managing office, staffed by fine men and women, cannot keep up with the pace of litigation and the endless environmental analysis. This diverts the already limited resources from these offices and leaves ranchers at risk of losing their grazing permits and of jeopardizing their livelihoods.

Agriculture is a difficult way to make a living, but producers choose this path because it is their livelihood, their passion, and their way of life. When my constituent, Owyhee County rancher Brenda Richards, testified in March on behalf of H.R. 4234, she talked not just about the efficiencies the bill would bring to the overall system, providing cost savings to taxpayers, but she passionately expressed the unstable situation facing ranchers like her: 78 percent of Owyhee County is public land, making local ranchers and the county economy dependent on reliable, yet responsible, access to public land forage.

According to Richards, ranchers not only face uncertainty each year about whether permits will be renewed, but they are also being threatened with new bureaucratic red tape when it comes to crossing and trailing their animals across public lands. Radical special interest litigants have driven the agencies to consider this low-impact activity a ``major agency action'' that requires full environmental analysis under NEPA.

The Grazing Improvement Act of 2012 would accomplish three important goals. First, it extends livestock grazing permits from 10 to 20 years in order to give producers adequate stability. Second, it reduces the workload on overburdened Federal land managers at the local level, and it allows them to get out into the field, which is where they belong. Finally, the legislation includes bipartisan language to encourage land managers to use existing tools in order to expedite permit processing.

We can be good stewards of our land and resources without hurting American ranchers. We must alleviate the problems caused by a tedious bureaucratic process that was created only to respond to the litigious environmental agenda. We can no longer allow the Federal Government to maintain an enormous backlog in processing grazing permits. My legislation aims to ensure grazing certainty and stability for America's livestock producers. Our ranchers depend upon it.

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, and let's talk about some facts and some figures and some numbers.

The good gentleman from Massachusetts continues to say that we need to treat this land the same as private land. The thing that's really fascinating to me is that we have in Colorado and Utah and Idaho many people who would like to actually do their grazing on State lands or private lands, but the difference is that in Massachusetts only 1.6 percent of the land is actually Federal land. In fact, if you look at the acreage, 81,000 acres in Massachusetts are Federal lands. That's why they can actually rely on many other things for their grazing and many other things that they do.

In Idaho, 68 percent of the land is Federal land. In fact, we're talking about 32.5 million acres in Idaho that are actually having to be managed by the Federal Government and that we have to deal with on a daily basis in the State of Idaho.

I think most grazers, most producers would actually like to be doing it on State lands where they actually will be paying more, but they actually receive more benefit for being on the State-owned lands than the State-managed lands. My question to the gentleman is: Why doesn't he allow Idaho and other States in the West to do what we want to do, which what we want to do is we actually want to manage our own lands. We have been asking that for a long time.

But it's interesting to me that the States that only have 1.4 percent of Federal lands continue to tell the States that have 68 percent of Federal lands that they cannot manage their own land. If we were allowed to manage our own lands, we would actually be able to charge a little bit more, but we would do away with all the NEPA requirements and all the other requirements that we have to deal with right now when we're on Federal lands.

So I think it's a little bit hypocritical for somebody to come here to the House floor and object to something that they don't even have to deal with in their own State.

Mr. Chairman, as I listened to the other side speak about their budget, it takes me back to growing up in Puerto Rico as a young man. And I'm very privileged to represent the people of Idaho right now, but I grew up in a very poor neighborhood. I grew up in a very poor environment in Puerto Rico.

I remember my mother taking me to the wealthier neighborhoods. And I remember her taking me to different places to the nicer stores, the nicer places in Puerto Rico and telling me that I had a choice, that I could work hard, I could play by the rules, I could do all the things I needed to do, and one day I could live in one of those homes, one day I could actually have those opportunities.

But if my mother would have had the same mentality that the other side has, I would have never been able to amount to anything in my life because what they believe is that the only way you can actually amount to something is if you take from the ones who have, if you're a ``have- not.''

My mother never believed in that. She never said some day she will own a beautiful home, you will own a beautiful car, you will own a beautiful house if you take away from the rich. She always said that was up to you to become somebody in your life. And that's the mentality that the other side has.

I have this chart here to show what really happened under the Democrats and the Republicans. If you see this, when the Democrats took control of Congress, we were at just under 5 percent unemployment. As soon as they took over Congress, and Barack Obama was elected, the unemployment rate went higher. And as soon as the Republicans were elected, the unemployment rate started going down. That's the path that we can have between the two parties.

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

Mr. Chairman, for far too long, the Federal Government has imposed regulatory burdens that have impeded economic growth and limited our access to domestic energy. This legislation, which passed out of the Natural Resources Committee on a bipartisan basis, establishes a commonsense, streamlined policy for the development of clean geothermal energy resources that will create jobs and provide low-cost energy to American families.

In Idaho, we have an abundance of geothermal energy potential that is unavailable due to Federal bureaucratic impediments. Idaho has a unique history of developing geothermal energy. I served for 4 years in the Idaho legislature, where our 100-year-old statehouse is entirely heated by geothermal energy, as are many of our downtown Boise office buildings, old and new. The annual operating costs

for generating this abundant heat are essentially zero.

Current law requires each geothermal exploration hole to go through an individual environmental review and approval process, discouraging energy companies from investing in projects and curtailing our access to geothermal energy. Each individual environmental review process can take between 10 months to 2 years to complete.

Now, more than ever, we should encourage private enterprise by removing the regulatory burdens that stall our economic growth. My amendment does just that.

What the legislation does: number one, it improves regulations that hamper geothermal exploration and allows projects to be done without the construction of new roads and without the use of off-road motorized vehicles to ensure minimal environmental damage.

Number two, it protects the environment by requiring the removal of any surface infrastructure to minimize surface impact.

Number three, it sets firm deadlines for permitting to occur, providing the geothermal companies the certainty they need to make appropriate business decisions. This is important.

What my amendment does not do: it does not subsidize geothermal energy. It merely eliminates a regulatory hurdle that is unique to the geothermal development process, allowing increased deployment without a tax credit or other cost to the taxpayers.

It also does not allow geothermal development to occur in any of our pristine areas that are currently off limits to exploration. The bill simply removes bureaucratic layers that companies must endure after they obtain a lease.

I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, let's correct two statements that were just made. Number one, the Chamber of Commerce and the geothermal industry testified in our committee that they're for this, and I have letters from them saying that they're for this amendment. And, number two, the bogeyman that they keep using is geyser holes and other things. The EIS for geothermal leasing in the western United States expressly states that the BLM is prohibited from issuing leases on the following lands: lands contained within a unit of the National Park System or that are otherwise administered by the National Park System. They continue to use Yellowstone and all these other bogeymen, and we know that is not true because we cannot do any leasing or any geothermal activity in any of those lands.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want the American people to understand something very clearly: This debate today is not about policy; it is only about politics. It has always been about politics.

Number one, there is no Senate bill. Our friends on the other side keep talking about a Senate bill. There has never been a Senate bill. There was only a Republican House bill. That's the only thing that we had.

The Republican House bill was passed with a bipartisan majority. It passed this House and it went to the other House, and the Senate decided to amend it. When they amended it, they took out everything that we wanted here in the House to extend this payroll tax cut. And we decided today to reject the amendment.

One of the gentlemen from the other side said some of us did not campaign on going to conference. You know what? We did campaign on one thing. We campaigned on following the Constitution and doing the things that the Constitution requires us to do.

If you go back to your civics classes, it's very simple. The House passes a bill; the Senate passes something different; we go to conference. That's what the American people understand. You ask any third-grader about civics lessons, and they will tell you that's the way it's supposed to work.

The reason they are objecting to it today is because that's never the way they have done it. Because their idea of compromising is making sure that our ideas are off the table and their ideas are the only ones that stay on the table. That's not compromise, that's capitulation, and that's what we are unwilling to do. And you're upset. You're upset because you're unwilling to work for the American people during this week and during the next week.

We just voted on the Senate amendments. We turned them down. It's really important for the American people to understand that we have turned down the Senate amendments.

The Democrats only want to have a political tool to keep hitting us over the head again and again and again. They want to spend the next 2 months debating this issue.

If the middle class does not get this tax cut, they will only have one party to blame, Mr. Speaker, and that party is the Democrats.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Offered by Mr. Labrador

Amendment No. 74: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Chairman, I rise today with my friend, Mr. Heller, to join in this great amendment.

Last year an internal document was leaked from the Department of Interior. This document described the administration plans to lock up more than 140 million acres of public lands and designate 14 new national monuments.

It also proposed using its land management authority to sidestep prohibitions on monument designations. When the secret plan was brought to light, the administration backtracked and quickly claimed it had no plans to lock up millions of acres of public lands.

The administration essentially wanted us to forget about how President Clinton used his authority in the dark of the night to lock up millions of acres of land. I can't say for sure that the administration will follow through with that commitment, but I already know that they have betrayed us, and they have betrayed our trust.

Once again, they acted to restrict public land use when Secretary Salazar rolled out a new plan, cooked up in secret, to create a new category of off-limit lands called ``Wild Lands.''

The actions of this administration have proven to me that it cannot be trusted to possess the authority to designate monuments without congressional oversight, which is why I have joined my friend, Congressman Heller, in offering this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Offered By: Mr. Labrador

Amendment No. 201: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Labrador

Amendment No. 202: At the end of the bill, after the short

title, insert the following new section:

Sec. 4002. None of the funds made available by this Act

may be used for the Council on Environmental Quality.