Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 674) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating prehistoric, historic, and limestone forest sites on Rota, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, as a unit of the National Park System.

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks, and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill authorizes a study for the suitability and feasibility of designating this particular area as part of a unit of the National Park System. I think it is a wise concept in which to go to find out the cultural and natural resources that are on this particular area and look forward to its further designation.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, he did steal my thunder. They did train and start in Wendover, Utah, which was part of my district until the legislature became involved in district lines in this last session.

I urge my colleagues to support this particular piece of legislation and remind them that any costs that would be associated with this study has to be appropriated. We have another chance to look at that. I firmly support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 862) to authorize the conveyance of two small parcels of land within the boundaries of the Coconino National Forest containing private improvements that were developed based upon the reliance of the landowners in an erroneous survey conducted in May 1960.

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I yield as much time as he may consume

to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), someone who is clearly a better gentleman than I am.

Mr. Speaker, this is one situation that is just unbelievable that the situation exists. It is unbelievable that it takes legislation to solve this type of a problem.

And I want to thank Mr. Gosar, as well as Mrs. Kirkpatrick from Arizona, for working together to try and solve this problem that should never have existed in the first place.

It's a good bill. I urge support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 520) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of alternatives for commemorating and interpreting the role of the Buffalo Soldiers in the early years of the National Parks, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, again I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This particular bill authorizes the National Park Service, again, to conduct a study. The cost of the study

would be subject to appropriations. This study would commemorate the role of Buffalo Soldiers in the early years of our National Park Service.

For 25 years preceding the creation of the National Park Service, Yosemite National Park was administered by the United States Army, and the Buffalo Soldiers played a key role protecting the park resources that have been enjoyed by many people today.

This bill would simply authorize a study as to the role that we should do in commemorating the Buffalo Soldiers in the National Park system specifically as it deals with Yosemite National Park.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, as counterintuitive as it may appear, when there is a drawdown, there may be a long-term savings, but short-term savings are not there. In fact, the cost spikes.

As all the equipment comes back from the warrior that has to go to the depots for resetting, repair, and restoration, that is an extreme cost that has to be borne by the depots if it is not in this particular bill.

That is one of the reasons why I support the chair's mark, which is supported by the chairman, as well as Chairman Ryan, and as well as the original Obama budget when it was sent here before. For whatever reason, they decided to pull $5 billion out without giving us a plan going forward. This needs to stay.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Florida yielding. I now owe you one more.

This is an impeccably good rule. It made in order 172 amendments, which makes someone wonder why we have committees in the first place. I wish to bring to light three of those particular amendments so they're not overlooked in the rhetoric that we have going here today, because each does have an impact on the readiness taking place.

The first one is one by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), which would ask the agencies of this government to communicate with the military when something actually would impact the military; in this case, BLM making a decision which would have a great deal of impact on our military lands in New Mexico. We saw this earlier when NASA decided to change its flight program--it had a great deal of impact on the cost of our missile defense system--and when the FAA decided to close towers, which impacted three military bases and made their security much more tenuous, and all of these cases without ever discussing the impact of those decisions with the military. We have an administration that seems to have the problem of interagency communication--when the actions of one impact the actions of the other--and this is the first step to move it that way.

Mrs. Lummis of Wyoming has an amendment which would create a warm line for the ICBM. Not only would this increase our security, but it ensures we have an adequate industrial base. We cannot turn on and off our industrial base like a spigot: when we need them, they're there; and when we don't need them, they can go off. This would require us to have a strong industrial base and would move us forward in the area of security.

Finally, I wish to address an amendment by Mr. Rigell of Virginia which deals with A-76. On the surface, this looks like a wonderful idea. Who can be opposed to competition? Especially when it's fair and apples to apples. Unfortunately, this particular amendment is comparing artichokes to avocados, which have only the fact that they start with the letter ``A'' in common and the fact that I hate both of them equally.

Five years ago, the Office of Management and Budget asked the Government Accountability Office to review A-76, as well as the inspector general of the Department of Defense. They concluded that this program should be suspended because there were structural flaws within the system that was dealt with on its implementation. None of those suggested structural flaws have been fixed in the meantime. This system has been studied and found wanting.

At the same time, the Department of Defense has come up with a DTM process, which is required to be reviewed by the underlying base bill. Now is not the time to change that process of A-76 until that review has also been completed.

Let me be kind of honest here. The idea before A-76 is really about lowest price but not necessarily best value. With lowest price, you're doing a product that will be put on the open market that will sell or not sell. Who really cares what happens to it. But when you're dealing with the military, you're dealing with military equipment that must be repaired on a timely basis and be available on a timely basis or lives are lost, and that becomes the significance of this particular issue.

What we should be doing, instead of trying to go backwards to A-76, is do a public-private partnership, which many of our depots are actually doing. In that case, I am appreciative that Mr. Rigell did put one sentence that would not interfere with any public-private partnerships that we are doing at the present time. But the idea of allowing the creativity of the private sector to meet with the stability of the workforce from a public sector would be the ideal solution, rather than trying to do some other program which would create a food fight, which would be costly, counterproductive, harm our readiness, and destroy the morale of our workforce, which is already harmed because of the furloughs they're facing.

In this particular amendment, the Office of Management and Budget is opposed to it. The Department of Defense is opposed to this amendment, and so should we be on the floor of the House.

I appreciate the invitation from Mr. Pearce.

This problem illustrates a couple of overwhelming problems we have. One is that agencies don't talk one with another. When the FAA closed towers down, they put three military bases in a difficult situation because they didn't talk. When NASA changed its policy on manned space flight, it increased the cost of our missile defense system because the agencies flat out didn't talk.

Here is another situation of agencies that simply are not working together, which illustrates a second reason why, in this bill, when we try to talk about land, we're not talking about withdrawing land so that two different agencies have the same land. We're trying to do transfers of land so one agency can make the decision--in this case, it should be the military.

Now, as subcommittee chairman for the Public Lands Subcommittee in the Resources, I want to say I support this amendment, and I would ask that people would pass this amendment. There may be some areas of trying to change some of the language to limit the scope of what we are doing here, which could easily be done in conference if this amendment is placed on the table in the first place. We already have language in there that deals with White Sands, but this amendment would have to be in addition to that.

So I would urge my colleagues to actually vote in favor of this. If there are some areas that we need to scope down again, we can easily accomplish that if we have the opportunity of doing so in a conference.

Mr. Chairman, even though I appreciate the efforts and the goals of the gentlemen who are introducing this amendment, the experience at most of our air logistics centers simply means that A-76 has brought along delays; and those delays, even if they're in the form of a study, have caused the work to delay, meaning the product given to the warfighter is delayed, and the fixed cost overhead that our depots obviously have faced have to be paid from some source, which is, indeed, the taxpayer.

A-76 is about low cost and not necessarily best value, which means if you're dealing with a market system where something goes out there, you see if it sells or not, that's okay. But you're dealing with military equipment which must be performed and must be prepared on a timely basis and in a specific way. And that is why the Department of Defense and the Office of Management and Budget are both opposing this amendment, as well as why they halted the process in the first place, because they found there are structural flaws inherent in this process.

It is better to go about finding a better solution to this, and that is public-private partnerships, which we are already doing at the air logistics centers. By taking the creativity of the private sector with the stability of the public workforce, we actually get the best of both worlds. That would be far better than tearing this open for a food fight that would affect the quality of military equipment which is at stake.

Fruit Heights, Utah, is a city of around 5,000 people. In the center of Davis County to the east are the mountains which are owned by the Forest Service. Surrounding it to the south is the city of Farmington, which has a landlocked cemetery and only allows Farmington residents to be buried there. On the west and the north is Kaysville and Layton, which has a cemetery which faces the same situation and is restricting who can be buried there, as well.

Fruit Heights really has a significant problem. The only way they can go is east, up the mountain, on land that is currently owned by the Forest Service but is within the boundaries of Fruit Heights itself. So on this map, the brown, barren area without trees is what's owned by the Forest Service. Totally surrounding the Forest Service land are houses, and only residential roads can get up to this particular area. Running through the middle, blasted in there, is a canal which will be preserved for canal use and be dedicated to that. Above it, the area that is above that, still within the city of

Fruit Heights, is too steep for any development.

So, by city ordinance, they have already said, when they receive this land, that will be permanent open space. The area below the canal here is the land in question that would be transferred to the city for the purpose of a cemetery, which they drastically need. They have been through every area they have as potential in Fruit Heights City. This is truly the only area.

It is true that a nature conservancy group purchased this land from a citizen in Fruit Heights and then sold it at a profit to the Federal Government to be used as habitat for mule deer. The Mule Deer Association is neutral on this bill, neither opposing it nor in favor of it, and they basically privately say that if it's a cemetery, they'll probably have more forage potential for the mule deer than they have right now.

This is what is necessary. I appreciate the minority's working with me on this particular issue to find the realization that there is a need for a cemetery. I thank them for their support. I thank the chairman for putting this crucial issue forward, which to us may be not crucial, but to those dying to get into this place, it is indeed crucial.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 356) to clarify authority granted under the Act entitled ``An Act to define the exterior boundary of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation in the State of Utah, and for other purposes''.

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 356 is called the Hill Creek Cultural Preservation and Energy Development Act, and it's to promote economic development within the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation and to increase funding for public education within the State of Utah, as well as to protect some culturally and environmentally sensitive lands that are within that particular reservation.

This is a bipartisan bill. It's supported by the entire Utah congressional delegation, the oil and gas industry, the Ute Tribe, the Wilderness Society. Actually, everybody with an IQ over 7 is in support of it. It's a noncontroversial measure that will authorize the Secretary of the Interior to resolve a decades-old land tenure issue in a manner that's supported by all parties.

In 1948, Congress extended the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, surrounding about 18,000 acres of school trust lands and mineral leases that were within that portion. In 1955, Congress attempted to solve the dispute amongst some of these lands, and actually failed in doing so. So the Ute Tribe has long protected the southern portion of this Hill Creek area for cultural and environmental reasons. It's also in an area that's known as the Book Cliffs, which is one of the most remote and rugged places within the State of Utah.

The Utah School Institutional Trust Lands Administration, or SITLA, which manages the school lands in Utah, has a constitutional mandate to generate income from trust lands to fund the public education.

So, to achieve the desires of the State, for funding education, and the Tribe, to promote their cultural areas, both parties have worked together in a

cooperative way to craft a plan that authorizes the Secretary to exchange land so that areas that are now with SITLA in the southern part that want to be preserved will be sent over to the reservation.

Areas in the northern part that have mineral resources on them will be given over to SITLA on an acre-by-acre basis. And once the exchange is complete, both the tribe and SITLA will jointly develop oil and gas resources located within the northern portion of Hill Creek and share in that revenue. American taxpayers will also share in the mineral revenue.

So, Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to take note that this model of how you resolve land tenure issues is an extremely effective one. Divisive issues in the past can be resolved through a collaborative process that allows for all points of view to be considered and heard, as was done in this particular bill. In this example, we're able to balance these multiple views and, as a result, we will protect some of our wildest places in Utah and also allow for responsible oil and gas production that will help in funding the education system in Utah.

So I'm hoping to replicate this collaborative model to resolve some of the other longstanding issues that are public land conflicts in my home State of Utah.

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

Mr. Speaker, the State and the tribe have been trying to get Congress to act on this measure for a number of years. It's a widely popular proposal. It's supported by the State. It's supported by local governments. It's supported by the tribes. It is a bipartisan bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 767) to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to modify the Pilot Project offices of the Federal Permit Streamlining Pilot Project, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We are in strong support of this particular piece of legislation, which would be a name change in the Montana Pilot Project office in Billings, Montana, to include the words ``Montana/Dakotas State Office.'' It's extremely important in this pilot process that we don't actually just limit it only to the area of Montana, especially because the area of North Dakota is so important in the development of these pilot projects.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).

It's an excellent bill. I urge adoption of it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 573) to amend Public Law 93-435 with respect to the Northern Mariana Islands, providing parity with Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa.

Again, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This bill is a great bill that treats the Northern Marianas the same way as other colonies by expanding their submerged territorial miles. That would be the same as with American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. It is compatible with all other acts. It's a great bill that we passed last year by a very close vote of 397-0.

I urge adoption of this bill again. I hope this time the Senate will be wise enough to pick it up. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it's a great bill. Let's hope the third time is the charm in the process. I urge support of this bill and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, for the past two years, Tooele Army Depot, Utah, has been led by an outstanding officer whose record of achievement certainly deserves recognition. Colonel Christopher O. Mohan, USA, assumed command of Tooele Army Depot on July 19, 2011.

From the moment he assumed command, Colonel Mohan's commitment to worker safety became apparent. He implemented solid safety policies and procedures and, as a result, in 2012-2013, the depot achieved more than 350 consecutive days without a loss-time injury. This was the best record in Joint Munitions Command as well as Army Materiel Command, AMC. In 2013, the depot continues to prepare for the Voluntary Protection Program, VPP, Star Status.

In 2013, the Army implemented the Logistics Modernization Program, LMP. Under Colonel Mohan's guidance, the installation continued to succeed with implementation of LMP, which modernizes the systems and processes associated with managing the Army's supply chain at the national and installation levels. LMP also permits the planning, forecasting, and rapid order fulfillment leading to streamlined supply lines, improved distribution, a reduced theater footprint, and a warfighter who is equipped and ready to respond to present and future threats.

Colonel Mohan's leadership led the depot to excel in continuous improvement efforts. In 2011-2012, significant savings were realized through this concerted depot wide effort, with a LLS ($916K) and Value Engineering ($1.2) combined total savings and cost avoidance that exceeds $2.1 million. Considering the depot's $64 million annual budget, a savings of over $2 million is a major accomplishment for a small installation with approximately 473 personnel. The realization of these savings was a result to successful partnering with all directorates on the base, and assisting them with their goals and simplifying the process. This year he continued a focus on furthering simple LEAN techniques such as taking ``5S'' techniques throughout all of Tooele's shops. He also continued to promote Visual Management Boards, which serve as directorate and lower scoreboards.

Tooele Army Depot exceeded the Value Engineering goal last year by 16 percent, and continued that trend this year, exceeding the goal by 23 percent with actual savings of $1.2 million which is even more remarkable taking place during a difficult time of defense budget cuts and limited dollars for projects and infrastructure.

Colonel Mohan's guidance was instrumental in continuing to utilize simplified acquisition procedures that maximize the use of standard commercial items and services procured using combined solicitation and synopsis. Tooele Army Depot has promoted the use of the Government Purchase Card to the maximum extent practicable. Usage for FY12 was 11,003 purchase card transactions and Tooele's percentage of purchase card orders placed was 99 percent, exceeding the Army goal of 90 percent.

In 2012, Tooele Army Depot shipped approximately 34,892 tons of conventional ammunition and received 36,328 tons of conventional ammunition. Colonel Mohan supported the Ammunition community in demilitarizing 3460 tons of outdated ammunition.

During Colonel Mohan's command, the Garrison Office exceeded the Joint Munitions Command, JMC, Commanding General's goal of reducing energy consumption by 10 percent with a total energy consumption reduction of 15 percent. In addition, Tooele has reduced energy consumption 96.68 percent from its Army Energy and Water Reporting System, AEWRS, 2003 base year. Tooele's wind turbine produced approximately 2.051 MW of power during 2012.

Colonel Mohan contributed to the organization and planning of the 1.5MW Stirling solar electrical generation project. A groundbreaking for this planned and funded alternative energy project occurred in August 2012, and will lead to the eventual installation of 430 power dishes over 30 acres of depot property. In recognition of the importance of this project, Colonel Mohan was privileged to host a visit by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dempsey, as well as top Army officials and State and Local government officials, to this groundbreaking event.

Colonel Mohan's guidance and leadership led the depot to excel in financial management. During 2012, the planned revenue was $60 million, but actually received $74.5 million. Planned direct labor hours were 441K and actual labor hours used as 464.7K. 2012 was the third consecutive year that Tooele Army depot execution rate was reduced.

Colonel Mohan's command of Tooele Army Depot will conclude on July 10, 2013, as he will assume another assignment of leadership within the Army Materiel Command.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I join with all of the Utah Congressional Delegation in thanking Colonel Christopher Mohan for his distinguished service to Tooele Army Depot, to the State of Utah, to the United States Army, and to the Nation. He leaves behind an admirable record of dedicated leadership that is to be commended, and we wish him and his family the best in their new endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 178 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

I further ask that all Members have 5 legislative days during which they may revise and extend their remarks.

This resolution provides a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 527, the Responsible Helium Administration and Stewardship Act. It makes several amendments in order, which were compliant with the rules of this House. In fact, four of the five amendments suggested to the Rules Committee will be presented.

The only one that was rejected is one that was duplicative of one that was added in here. So everything that the Members cared enough about to file in an appropriate way have been accommodated for the discussion we will have be having today on this particular bill. It provides for 1 hour of general debate, with 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources. It's a very fair and good rule.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House today in support of this rule and the underlying piece of legislation, H.R. 527, the Responsible Helium Administration and Stewardship Act, as opposed to the irresponsible helium administration and stewardship act one could assume coming from the other body.

The underlying legislation is a bipartisan bill and enjoys a broad base of support on both sides of the aisle, including the sponsor, the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Hastings of Washington, and the Natural Resources Committee ranking member, Mr. Markey. In fact, H.R. 527 was favorably reported out of the Committee on Natural Resources on February 14 on a voice vote, and there were no dissenting votes.

I'd like to thank the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), for his work on this commonsense bill and approach.

Mr. Speaker, helium is an essential and vital element and a commodity that we all depend on in countless ways. It's used widely in the scientific community, but also in the health care industry. It's vital to the proper functioning of MRI equipment in hospitals. It's vital in the production of electronics, such as microchips and superconductors. Helium is essential for science. It's essential for our NASA space program. Helium is a byproduct of natural gas production.

In short, we have heard from people for a long time that what Congress needs to do is come together and work in a bipartisan way, find a compromise and present a solution that can actually solve some of the problems we're facing. This is exactly what this particular bill does do.

This is exactly what this particular bill does do.

The leadership, both Republicans and Democrats on the committee, have crafted a bill in which they have come together and presented a compromise. We should be happy with this day. We should be celebrating this particular bill on the floor because it's a perfect example of government done right.

When an elderly lady will call my district office and complain that her Social Security check has not arrived, the most important issue of government to her is her Social Security check. To me and my staff, the most important issue of government for us should be getting her Social Security check. I do not have the arrogance to try and tell her that, look, take the broad view of government, your issue is so small in conjunction to everything we're doing, it should be ignored until we do something more complicated first. No. You find the problem and you solve that particular problem.

This is one of the situations we have here today. The concept of helium is a potential problem if we don't change the law that regulates it. It will affect people in the manufacturing sector and in the health care sector. It will hurt real people.

What we should celebrate is the fact that today Republicans and Democrats have come together and done what the people have requested and found a problem and suggested a good, commonsense solution to a problem in a rational and reasonable way. That is what we have before us today, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I wish to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his kind words about the process that we are doing here. It is nice to be complimented on a bill which we have done correctly and done right. I would suggest, though, that it is wise of us to actually bring it here to the floor, rather than put it on a suspension calendar.

There were several Representatives that wished to have a chance to speak to this and amend it. We are dealing with amendments to this particular bill, which is, once again, why you bring it to the floor, otherwise they would be closed from that process.

I also appreciate his comments about sequestration. I am very happy that he mentioned that because, not only did I vote against the original law that established it, but I voted twice for solutions to it well before sequestration was ever established. Both of those bills passed in a bipartisan way and were sent over to the Senate. The Senate responded by doing nothing, which is typical of a lot of things that simply happen around this place.

In 1925, when the issue of helium was first addressed by Congress, we made a mistake. The idea at the time was that dirigibles would be the source of aviation for the future, and therefore helium was extremely successful. It's not the first time we've been wrong. The fact that we have steps leading out the east side of this Capitol Building, going in that direction, is because, when this was originally laid out and established and built, everyone knew that Washington, D.C., would grow to the east. We've been wrong from the very inception of this governmental city. But in 1925, the Federal Government enacted legislation which created a Federal Helium Reserve, and the Federal Government basically has had a monopoly on the helium market ever since.

After World War II, the demand for helium increased dramatically, so Congress passed the Helium Act in 1960 to provide incentives for the private natural gas industry to strip helium from its natural gas wells and sell it to the government, which then placed it in the Federal Helium Reserve, eventually leading to a supply large enough to supply all of the U.S. Federal and domestic needs as well as the ability to sell some overseas. The 1960 legislation required that the Federal Government set prices on the sale of helium, which would cover the costs of the Federal Government for its purchase and storage.

Since the 1990s, the Federal demand for helium has dropped significantly while the private demand has increased. So, in 1996, Congress passed the Helium Privatization Act, which was intended to lead to the phasing out of the Federal role in helium production and storage with a view towards allowing market forces to work within the private sector for its production and reducing the cost to the Federal Government. The 1996 law required the government to price helium, not on market prices, but only on the minimum price necessary to recover $1.3 billion in Federal debt that was incurred to build this helium reserve.

The Federal Government will be able to pay off that $1.3 billion debt sooner than was anticipated--another cause for celebration. That doesn't happen very often in this government either; but unless the particular law we have on the books now is amended, it will close the reserve, leaving no new domestic sources of helium. The industry would be forced to look overseas to such producers as Algeria and Qatar and Russia to fill their needs.

In essence, if we do not deal with this particular bill, there will be a harm that will impact real people. I'm sorry that fixing this harm is not good enough for some, but it is something that needs to be done, and it needs to be done in an open way, which will allow us to discuss some amendments people wish to present towards this particular bill.

The National Academy of Sciences issued a report in 2010 which addressed this issue, as did the General Accounting Office. H.R. 527 is based largely upon the recommendations of these reports, and it makes revisions to the law to continue the effort to divest the Federal Government from its current role as a monopoly on helium production in an orderly, three-phased process. A new approach will better incorporate market forces into the production and the sale of helium, and it will ensure the future supply of helium to the Federal Government and to private users; and it will ensure that it will not be interrupted.

It is important that Congress take a proactive step through the passage of this legislation in order to avoid disruptions in our helium supplies worldwide; and it would have, if we did not, a far-reaching negative consequence. This legislation is a model of how important bipartisan legislation which addresses real issues and real problems for real people can, indeed, be achieved in Congress. It's a good bill and a fair rule.

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

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

I appreciate the words that were given by the gentleman from New Jersey. He is far too modest. You are a cosponsor of this bill. It's a good bill. It was worked out well. This is not an unwarranted delay bill. This is an important bill that solves problems for real people.

Once again, even though I think what you have done with your bill is a very good job, there are others in this body who are not on the Natural Resources Committee who would disagree, and that is why they have proposed amendments. The only way to allow those amendments to be discussed on the floor is not through suspension, but going through regular order.

I appreciate also the comments that were made by other speakers as to issues that we're taking. I do take one sense of umbrage at the idea that we're going on a vacation again. I do not know how some people try to view the district work period--to some it may be a vacation, but for me it is not. When I go back to the district, at that time, I'm constantly in meetings and going to places to meet with constituents and find out how the actions and ideas of this body impact real people.

I note just in the history of Congress there occasionally have been Speakers who did not like to allow people to go back and talk to their constituents. You have the opportunity, if you're here all the time, of hiding from constituents and not necessarily having that interface. So, one Speaker, every time that particular Speaker allowed Members to go back and interface with the districts and the constituents in the districts, they always came back with a different opinion that had to be remolded and reshaped.

Some people don't like the idea of actually interfacing. Some people think if we never go back and talk to our constituents, that we're hiding from them. That is why the district work period, to me, is not a vacation. It's not a recess from what we're doing. It's a chance to actually expand what we're doing so when we come back here we make wiser decisions, or at least have a true understanding and implication of what it does and how Congress impacts the real workings that deal with real people. I appreciate that.

I also appreciate, once again, the concepts of sequestration. The gentleman from Massachusetts, I think, makes some nice points about sequestration. I think he's in the wrong spot, though. This body has, numerous times before sequestration went into effect, passed laws to blunt the impact of sequestration to solve the problem. We need to talk to our friends on the other side of this building who refuse to even discuss any of those bills that were passed in this body to solve the problem before it hit. It was a great speech, wrong people. You need to be talking to an element that is a lot more elderly than we are over on this side, and I say that with grey hair.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, a nice conversation. We need to have that conversation with my friends in the Senate. We've already sent two bills over there they haven't addressed. I don't know how many more we need to address, but it would be nice if the Senate did something.

With that, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), a member of the Rules Committee.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, if one needs an MRI, this helium bill is extremely significant. If one needs to use microchips, this helium bill is significant. This bill solves problems of real people. And I recognize that we have other issues that people wish to discuss. That's great. This one is one that we should do now and get it over to the Senate and see if once again the Senate actually will do something, at least on this issue, which has bipartisan support. It's a good bill.

I'm going to reserve the balance of my time, but I'm ready to move on as soon as the other side is.

Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed being held accountable for the Senate's inaction on some of these issues. However, we do have a bill before us that is a good bill, that solves a real problem, and that helps real people. And I promise you that if we use this bill, or if we pass this bill, which has amendments that suggests that there has to be some controversy applied, that if, indeed, we were to pass this bill we would make the desert bloom.

Mr. Speaker, in a moment, I will offer an amendment to the rule. The amendment will provide suspension authority for potential consideration of additional measures prior to the district work period next week where we will be meeting with people.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

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

Mr. Speaker, you can't spend more money than you bring in. That's a fairly simple concept, isn't it? But apparently not for Democrats who run the administration in Washington.

Under President Obama, we've had 4 years of government spending, each year spending over $1 trillion more than we took in. That kind of spending is not only irresponsible, it's dangerous. It drives up the national debt, hurts families, neighbors, and our friends.

The time to rein in Washington spending is now, a concept so obvious it has become a cliche. House Republicans understand this. That's why we passed a responsible budget that keeps our taxes low and balances spending. That's more money in your family's pocket.

The President is going to introduce a budget that doesn't balance and tries to raise taxes again.

House Republicans know the way forward, a way forward to foster a healthier economy and help create jobs. It's time for the President to get serious about this issue as well.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 140 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

This resolution provides for a modified open rule for the consideration of H.R. 678, the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act, and provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

It makes in order all amendments which were preprinted in the Congressional Record and which otherwise comply with the rules of the House. So this modified open rule is very fair, it's a generous rule, and it will provide for a balanced and open debate on the merits of this particular bill.

Mr. Speaker, I'm also pleased to stand before the House and support this rule, as well as the underlying legislation, H.R. 678, which is the long title I gave earlier.

I appreciate the hard work of the bill's chief sponsor, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), as well as the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), and of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, Mr. McClintock of California, for allowing this bill to move forward from the committee and continuing the Natural Resource Committee's record, under Chairman Hastings' leadership, of furthering several important pieces of legislation which, if enacted, will greatly improve our Nation's energy policies and provide a responsible, balanced approach to further domestic energy development.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the sponsor of this piece of legislation, to explain why it is so necessary that we do this, even though on paper it seems like this problem is solved.

Let me take a moment just to give my impression of this particular bill, and then I'll be ready to close at that time.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill which had a bipartisan vote in this body last time and a bipartisan vote in the committee, sent to the Senate, where an errant Senator was able to hold the process up. Fortunately, in this session, there is a new chairman of that committee in the Senate from the West who clearly understands the value and significance of hydroelectric power.

So I think that everyone in this body on both sides of the aisle can agree that our Nation is in great need of more energy. If we want to create real jobs, private sector jobs, there has to be a strong energy component to our ability to do that. Our Nation has tremendous amounts of energy that are locked away domestically in the forms of oil and gas and low sulphur and high-BTU coal reserves; but too often special interest groups and layers of bureaucracy have kept us from becoming more energy self-sufficient with these areas. And we're now seeing and feeling the results every time somebody tries to pay an electric bill.

This administration seems to be dragging its feet on energy development of everything from the Keystone Pipeline to the development of public lands. But there is also another source of energy that is presently being unused and can be put to good use without negatively impacting the environment. The energy resource is what we're addressing here in this particular bill. This bill deals with electricity that can be generated from hydro, a renewable energy resource that is very clean and helpful to the environment.

Numerous witnesses testified this year and last year that there is an uncertainty on the NEPA costs, which throw these projects into limbo and often render projects financially unfeasible and stifle private investment far beyond what has been able to be done. Thus, this is stifling what could be done to produce self-sufficiency in energy production. One witness from Arizona simply testified in 2011 that it would cost them $20,000 to install this generator that would create energy in a Federal canal. Yet the NEPA analysis would cost them $50,000 to check the boxes and do that simple paperwork, as we have heard about. The environmental paperwork in this case is almost three times the cost of the capital that you would put into the project. And it all is redundant since the NEPA analysis was done in the first place for the entire canal. This is a second project put in the same canal that has already gone through this process. It's a manmade canal.

Witnesses have testified this year that despite the Bureau of Reclamation's claim of its categorical exclusions and having a policy in place, not one project has utilized this project because of a potential legal uncertainty surrounding categorical exclusions.

As a result, there is no new development that has occurred, and the gentleman from Colorado's amendment will improve this particular situation. So, once again, let this be done.

This is not denying a NEPA review. NEPA has already been done on every one of these projects. This is saying you don't need to do the same thing a second time, which is simply redundant, it is silly, it's red tape, bungling by administrations that need not be there.

The choice is very simple in this particular bill: Either you can give the administration, the executive branch, the right to make these kinds of decisions on moving us forward, in which case the administration can make and can take away their decision at whim, in which case it invites litigation because of the uncertainty of an administrative policy, and also invites conflict within different administrative agencies. Or we can do what we're supposed to do and actually pass legislation to solve problems. The gentleman from Colorado's approach is simply allowing the legislature to make the decision, to institute what the policy will be and tell the agencies how they will proceed into the future. We can either have the legislature stand up and do our job and do it the right way or we can pass it all off and let the executive branch come up with regulations now which they could change and also are subject to the fear of litigation.

This is an easy thing to do. This bill actually should be a no- brainer. It will increase the energy production we have in the country, it will increase the ability of making sure that we have adequate water resources in the West, it will also give a needed boost of revenues to the canal companies, and it will create ultimately more jobs, especially with a cheap form of highly effective energy production.

This bill is reasonable, and it's understandable why it passed with a bipartisan vote last time. I hope it passes with a bipartisan vote again, and I hope we can recognize that this will move us forward.

Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time unless the gentlelady has other speeches that she has requests for.

I am prepared to close when you are.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me state a couple of things. Number one, this is a good rule. Therefore, you should vote for this rule. It is a fair and open rule--a fair and modified open rule. More importantly, it is a rule that will allow us to discuss a very good bill. This bill encourages energy production. We may think of these as small energy projects, but I am told that all these small projects already being held up in Colorado would create the amount of energy that comes from a large project like the Glen Canyon Dam. It's a large amount of energy that is clean energy that we will be producing. Number two, this bill gets rid of redundancy. It is not that we are doing away with environmental protection or a review for environmental protection. That environmental protection review has already been done. It is that we're simply saying for these small projects you don't need to do the same thing a second time and incur the cost, which is an amazing amount of cost, and potential litigation factors that go along with it.

If we do want to produce private sector jobs, and that is a worthy goal, you have to have energy to do it. This bill produces the energy which will be used to grow the economy to produce those jobs that we really want. That is why it is a bipartisan bill, and I expect a bipartisan vote on this particular bill. It's a good bill, and we should pass it today. This is a fair rule, and I urge its adoption.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Thank you, Madam Chair, I appreciate your kindness and hope that your ears are very gentle today.

Unlike some of the other amendments, this particular amendment does not reduce the amount appropriated in the basic underlying bill. What it does try to say is that the money needs to be used where the money needs to be used. It limits the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture from using any funds from this emergency appropriation for the purchase of additional Federal land.

When Sandy hit, the Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island, Governors Island, Morris Park, Sagamore Hill, they were not spared from what took place. The Statue of Liberty is closed. It is not open to the public. It is in desperate need of repair. What I want to make sure is that the money we put for the repair of the Federal estate is used for the repair of the Federal estate. Unfortunately, in an effort to try and do that, there was some loose language. Even though it attempts to put some parameters on where this money can be used, embedded in the language is the phrase that the Secretary of the Interior may transfer these funds to any other account in the Department and may expend such funds in a myriad of ways to try and come up with something.

Unfortunately, we were given, or made aware of, an unofficial wish list which would actually have used some of the money designed for the repair of these desperate issues to be used for the purchase of property not currently under the control of the Federal Government. That is the practice we wish to curtail. If you want to buy more Federal land, that's the icing on the cake. That should go through regular order. That is not emergency spending.

So with this particular money, it needs to be used where it is necessary. It does not prohibit the Army Corps of Engineers or the GAO from using certain funds as necessary to prohibit any kind of relief or human suffering. It simply says you're not going to buy extra land with the money that is already identified for the need of repairing what we already own.

The National Park Service has given us a list of what they need to do. It consumes the money that is in that approach to it. If you decide not to restrict this and allow them to have the flexibility of purchasing other land, something from this list that is essential has to come off, and that's not right. All we're trying to say is use this money to make sure that we put it where it deserves to be, to end the suffering and repair the public property that we already own.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, if I may respond for just a moment. I do appreciate what the gentleman is saying, but I would take issue at the premise upon which it is made. If indeed there needs to be a change of venue from any kind of Federal property--they need to go to high ground--those properties need to be identified, and it needs to go through regular order. Emergency funds should not be used to circumvent the process we already have in place, including the preservation of environmental standards, simply to do that.

Here is the bottom line: if you don't accept this amendment, because the National Park Service has already told us what they will do with this money, if they are allowed because of some pressure from wherever source to purchase excess land with this money, which of these projects are we going to take off?

Do you want to go to Liberty Island and take off the storm drain cleanage or the removing of the debris, the mold remediation, the hazardous debris removal, the removal of storm debris, the replacing of water fountains on Ellis Island, the repairing of the Battery Park screening site tent?

The money is already identified here. This is where it should go. This is the emergency. For heavens sake, make it very clear that the money that's going to be given for an emergency is used to repair what was caused in the emergency, and do not have any loose ends that will circumvent regular order.

If indeed there needs to be long-term changes of where administrative buildings are to be built, go through the regular order. That's the process we have. That should be the way of doing things.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Thank you very much.

Though I appreciate the words of the gentleman from Virginia, I have to disagree once again. We have a process for the way we do things. This is an exception to that process because of an emergency. The Parks Department has already identified where they need to spend the money. Any authorization that would ask for any kind of acquisition of lands will take away from where the money is already identified to be needed.

The hypothetical situation of where some expert at some point might want to do this, to spend some type of money, it's nice, it's cute, it's wonderful, but we have a specific process here. If, indeed, you need to move an administrative building from point X to point Y, we have a process to go through that. And it should go through the administrative, it should go through regular order; not be hidden in the bowels of an emergency expenditure.

I'm not cutting any money from this bill. I'm simply saying you spend the money where it was designed to be spent, and there is a loophole in the language here that would allow that to change. That is wrong. Do not allow the Interior Department or the Ag Department to use a loophole to move money that is designed to solve an emergency from the place where it needs to be spent, on the emergency.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.