Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, In a perfect world, I would have preferred that language offered by Senator Feinstein and Senator Lee on detainees and habeas corpus would have prevailed in this final conference agreement.

However, when carefully comparing and analyzing both the House and Senate language on detainees clarifying the rights of habeas corpus, I believe that both versions clearly are a step forward in preserving and protecting citizen's civil liberties against any implied powers of the Executive branch. Both provisions make clear that every U.S. citizen or permanent resident alien have their full habeas corpus rights intact.

There are many members on the House side which have worked hard and tirelessly on this issue. In particular, I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert, who served with distinction as a federal judge prior to coming to this body and has a keen understanding of the legal implications and interpretations of statutory language. He, along with Mr. Rigell and Mr. Landry, have been instrumental leaders in working with all sides of this issue and helping to come up with compromise language which moves us forward in a positive way.

This language is not perfect, but it moves us in the direction we need to go. We should continue to work on this next year.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 840 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 consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which they may revise and extend their remarks.

As is customary for this conference report, this is a closed rule which provides for the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4310, the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, and provides 1 hour of general debate, with 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the House Armed Services Committee.

I'm actually pleased to stand before the House today in support of the rule as well as the underlying legislation, which was H.R. 4310, and the conference report that accompanies the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.

I also have to, at the beginning, thank the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. McKeon, for his hard work and his steady leadership on this bill, as well as the ranking member, Mr. Smith of Washington, for continuing the time-honored tradition of close cooperation and bipartisanship when it comes to defense and producing this conference report. I also thank the professional staff, which has worked closely together on literally hundreds of very difficult and often very technical issues and has done so cooperatively in an extremely responsible manner.

I'm very proud that the Armed Services Committee produced a bill in a very bipartisan manner. I'm proud of the floor of the House who voted and passed, in a bipartisan way, this bill back in May. The Senate has finally decided to pass the bill in December. That the Senate has passed a bill is commendable. It is unusual, but it is also commendable. The fact that they have done this here gives us an opportunity of passing one of the few bills that must be done in every session of Congress. The Senate's procrastination on this effort is one of the things that is worrisome. I only hope that in the years to come, the Senate majority leadership will return to acting expeditiously, deliberately, and in a more timely manner in something that is this important.

It is actually a testament to the competency and professionalism of the House Armed Services Committee staff, the House leadership staff, and the Rules Committee staff that this enormous and complex conference agreement could be rescued at the end of what is becoming an otherwise contentious lame-duck session.

Mr. Speaker, in our Rules Committee meeting the other day, we had the opportunity of having Mr. Hastings and others refer to the Constitution. It is very significant that in the beginning of the Constitution, the Preamble, that we talked about creating a more perfect Union. A more perfect Union is not a grammatical flaw that was introduced by the Founding Fathers. It had a specific historical context. It also talked about preserving or promoting domestic tranquility, which had, also, a specific historical context which had nothing to do with America being sedate or tranquil. It had something to do with the specific concept of private property. It also talked about promoting general welfare, even though they had a uniquely different idea of the word ``general'' than we have today.

But in providing in the intermediary with all these provisions is also the word that we are supposed to provide for the common defense. It was not unusual that that word was in there, put in by Gouverneur Morris and the rest of them.

When the Founding Fathers met to write our Constitution, they were looking at the historical milieu of the day and the concepts that were going on at that time. They responded in a way to try to make sure that they solved the problems of the day in a way that would never come up again. The concept of providing for the common defense became one of the core constitutional responsibilities that was extremely significant.

We had won the Revolutionary War, but we had also--several of the States--violated the treaty with Britain. The inability of some States to protect Tory property had given the British the reason to continue to have armed British soldiers on American soil or British forts on American soil. We could not, under the Articles of Confederation, control our borders. The British were arming subgroups coming in here to do more than just destroy our domestic tranquility, but also to take down and harm the lives of Americans. It seems some things never change.

But the Articles of Confederation and Congress could not respond to this. They had an Army of only 700 people. There was no Navy to control the shipping or protect our shipping rights. The Articles of Confederation and Congress realized what we should also realize that if we do not have an adequate and strong defense, not only can we not militarily defend this country, but we don't have the ability of diplomatically trying to reach solutions to problems without resorting to military efforts. They realized that this was one of the flaws of America when they wrote the Constitution.

So it is not unusual for them to specifically put in here that one of the responsibilities that this House has is to provide for the common defense. It is not unusual that in article I, section 8, there are 17 clauses. Seven of those 17 clauses, as well as the introduction, talk about the necessity of military defense and military preparedness for this country. They recognized how significant that was, not just for defending militarily, but also for the future and the diplomatic abilities of the future United States.

This bill deals with one of the few core constitutional responsibilities that we had. Fortunately, over the past 51 years, Congress has been able to come together in an amazingly bipartisan way to come up with a Defense authorization bill that provides our Defense agencies the ability to function, to train, to equip our forces, and to provide for our military personnel and their families.

We are betting if we do not do this, that the large-scale threats to our national security will be so far in the future we can just sort of tread water. I hope sometimes that they are right, but that treading would not be what the Founding Fathers would look at as providing for the common defense.

In a real world, there would be what I would consider to be a more significant and effective bill, but we're not dealing with the real world. We are dealing, though, with real-world issues. Part of the issue is that we are looking at a world that is extremely dangerous for us--we do not know what the future enemy will be--and we are also dealing with a world in which we are continually trying to diminish our military presence.

Our Navy is smaller than it has been since 1917. Our Army will be smaller than it was at the beginning of World War II. Our Air Force is the smallest it has ever been in the history of this country, with the oldest planes that we've ever had. Those issues are issues that are significant, they are important, and they must be addressed. And those are going to be ongoing, long-term issues.

This particular bill does not do as much to address that particular problem and give us the security of the future as I wish it could do. That's only because we are not dealing in a perfect world where we can establish the setting that we wish to do. We have to deal with the setting in which we find ourselves.

Having said that, there are a lot of things in this particular conference report and in the House-passed bill which are very, very positive, and they do move us forward. As we continue the discussion of this rule as well as the debate of the conference report on the floor, we will talk about some of those things that are positive and that do move us forward.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the continuing discussion about talking about what is, indeed, in this particular bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

In the cacophonous list of things that this bill does not do, one can even look at some other areas. I mean, there are other areas in which we have problems in the defense of this country and future challenges that are before us, even in the modernization of our weapons system.

Even as Russia has fielded new and modernized nuclear ICBMs, the U.S. land-based nuclear deterrence is in need of future modernization; and yet this administration has cut resources to begin planning for the upgrading and modernization of our ICBMs and related nuclear-based systems that have largely been ignored. This trend simply cannot continue.

But having recognized those problems that are there, it is also time to realize what this bill actually does that moves us, as a Nation, forward:

It will provide $552 billion, which is $2 billion more than the President requested, and that is a plus;

It increases the pay for our all-voluntary forces by 1.7 percent and provides critical bonuses for those who are now working in harm's way;

It keeps the faith with the military retirees and our veterans in regard to TRICARE, and rejects the administration's proposal to increase fees and copayments on them;

It deals with the issue of troop reduction in a responsible way by putting caps on the number of troop reductions that can be placed in a single year;

It has a conscience clause for servicemen and for chaplains;

It implements the Hyde amendment;

It addresses sexual assault with bipartisan, specific new regulations and procedures for combating and prosecuting sexual assaults within the military;

It has a total new program to provide and help with suicide prevention for dealing with those people who have volunteered to represent this country in the military;

It opens up new bipartisan reforms for competition and innovation in the way the Department deals with small businesses and spurs on innovation;

It deals with strategic forces like the NNSA reforms, our nuclear oversight, our missile defense system, the Iron Dome;

Its provisions dealing with Guantanamo Bay, which prohibit the transfer of detainees to the United States, are the exact right thing that should be done;

It also looks at retaining our vital systems like our naval cruisers, our airlift capacities, Global Hawk, the anti-armor, and investing in new future capabilities that we need like airborne electronic warfare. The aircraft that we need, the submarines, the destroyers that happen to be there; and,

indeed, it has a section in there dealing with the sanctions on Iran.

All of those are specific and important to us.

We have a responsibility to make sure that this core constitutional responsibility of ours is done efficiently. I want it to be known that those who are in the military uniform must respond to the higher-ups which they are dealing with. The Secretary of Defense must deal with walking a line of talking about what they have to do and what they wish they could do. In no way does anyone in uniform say that things that are put in this budget is something that they do not need or do not want.

We have cut the military in this country when we were cutting nothing else. While we were running up stimulus bills, we were still cutting the military. We cut them in the last 2 years of the Bush administration. Under Secretary Gates, it was a $400 billion cut. All told, the cuts that this Congress has put on the fence when it has not cut other areas is between $800 billion and $1 trillion, and that doesn't even count what could happen within sequestration.

We seem to forget, as we're looking, and we take some of the things we have here for granted. The United States has had air superiority since the Korean War, which means our men on the ground, when they hear something overhead, don't have to worry about whose insignia will be on that plane; they know it is ours. But if, indeed, we do not upgrade and innovate and improve our air capacity, we don't have that in the future.

And what we do now is not just simply what we can do today; what we are authorizing in this bill is what we can do 20 years from now. If we don't start the research and development today, we will not have that capacity.

I reject those who say, Look, the F-35 is too expensive; let's just build more F-16s--even though Third World countries have planes that have the same capacity technologically as our F-16s and our F-15s. What we need is a new generation, so if our men are put into a fight, it will not be a fair one.

And we have the technology, the new generation of technology to make sure that we are in the forefront and to make sure that we maintain that air dominance into the future. It is something that we have had for so long and we have had so many people work so hard to maintain that we here, today, seem to sometimes take it for granted. And we ought not. This is our future. This bill is about our future, and we cannot--we cannot--simply go back because we wish to change the milieu of what is happening here. This is a good bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I always hate to try and say we ought to learn lessons of history; but the Founding Fathers, when they made that our core constitutional responsibility, clearly understood that if you do not have a military capacity, you do not have not only the ability to defend the country, but you do not have the ability to make diplomatic efforts in any of those areas.

It is interesting that our allies in NATO are spending far more of their GDP on military defense than we are. But obviously, and ironically, those who are are almost always those countries which experienced firsthand what it was like to live under the domination of the Soviet Union. They understand the significance of this particular proposal and these particular kinds of bills.

Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to recognize the soon-to-be- retired chairman of the Rules Committee who has done so much in his tenure here in the Capitol. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

There are several things I wish to address that have been brought up in the last speech. The first one is, I was just informed that by all means we probably will be here tomorrow and voting, which really hurts my feelings. In one respect, I don't have an upgrade on tomorrow's flight, so maybe it's a good thing that we will be, but there are other times that we will be dealing with these issues.

People have talked about the amount of money that's going here. I hope Members of the House realize that 50 percent of all the cuts that have been made by this administration have been made on the backs of the military, even though the military defense represents less than 20 percent of the Federal budget. Military has, over the past years, been cut and cut and cut again.

This increase over what the President's budget request was is only 0.3 percent higher than the President's budget, and it is less than last year's authorization. I say that only as a fact, not something I think is good because I think we need to be spending more on what these people have to do.

To say that the people in uniform don't want or don't need the programs that are in here is unfair to them. They have to say a specific line in the positions they are in. But the idea that you wouldn't take the cruisers that are going to be expended in here and continue to keep those even though they were scheduled to be mothballed decades before their life span is over, or that you are using these funds to restructure the force structure of the Air Force, which is critical to this country so that we maintain the air superiority we have had since the Korean conflict, that is a ridiculous concept.

This bill is about people. The gentleman from Massachusetts has an air base, Hanscom, in his State--probably not in his district, but his State. I have air complexes. I have people who are working on these issues. We have not modernized our equipment, which means we have to have people working on our air complexes to try to take our antiquated equipment and restore it so it can be useful, so that those who are put in harm's way defending this country at least have the vehicles and the resources available to defend themselves and present the possible outcome. These are the people that are going to be helped. These are the jobs that are going to be helped by the passage of this particular bill. These are the people who get TRICARE, which was given to them either as a bonus to sign or given to them in lieu of salary increases. And it is unfair for the President to say they should have an increase in their copay.

These people who are working at these bases, they're not making $50,000 a year in a pension--they'd be lucky if they make that much money as part of their salary. Those are the people that we need to look after. It is the people who make sure that we have a military that functions, not just those on the front line, not just those in uniform, but also those who provide their services and provide the material that they need to maintain this stuff. This bill moves that forward.

I hope that we do not have as a body a myopic approach to the need for the securing of this country, and we understand how significant this is. This is one of the few responsibilities Congress has to do this year and every year.

I want to just say one thing about the potential previous question. It's not an issue of when we get a chance to vote on it. We have voted on the previous question that the Democrats would like to put in place of this. On August 1, we did have a vote, the Levin of Michigan amendment. It was defeated in this House in a bipartisan manner, with 19 Democrats voting ``no'' on the amendment. Another vote on this at this time is a redundancy; it's been done. Now let us move on to do what this bill is supposed to do, the conference report that solves the problems and puts us moving forward in our defense authorization so that we actually do come up with the programs we need, not just for today but also for the future. It's a good conference report. It's a good underlying bill. We need to move forward.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would urge Members to support this rule, which is--I misspoke earlier, it is a standard rule for all conference reports. I urge them to support the underlying provisions of this conference report and of our bill because it is essential for our Nation's defense. It is our core constitutional responsibility, and we should not in any way, shape, or form shirk that.

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

Thank you, the gentleman from Georgia. It's my pleasure to be here as part of this tribute to Jay Pierson and everything that he has done.

I met Jay Pierson the first day I was in the session when there were about three of us who came on to the floor and sat over I think where the staffers are sitting right now, just to watch what was taking place on the floor. Jay came over to us and said, if you all want to speak, you've got about 7 minutes left. I was shocked at that time to imagine that somebody would actually come on the floor and speak without any preparation or without knowing the complete details of any of the bills we're debating on the floor. I have learned much since that time, and much of what I have learned is by watching Jay's protection of this institution, this floor, the procedures, the protocols and the order that we have.

He also helped me out individually by introducing me to Chesterton and giving me a couple of books by him that I had the opportunity of reading. I hope I have given most of them back by now. But in addition to that, his book on orthodoxy, he once wrote:

Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. There are many who object to being disqualified by accident of birth. Tradition objects to their being disqualified by accident of death.

The ideas that we have here are those that keep us going as a group. He also wrote in that same book that if you free a camel from its hump, he is no longer a camel. I am not saying that Jay Pierson is a hump, but my fear is that once this institution is free of Jay Pierson, we may not necessarily be the same institution that we were before.

I want to give my appreciation for everything that you have done for the House and for this country, and I want you to know that I am taking you up on the offer to go through this building and learn some of the history that you know and I need to learn. Thank you, and God bless.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4606) to authorize the issuance of right-of-way permits for natural gas pipelines in Glacier National Park, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, 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.

Let me also as we begin this debate I would yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Montana whose bill this is that will talk about a power company decision that in 1962 was allowed and then in 1990 the Park Service determined they couldn't do what they already had done and now it has to be fixed.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).

Mr. Speaker, I have only myself as the final speaker we have over here. I was wondering if there are any other speakers from the minority side.

Mr. Speaker, in closing on this, this is a piece of legislation that is just common sense and blindingly necessary. At risk, if it is not passed, are 25,000 people, citizens of Montana, who would be without this kind of natural gas service, as well as Glacier National Park that would be without this kind of service. It's something that needs to be done, it should have been done a long time ago, and it needs to be changed to allow the Park Service to be doing what it naturally should be doing. I urge all my colleagues to support this particular bill.

With that, 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 (S. 3193) to make technical corrections to the legal description of certain land to be held in trust for the Barona Band of Mission Indians, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I also 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.

This particular bill corrects an error that was made in 2004 under an act of Congress under which land that was intended to be placed in trust for the Barona Band of Mission Indians in California. That law that was improperly written--amazing--gave a written legal description of the trust land that contained several mistakes. The unfortunate result was to put Congress on record as declaring that non-Indian private property is to be held in trust rather than the tribe's property.

This action placed a cloud on the title of the non-Indians' property and frustrated the tribe's effort to use the lands that Congress intended to place in trust for its benefit. However, this lagan attached to a buoy is able to be retrieved at this time and fixed in this particular piece of legislation.

Senate bill 3193 corrects this error, clearing the title to the non- Indians' property and affirming the trust status of the correct lands. The subcommittee on the Interior and Alaskan Native Affairs held a legislative hearing on the bill, which the director of the BIA and the Barona Band affirmed that this bill does, indeed, solve these issues; and we have heard no objections in the course of this bill to this particular bill.

I want to commend the efforts of the gentleman from California, Congressman Duncan Hunter. Mr. Hunter has been instrumental in working with the tribe, the surrounding community, the sponsor, and the Natural Resources Committee to bring this bill to the final legislative step before sending it to the President for signing. I also want to thank him for allowing a Senate bill to be part of the solution so that they can actually do something over there.

This is a noncontroversial bill, I urge my colleagues to pass it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Once again, I'm the only speaker we have over here, and I'm prepared to close when the gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands is.

Mr. Speaker, this is another bill that is noncontroversial. It solves a problem that should have been solved a long time ago, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, schoolteachers are an overworked and undercompensated group, but the good ones are always appreciated for the time and effort and commitment they make to kids. So I stand today to honor one of the best examples of a dedicated teacher, Margaret Obray, who was a government and history teacher at Mountain Crest High School in Hyrum, Utah. Mrs. Obray has dedicated the past three decades of her life to encouraging her students, both in and out of the school. She has worked tirelessly to open their minds to guide them towards a productive and meaningful life.

Mrs. Obray has decided to retire at the end of this school year, having changed the lives of literally thousands of students who had the opportunity of being taught by such an outstanding educator. I have watched Mrs. Obray for many years and can verify that she is the epitome of what a good educator should be, and she will be sorely missed. So, Mrs. Obray, we want to thank you for what you have done, for the impact you've had on students you have taught in the past, the ones you are teaching currently, and we have pity for all those kids in the future who will never have that experience.

Mr. Speaker, Weber State University is honoring people, and I wish to mention four individuals who are being honored by the university.

State Representative Gage Froerer and State Senator Scott Jenkins will be receiving the Shurtliff Award for contributions to education. Both of them have done much for their particular communities, as well as Weber State and their outreach campus in Davis County.

Receiving the prestigious President's Award will be Nolan Karras, a cum laude graduate from Weber State who also served as speaker of the house in Utah and was instrumental in Weber State attaining the status of university level.

In addition to that, he has benefited the community as well as the education system in Utah ever since by being on the board of regents in Utah.

The second nominee will also be one who has been called one of the brightest minds in Utah politics, Spencer Stokes, a 1995 graduate from Weber State who has done much in his community as the commissioner as well as an advocate, and who's also, I have to admit, gone over to the dark side and is a staffer for the Senate right now as the chief of staff for a Utah Senator, but we will forgive him for that.

These four individuals have done much for the community, done much for their common county, Weber County, and the State of Utah, and are really deserving, very deserving of these honors they are being given by Weber State University today, and I wish to honor them as well.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 788 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the point of order and in favor of the consideration of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the question before the House is: Should the House consider H. Res. 788? While the resolution waives all points of order against the consideration of H.J. Res. 118 and H.R. 3409, the committee is not aware of any points of order, and the waiver is basically prophylactic in nature.

We heard a lot of emotional and interesting points as to the basis of the bill that could be debated if, indeed, this rule were to be passed. I don't think it is actually the time right now in a point of order to go over the benefits of the bill or the detriments of whatever may happen if the bill, itself, is actually debated. There is time for that.

We do know that the number of individuals receiving welfare has dropped by 57 percent, that poverty amongst all single mothers has fallen by 30 percent, that the poverty amongst black children has dropped to its lowest level since 2001, and that employment and earnings amongst single mothers have increased significantly.

But that's all debate to the bill, which still has to go through the rule debate, and we're not talking about that. This is a procedural issue.

We could talk about the fact that in '93 the Ways and Means Committee did say that waivers granted after the date of enactment may not override provisions in the TANF law that concern further mandatory work retirements. But, once again, that would be the kinds of things that we should be talking about in the debate of the bill, which will come after the debate on the rule, which will come after our discussion of this procedural point of order.

So, actually, the merits of what the bill is is not the same thing as the purpose of the procedural point of order. The procedural point of order still has to be based on the idea of unfunded mandates within the rule.

The Congressional Budget Office believes that H.R. 3409 would impose an intergovernmental mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. However, based on the information for EPA and a small number of public entities would be required to comply with the bill's requirement, the CBO estimates that the cost of those entities to comply would fall below the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act's annual threshold for intergovernmental mandates. It's a threshold that is set and adjusted for inflation.

So the Congressional Budget Office states that H.J. Res. 118 also contains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates as defined by the Mandates Reform Act. That is the basis of the point of order. The bottom line is there is no violation of both an unfunded mandate within the rule or in the bills themselves.

The rest of the discussion is actually to the merits of the legislation and is appropriate at the time as we are debating that legislation.

So, Mr. Speaker, although I really have this great desire to use the full 10 minutes of discussion here, the bottom line still----

No, thank you.

I appreciate the honor. Will the gentlewoman from Wisconsin let me finish the statement?

I appreciate the interruption, but let me finish here. And probably not. Let's get on with the issue at hand here.

The point of order basically, Mr. Speaker, is still specious. It is in order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for the day because the issue of the point of order is the unfunded mandate, not the other merits towards the legislation.

So I do urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration. We will have an additional hour to discuss anything you wish to on the rule debate, as well as a whole lot of time on the merits of the bill when we debate the bill itself.

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

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

General Leave

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

This resolution provides for a closed rule for the consideration of H.J. Res. 118, the congressional disapproval waiver of work requirements, and provides 1 hour of general debate, with 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means and 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

This rule also provides for a structured debate for consideration of H.R. 3409, the Coal Miner Employment and Domestic Energy Infrastructure Protection Act, and provides for 1 hour of general debate, with 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources, 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Finally, this rule makes in order a number of important amendments on both sides of the aisle. If staff doesn't change my mind, I believe there are 13--7 Republican and 6 Democrat--amendments which is as close as you can get with an uneven number to a fair rule. So it is a fair rule.

Mr. Speaker, now speaking towards the merits of this particular resolution, I would like to make special mention of Congressman Johnson, who is the base sponsor of H.R. 3409, the Coal Miner Employment and Domestic Energy Infrastructure Protection Act. He definitely has been one of the leaders in this entire area of the issue of coal as it is used in energy. Not only is it important to his constituents, but this is an important issue for the entire country. And I want to recognize Mr. Johnson as having been tireless in committee, asking questions that go to the core of this particular issue, providing amendments, and then finally culminating with his bill which deals with how we actually can use coal to further our energy needs in this particular country. Representative Johnson is a freshman who has learned fast and is a true champion for inexpensive energy that will expand our economy and create jobs for American citizens.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will forgive me if I try to limit myself to what is actually in the resolutions and the bills that we are presenting today as far as the Rules Committee is concerned.

There is, though, a common thread that runs through the two resolutions that happen to be here and deals with the definition of what is administrative and what is legislative. Even if the current administration seems to have a problem in making that definition of what is administrative, we in Congress need to clearly understand what is our legislative responsibility.

Our good friend, Louie Gohmert of Texas, always says that he who learns the lessons of history will find some other way to screw it up. That's probably true. I don't want to sound like an old history teacher, but I am. I do want to say that there are some things that we in Congress should be doing to learn from our past history.

John Page, in 1771, a Congressman from Virginia, was on the House floor when it was determined while the House was debating whether they stuck around to actually determine where postal routes should be. People wanted to go, and, more importantly, the people trusted the President. The question was, Why don't we just let the President do it all?

It was John Page who stood up and said, and I move to adjourn and leave all objects of legislation to his, the President's, sole consideration and direction. He shamed Congress into doing their job of writing the legislation and not allowing the executive branch, the administration, simply to do everything by fiat. We sometimes have forgotten that.

In the TARP language, we put in language like, the Secretary of the Treasury will be able to purchase troubled assets on such terms and conditions as are determined by the Secretary; or authorize any purchase on which the Secretary determines, promotes financial market stability; or the Secretary is authorized to take such action as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out all authorities in this particular act.

That is legislative authority that we passed on to the executive branch. That was a tragic mistake. We should not incorporate that tragic mistake, wider now, by simply allowing the executive branch to take on responsibilities and authorities of their own free will and volition.

We have this same situation once again in the history of this country. We had a President of the United States who wrote a book about Congress without ever visiting Congress itself, who said what the Founding Fathers realized, in which their effort to have vertical separation of power between State and national government--what we call federalism--and horizontal separation of powers between the three branches, which we call the separation of powers--and every public school student is taught that--they were put in there so that individual liberty, which I always consider to be individual choices and options in running their lives, would be protected against the concentration of power in one branch or another.

Now, this former President of the United States called this separation of powers political witchcraft. He said it was wrong to try and separate powers perplexingly subdivided and distributed to be hunted down in out-of-the-way corners. An earlier President than him thought, you know, the President of the United States is elected by everybody, Congress by a few people, the courts by none. Therefore, ignore the courts, which has some appeal, but at the same time the President should speak for the government.

This other President, coming back later, built upon that so he increased the role and power of the executive branch under the concept the President is the President of the whole people and, therefore, he has the ability to transcend separation of powers.

His effort to improve democracy was to eliminate democracy and instead ensure that the decisions were not made by the people or the voice or representatives of the people, but by experts, experts who were serving in the administrative branches. We, if you like that concept, call it the administrative state. If you don't, we call it ``nanny government.'' Nonetheless, that was the concept.

One of the other Presidents that came shortly before him said there will be little permanent good that can be done by any party if we fail to regard the States as anything other than a convenient unit for local government. He said there is no harm by concentrating power in the hands of one individual. He also said that he would not be content with keeping his talents undamaged in a napkin. That's perhaps why the Speaker of the House at the time said he had no more use for the Constitution than a tomcat has for a marriage license.

The bottom line of what happened in the history is that all of a sudden we found that the Founding Fathers who believed in people and believed in the legislative branch, listening to John Locke, who said you cannot transfer the power of the legislature to another branch, those type of people decided at that time that the people should not be running their own affairs, that government experts should be making that policy.

To be honest, when we're talking about the first resolution that deals with TANF, the welfare issue, I don't care if the waiver is the greatest thing since sliced bread, it is still extra-constitutional and it should not be used and Congress should not allow it to take away what is the role of Congress, and only Congress, to establish these issues and set these boundaries.

In the other bill that we're talking about, we're talking about prohibiting future actions by entities, in this case, specifically the EPA, which would destroy jobs, increase the cost of our utilities that would cause greater costs of lighting homes and heating homes, especially for those who have the least ability to do so.

Congressmen and Congresswomen must stand up and insist that Congress create these standards and create these options, not being made by executive

fiat. That is the very purpose of why we are here.

The first President, to whom I referred, ended up with a legacy of many programs implemented which we still today find controversial. He was labeled by historians as an arrogant President at that time who refused to talk to Congress. Because of that, he lost some of his last, most precious programs in an effort to try and go around Congress rather than working with Congress.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that's why this resolution is before us and why these two separate bills are here. Both of them attempt to set the record straight and show that it is Congress' responsibility to set the rules and the guidelines. It is not an administrative prerogative. And we as Congress need to step forward and say we are the ones who do this. We should not allow it to be done by anyone else, regardless of why it's being done or the merits of why it's being done. It's our job.

We should learn from history. We should be more like John Page and try and make sure the Congress does these types of issues and makes these types of decisions and less like Presidents later on who thought the President speaks for everybody and the President has every right to transcend separation of powers and do it for himself. That's the basis of these two bills. That's the important issue. We should learn the lesson of history.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

With gratitude for the last speech, which was such a stirring support of fracking, which has made gas so plentiful and useful in this country, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Science Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have some empathy for the gentleman from Iowa, but I will have to say that one of the reasons that those amendments were not made in order was, quite frankly, because both of them were nongermane to the base bill, and that becomes a concept.

One of the reasons that Ms. Slaughter speaks on wishing to stay here until we pass middle class tax cuts--and I think I can approve of that because, actually, when we considered H.R. 8, the Rules Committee took an extraordinary step of waiving the rules of the House--including CutGo and other budget-related points of order--so an amendment could be given by Mr. Levin, and he could have an opportunity to present that amendment. That amendment was debated, and it was rejected on a bipartisan vote of the House in August.

Unlike the amendment, then H.R. 8 passed the House with a bipartisan vote, which means the House has voted for a middle class tax cut. We have done our duty. It is one of the myriad of bills that is sitting over on the Senate side waiting for them to do something so that we can proceed to a conference committee.

So I actually approve of what the gentlelady from New York is saying because basically we've done it, and we did it on August 1.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I actually don't think I have any other speakers. I may be surprised in the next few minutes, as will be the case.

It happens, yes.

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

In our discussion of this particular rule today, we have, as oftentimes is the case, wandered far and wide.

I would point out to one of the speakers who was just up there saying that we should stay here doing the sequestration act, dealing with the sequestration issue, the House did. On May 10, we passed the Sequestration Replacement Act. Once again, it's sitting over in the Senate. To wait here until we do the middle class tax cuts, we did that in August. It's waiting over on the Senate to do something.

We have issues that are significant in the two that are before us. If we're talking about welfare in some particular way, whether the rule that was made coming out of the executive branch was appropriate or not, we could go back and say why it was done. It is true the President, in 1997 and once again in 1998, said he would not have supported the legislation that created the system that we have. It's also true that in The Washington Post editorial, they made comments that said the Obama administration is waiving the Federal requirement that ensures a portion of able-bodied TANF recipients must engage in work activities. If this is not getting welfare reform, it's difficult to imagine what would be.

But even if the substance of that was inaccurate, the fact that it was done by regulation, by rulemaking coming from the administrative branch, puts us in suspect category. Rules should not be establishing what is our priority; it should be laws made on this body. If you want to change it, if you want to do waivers, it should be coming from this particular body.

The other half of it deals with coal. This is a Nation with the largest coal reserves in the world. We have 500 years of potential electricity at cheap rates coming from coal. A coal plant today is as much as 99 percent cleaner than one built 40 years ago, and yet rules and regulations that have been promulgated or are being threatened to promulgate are one of those that impede the ability of building new plants.

There is no valid reason why the American coal industry should be suffering at the hands of overzealous Washington regulators or why workers are being laid off in the Midwest, in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and other places; although, today, it was again announced that there will be 1,200 coal mining jobs that will be eliminated across central Appalachia by a company, one company.

And once again, there is the kind of unfair regulations that are taking place. It is true that H.R. 3409 is cobbled together with other bills that have passed this body, but I would remind you that each of those four that have already passed this body were passed on a bipartisan vote, with anywhere between 16 and 37 Democrats, depending on the bill, joining with Republicans to pass those. And, when put together in a package with H.R. 3409, presents a good package to make sure that we are in favor of cheap energy, energy that will drive and build our economy and provide jobs for those who need those particular jobs.

I went historically in a while earlier because I wanted to say that we have faced these types of situations in the past, where the question was: Should the President make the rules or regulations or should Congress actually pass legislation?

The President to whom I referred ended his tenure in a somewhat bitter way, refusing to work with Congress, instead, trying to go around Congress, which produced, at that time, a historic deadlock between the Presidency and the Congress.

This is a Nation of laws. Laws are made here. It's not a Nation of rules. And if the rules and regulations are going to have the effect on the future and are going to have an effect on the American people, they should not be done by executive fiat. Whether you like them or not, they should not be done in that manner. It should be done here legislatively.

That's the purpose of both of these issues that are tied together in this rule; that's the thread that comes together--whether or not we actually believe Congress should be doing the job of creating the standards and the rules, or we're willing to simply abrogate our responsibility, our power, our options to some other body.

And I would hope that as Congress we would be very careful and considerate about what our responsibility is, and we would take very seriously any encroachment on the role of law that is given to us by the Constitution. It was the vision of the Founding Fathers that this should be the body that makes those decisions, not the executive branch.

This is a good bill, these are good bills, and this is a fair rule.

We haven't even talked about the amendments that were made in order, but they do cover, in fact, we did have one statement about the amendment that was not made in order, and I half wish--the Member is no longer here, but his issue of concern is covered in another amendment that is made in order and will be discussed on this floor.

So it is a fair rule. It will have a vigorous debate. And there are two good bills that would be brought before this body that I hope sincerely pass. I do urge their adoption, and I sincerely urge the adoption of this rule that will move us forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6060) to amend Public Law 106-392 to maintain annual base funding for the Upper Colorado and San Juan fish recovery programs through fiscal year 2019.

Mr. Speaker, 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.

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

This is a good bill. It's got a great sponsor. Everyone should vote for it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague who shares a border with me in our districts, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).

I think some of my staff thought I should be a little bit more expansive in my remarks. So this is a really good bill with a really good sponsor.

Actually, this is one of those things where the nice part is, for this mitigation plan that will allow these projects to go forward, taxpayers are paying no money. It's paid by the utility ratepayers of this particular area. If this is not reauthorized, it may put that part in jeopardy. And we did put some guidelines in there to protect so that the overhead that can be charged to the utility ratepayers has a potential limit on it.

It's a good bill. With that, I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1461) to authorize the Mescalero Apache Tribe to lease adjudicated water rights, as amended.

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 am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the author of this particular bill, who does a great job in representing his constituents--and this is one of those examples--the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Could I inquire if my colleague has any other speakers?

Mr. Speaker, this is one of those bills where the minority and the majority have worked with the tribe to clarify. This applies to off-reservation water, their leasing authority. If the tribe still stays in place, it's intact. It's a technical amendment that has been cleared by all interested parties and moves us forward.

I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3319) to allow the Pascua Yaqui Tribe to determine the requirements for membership in that tribe, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, since I doubt very seriously if I can get through any kind of statement and say ``Pascua Yaqui'' Tribe accurately, it would be my intent, if I could, to yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona to explain his bill. It's a good bill, we support it, and he can say it properly.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the House actually passed a bill similar to this on tribal membership that recognized a tribe in Texas last year, so there is precedent for this event. I would therefore have no objection to the passing of this resolution today and urge Members' support of it.

With that, I yield back all the remainder of the time.

Mr. Chairman, you know, we do processes here in government, and hopefully we do them for a reason. But when the process we have harms kids, we should ask ourselves why do we have this slavish devotion to the process.

The problem before the State of Minnesota today is simply Federal action that took place 34 years ago that took lands guaranteed and devoted to the kids of Minnesota and took them away by Federal action.

I live in a State that does have a State trust lands policy where the use of that school makes a significant contribution to the education of our kids. It wasn't always that way. We took it seriously.

The State of Minnesota now wants to take this process seriously and develop resources that would be beneficial for their kids in a significant way and equalize the process, as we do in my home State, to benefit all the kids that are in public education.

This is one of those situations in which we have had plenty of time to solve this problem but obviously the Federal Government has not moved forward to give to the State of Minnesota what will benefit their kids.

In the hearing we had on this particular bill, the Forest Service said, Yeah, we can do this process. Give us about 4 years to evaluate all of these lands. Our Constitution gives us a right to a speedy trial. I wish it gave us a right to speedy decisions by bureaucrats. In 4 years an entire class of kids can start and finish high school without having any benefit from these lands that were theirs in the first place.

I do not know why those who constantly breathe the air of the Potomac River are the ones who are always wringing their hands and dragging their feet, but it seems to be the same way.

Mr. Chairman, you and I worked in the State legislature, where we had time limits. I had 45 days to get something accomplished or you didn't do it.

I taught school on trimesters. I had 90 days to cover the material, or I didn't get to do it. Can you imagine what would happen if the principal came to me and said, We're going to do our final test on Tuesday. And I said, I'm sorry. I couldn't possibly cover all of that material by Tuesday. Maybe in 4 years from Tuesday I might be able, if you're lucky, to get through the material and actually be ready for that particular test.

One of the issues in this campaign is indeed dealing with permits. What takes my State 45 days on average or less to permit takes the Federal government 307 days on average to do it. That's the process we're talking about here.

The State of Minnesota has a State process in place. It covers tribal issues. It covers all of the issues that are there, and this would take precedence. The State of Minnesota is just as smart as the Federal Forest Service in solving these problems, except the State of Minnesota wants to do it quickly and the Federal Forest Service is not.

This will also eliminate potential delaying litigation using Federal laws to actually do that.

Look. It is simply time for us to realize that if this bill passes, it helps the Forest Service because it takes away inholding problems. It also helps kids of Minnesota because it guarantees a funding source for their education in the future. We should be doing our job and moving us forward and taking this process away from an agency that moves at glacial speed to help kids.

It is time. It's time we do something to help kids instead of harming kids. This bill helps kids, and I am proud to vote for it.

Well, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas taking up this particular issue. I promise you, you will get a few minutes here to finish this one up here as well.

I will start just by moving off where we are for just 1 second and going back to my real love, which is still baseball. If you recall, back in 1962 they created the amazing New York Mets, a team that set the standard for ineptitude in professional sports. Anyone who wants to seek that, to fall that low, now has a perfect standard by which to judge your effectiveness in becoming bad.

The New York Mets, in 1962, lost 120 out of 160 games. That's the standard by which people now judge themselves. And it's amazing to think of how the leadership of the New York Mets could cobble together a team of athletes so inept at working together as a particular team, leaving such luminary names as Jay Hook and Ken MacKenzie, Choo Choo Coleman and Hobie Landrith there together.

Probably the best of all those names was Marvelous Marv Throneberry, a big first baseman who I think, in his third year with the Mets, actually hit a triple, which is amazing considering he's not really one of those fast runners. But as he was rounding the bases going to third, he missed second base, which was spotted by the opposing

team. So they waited until the play was back in, called for the ball, stepped on second base, and he was out.

Well, obviously Casey Stengel went running out there to complain about this and argued the case up and down and lost, and Throneberry was out. As Stengel went back to the dugout, he passed the first base coach, Cookie Lavagetto, and said, ``Why weren't you out there at least arguing with me?'' And Cookie looked at him and said, ``Because he missed first base, too.'' And that was the end of the discussion.

Now, eventually, the management was able to take the amazing '62 Mets and turn them into the miracle '69 Mets that were the world champions. But the administration of the Mets had to do some fancy work to do that.

The situation we have right now is where we have an administration in this country that is doing that same kind of work that the Mets leadership did, except in reverse. We are going from the '69 Mets back to the '62 Mets, an administration that took over the best defense, the best military in the world and is, bit by bit, pulling it down to the form of mediocrity, even to the level of the '62 amazing New York Mets.

We have faced three potential cuts to the military. With the first one, then-Secretary of Defense Gates said, If you go beyond this first $600 billion cut, it could have devastating effects. This administration took a second cut beyond it, and now what the gentleman from Texas is talking about is the potential for a third cut to the military.

Now, what has been the net effect of this administration's efforts on behalf of defense altogether? Well, for the first time, there are 50 major defense programs that have been canceled. This is the first time there is not a single aircraft modernization going on in this country. And if you consider the fact that modernization takes between 10 and 20 years to effect, that means regardless of what happens in November, this country is without a new modernization program for our aircraft for at least two decades after President Obama leaves the White House.

We were spending 4 percent of our GDP on military before this President came in. We're now down to 2.5 percent. That is the percent we have been complaining about our allies in Europe spending, and that compares to 6 percent under Reagan, 10 percent under Kennedy, 12 percent during Korea, 35 percent during World War II.

We have platforms in our military that are over 25 years of age and are not getting any younger. We have the smallest Army since World War II. We have the smallest Navy since World War I. In World War II, we had over 6,000 ships; today, we have 280.

We will have the smallest Air Force ever. Several years ago, two of our F-15Cs literally broke in flight and two F-18s caught fire while on the aircraft carrier. Our A-10 Warthogs have cracks in the fuselage. We only have one fifth-generation fighter in production while the Chinese and the Russians have a combined 12 fighter and bomber lines open for business.

We are moving the defense of this country backwards into an area that is frighteningly fearful. We are going from the '69 to the '62 Mets when we should be trying to go in the opposite direction, and that's what happens before sequestration goes into effect.

If, indeed, we add the sequestration--a third cut on top of the other two--we will do what the Secretary of Defense has said: We will hollow out our military. We will put our defense at danger--not just the defense of this country but, as was previously mentioned, the jobs that are in the private sector--the military base, the industrial base that help us defend ourselves, and we will take away from the table the potential of foreign affairs options that we have.

Our ability two decades from today to conduct foreign policy is dependent on the decisions we make now to define and have an adequate military backup for what we need to do. These are the decisions we need to be making, and it is essential that we recognize what we are doing now is wrong.

To change and reverse our defense cuts even for 1 year would take $109 billion. But, oddly enough, that is 1 month of borrowing that is being done by this administration.

We can't afford this sequestration as a country. And I find it sad that the President of the United States will actually say that he will veto any effort to get rid of these automatic spending cuts, using the defense of this country as a hostage in a high-stakes battle with Congress over what our future tax policy will be. That is not what a good administration should be doing. That is not what this country needs. We need to do something different.

I appreciate the gentleman from Texas allowing me to rant a little on this particular issue. This is important to every American. This affects not just what we're doing today but what happens two decades from this day, when we are probably long gone from this body.

I thank the gentleman again, and I would just like to reiterate a couple of things that he has said and build on those points that are there. It is extremely important to realize that we are about the people's business, and we are doing the constitutionally required things that a Congress ought to do.

You know, we all say that it is significant, that we do have a problem with our budget. Which is true. We all recognize that. But there are certain core constitutional responsibilities that were given by the Founding Fathers to Congress to make sure that we maintained those responsibilities in those areas. The Constitution tells us that we have the responsibility to promote general welfare, which is nice. We probably don't understand what they meant by general welfare anymore, but we are to promote it. But we have the obligation to provide for the common defense. And that verb differentiation was not done by accident by those who wrote the Constitution. It is the mandate that this Congress has to provide for the common defense, not simply because it's a fun thing to do, but because it defends this country, and it provides our ability to do foreign policy in the future as well as providing some jobs for people who are necessary to make sure that this happens.

I reiterate what we said earlier. This sequestration is not a simple decrease or cut to the military. It would be the third major cut to the military. Remember, we cut, number one, $600 billion, at which time the Secretary of Defense said you cannot go much more than that. And then this administration put another cut, number two, of $400 billion. And now if sequestration were to go through, were the President to follow through on his threat to veto any legislation that would stop the sequestration, it would be cut number three of an additional $600 billion. And that is what everybody who works with the system says would destroy and hollow out our military, and we would be in violation of our constitutional obligations to provide for the common defense.

Now, I am actually fairly proud of the House. We have on several occasions sent legislation over to the Senate that would stop this process and make sure that this core constitutional responsibility we have is actually fulfilled by Congress and we do not let this cut number three, sequestration, go into effect.

Right now, they are sitting on Senator Reid's desk. He needs to take up the responsibility of putting those to a vote and passing that legislation and putting this on the desk of the President, who needs to take up his responsibility as Commander in Chief and pass those bills and make sure that these devastating cuts, which as the gentleman from Texas quite correctly said, would hollow out our military, would be devastating to our military posture, not just for today, but for decades to come; make sure that those do not go into effect and those are properly signed by the President and properly passed by Congress.

The House has done our share. The House has done our responsibility. I need to call upon the Senate now to pick up the mantle and do their part of this effort to make sure that we defend this country, as we ought to.

I'm just grateful to the gentleman from Texas for actually broaching this issue. Jobs are important, but it's not just jobs for the sake of creating a job. This is a job that is essential for the defense of this country. This is our constitutional responsibility, and we need to take that seriously.

Sequestration is basically, as you said I think at the very beginning, it's not what was planned here; it just kind of happened. It was a failed policy that happened. Now is the time to actually become adults about this and recognize that sequestration will not only destroy jobs, but it will destroy the defense of this country; and our responsibility is to make sure we defend this country and give every capability that when we send somebody into harm's way they have the equipment that is necessary to make sure they come back successfully.

We don't want a fair fight. We want America to have the best equipment, and that flat out won't happen if we go through this big cut number three that we call ``sequestration.''

I thank the gentleman for allowing me to say something about this important issue, and I thank you for bringing it to the attention of the American people, sir.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 47 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, August 1, 2012, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 726 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

This resolution provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 4402, which is the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production 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, and makes in order seven specific amendments out of ten which were filed at the Rules Committee. Five of the seven are Democratic amendments and two are Republican. So this is a fair and generous rule and will provide for a balanced and open debate on the merits of this important piece of legislation.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House today in support of this rule, and especially the underlying legislation, which is H.R. 4402, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act of 2012.

I appreciate the hard work of the bill's chief sponsor, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei), who understands this situation very well and has put a great deal of time and effort into coming up with a rational and legitimate solution to a problem which we face. Mr. Amodei, as well as the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), are to be commended in forwarding this bill to the full House for our consideration today.

Our Nation has been blessed with tremendous natural resources, and over the last century these abundant resources are one of the key reasons that has allowed our Nation to emerge as a leading world economic and industrial power. In many aspects, we have only scratched the surface with regard to the development of these abundant natural resources, whether it be in energy, such as coal or oil shale or natural gas deposits, or whether it be in various natural minerals.

One of the cornerstones of manufacturing in the United States includes the access to a stable and steady supply of these types of resources. Unfortunately, in recent decades, much of the development and mining of these domestic mineral resources has been hampered or shut down entirely by a combination of special-interest politics by certain self-appointed environmental groups and by bureaucratic red tape here in Washington. Often these two factors seem to go hand in hand, particularly under the current administration.

We have all felt the pain of seeing what these failed policies have done to energy production in our country. We are more dependent than ever on foreign sources, increasing our trade imbalance, sending our dollars overseas, often to areas of the world that do not have our best interests at heart. It has led to escalating gas prices and escalating price spikes for energy and other commodities, and has made our economy more vulnerable to external international forces largely beyond our immediate control. These failed policies have also led to job losses in the United States in the energy and mining sector, which historically and ironically have been some of the highest paying jobs that middle class work has available.

The bureaucratic delays and regulations regarding the mining of strategic and critical minerals is the exact same

thing. By their very nature, these minerals are absolutely essential to manufacturing in electronics, metal alloys, ceramics, glass, magnets, and catalysts used in countless commercial and, especially, defense applications.

Procurement of certain strategic and critical minerals is so crucial that the Department of Defense and the Defense Logistics Agency manage stockpiles of such materials which are deemed so critical that an adequate supply must be maintained at all times to ensure national military preparedness and readiness.

More and more, we have seen that these materials are unfortunately being purchased from overseas and not from U.S. producers, making us wholly dependent upon other countries to ensure our own national security. Critical weapons visions, such as night vision equipment, advanced lasers, avionics, fighter jet canopies, missile guidance systems, and many, many others could not be built without these rare Earth minerals.

The primary duty of Congress under the Constitution is to provide for the common defense. This bill takes us in the right direction for helping to restore U.S. domestic production of critical and strategic minerals by facilitating a more timely permitting process review for mineral exploration projects and to ensure that such essential mineral mining projects are not delayed unnecessarily by frivolous litigation.

Let me be clear, this bill does not predetermine the outcome of agency review of such permit applications. It merely brings clarity to the process and ensures that the appropriate agencies will not unreasonably delay consideration but will, at the conclusion of 30 months, issue either a ``yes'' or ``no'' decision based on the merits of each individual application.

This bill will also help cut the flow of frivolous lawsuits, which are often filed simply as delay tactics.

It's a good bill. It's a fair rule and a good underlying bill, and I urge its adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), who understands this issue very directly with his experience both on the Resources Committee as well as in his home State of New Mexico.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would stay here a second, I understand from the Congressional Quarterly that it is your birthday today. In which case, to the gentleman from Massachusetts, I wish you a happy birthday.

I appreciate the visual that you had. Unfortunately, as you tried to spin it, we realized it didn't work. So hopefully that is for your birthday party because nothing else works. But I appreciate and I wish you a happy birthday.

I yield the gentleman from Massachusetts 30 seconds.

And as someone with whiter hair than you have, I understand what you're talking about.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), who does indeed have some of these industries in his district and understands full well what this bill is actually attempting to accomplish.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Could I inquire of the gentleman from Colorado how many additional speakers he has.

Then, Madam Speaker, let me yield myself just 1 minute.

To try and put things in parameter of what we're actually doing in this bill, in the sixties to the eighties, the United States was actually the leader in the production of most of these minerals. Today, 97 percent of the rare Earth oil, or 97 percent of the rare Earth oxide, 89 percent of the rare Earth alloy, 75 percent of--I can't pronounce the words--and 60 percent of the small cobalt magnets all come from China. We have lost that to them. The reason for doing that is actually part of bureaucratic delay.

Once again, unlike a lot of comments that have been made about this bill, it doesn't pick winners or losers. It doesn't even change the process. All it does is tell the bureaucracy in Washington to do it, to do it within 30 days, making sure that we have now sped up the process so that we now can do something. Instead of in 7 years, in 4 years, does not help reality. That's the point of this bill. It has nothing to do with other issues. It's only trying to

get the process to be sped up so decisions are made in a timely fashion.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the sponsor of this particular piece of legislation, who will do a couple of things, I hope, as he gets up there. One, he will remind us all that no environmental laws are waived by this process; it's about timing. And, number two, he will clarify that when I said 30 days, I meant 30 months. That's why I don't talk well without a script in front of me.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei), who has clearly understood this issue and put it together.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Great bill, fair rule. I urge adoption.

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

The previous question was ordered.