Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, if, indeed this will be the 31st time we will vote to repeal what is commonly called ObamaCare, that number signifies also the number of job-creating bills this House has passed and sent over to the Senate. It would be nice if the Senate would actually deal on any of those issues to move us forward on all of these concerns.

I do want to speak for just 1 minute here, though, about the concept of the 10th amendment, one of the task forces on which I serve. Everything that we are talking about, there's nothing wrong with helping people provide for themselves. The issue always is where should that decision be made. There's nothing wrong about that at all, but where should it be made.

The brilliance of our Founding Fathers in coming up with federalism was simply the idea of choices should be made by people in the areas in which they can affect themselves.

Massachusetts appears to have a health care system they imposed upon themselves. They like it. That's fine.

It won't work in the State of Utah because we are different. We have far more kids than Massachusetts has. We have a higher percentage of small business. Our solution is not their solution.

The brilliance of federalism is that the people who live in the States and the leaders of the States, they care as much as we do. They also can decide for themselves as much as we do. The other brilliance of federalism is that States can decide to be wrong if they want to without impacting the entire Nation. There are some States that may want to have a robust government involvement and tax themselves to do it. Allow them to do so. There are other areas that want to have a less robust government and tax themselves less. Allow them to do it. Only the States have the ability of becoming efficient, creating justice and creativity in their approaches.

My State of Utah came up with a legislative exchange program that better meets the needs of my State, of the demographics of my State. It is, in my opinion, still a better way of going, but unfortunately, it is stopped by ObamaCare. That is not what we should be doing. Not all great decisions have to emanate from this particular body.

Now, the Supreme Court has said this is a tax. Fine. It must be enforced by the Internal Revenue Service, and we need to realize that there will be 12,000 to 17,000 new employees of the Internal Revenue Service to enforce this provision. Will they be outsourced, as the IRS has done in the past--and does that present problems for it--or will they be funded in-house, which will cost us again?

I appreciate the gentleman for yielding me a few moments here. Truly, this is a unique day. And I'm happy to join my colleagues in talking about this particular issue.

You know, the old cliche is simply, a Supreme Court decision should not be

confused with constitutional principles. Today we had one case brought by States to the Supreme Court. And the administration has always said, This ObamaCare is not a tax. It is not a tax.

Well, the Court said, on five of the nine decisions, Yes, it is a tax. And I guess it's legal if you call it a tax. Four of the nine said not even that's good enough; but, nonetheless, it's a tax.

It's appropriate that we talk about that power of taxing because the most famous of all cases, McCulloch v. Maryland, which was one the major decisions actually made in this particular building, simply said the power to tax is the power to destroy. And we have that in front of us right now.

I don't think we should've expected judges to do what the legislative branch--in this case, Congress--ought do. And I think it's positive that we move forward in this effort to make sure that this program does not go into effect and we take concerns for our constituents and maybe even learn something from it.

The idea of judicial review didn't exist for the first decade and a half of this country. Marbury v. Madison didn't happen until almost 15 years into the country. Washington, in the Constitutional Convention, also thought the veto should be what determined constitutionality, kind of executive review, and Jefferson always said there should be legislative review.

So I think perhaps our Founding Fathers thought all branches should be involved in that kind of concept. And I think there should be a fourth one added to it, which is the States at the same time, who started this process of going to the courts. But we don't come on this floor often and quote anti-Federalists because they lost. However, I want to today, because even though they were wrong on the Constitution, every once in a while they were right on some of the concepts.

So in the ``17th Letter from a Federalist Farmer,'' written either by Melancthon Smith or one of the Lees of Virginia--no one really knows who actually did it--he talked about this idea that the States, if we have the concept of federalism, should have some power to do some real things. He simply said:

I have often heard it observed that our people are well

informed and will not submit to oppressive governments, that

the State governments will be ready advocates. But of what

avail will these circumstances be if the State governments,

thus allowed to be guardians of the people, possess no kind

of power to stop the laws of Congress injurious to the

people?

One of the things they quickly said is States really don't have the concept or the power to actually involve themselves in this particular issue. There are some concepts that are out there. The repeal amendment, which is proposed by some legal scholars and has been proposed by some State organizations, would actually give a tool for States to be involved in this discussion because it impacts those States. Right now, they simply have to accept what takes place here in the rarified air by the Potomac River.

But, indeed, if we gave the States a tool so if enough States were to ban together to say, No, we disagree with this rule, we disagree with this regulation, we disagree with this law, we even disagree with this Supreme Court decision, the States would have the ability to add a new check and a new balance to make sure that the common people of this country have some kind of voice in these decisions.

I think one of the things we should learn from today's decision is that we desperately need another check and balance in our process to make federalism a realistic and real term, and that means to involve the States in giving them some powers to have real decisions, not so they have to come to us as they have so far, begging, but so they can actually have a say. I think we would be better off as a Nation if we did it.

This decision today, if nothing more, should add a resolve for us to solve a political problem politically, to do it here in the Halls of Congress, but maybe add another player in this process--the States--so they also have a say in this power to tax, which is the power to destroy.

I realize we're coming close to time. I want to give my good friend from Georgia the chance of giving the final word on this particular issue, and I appreciate his efforts to organize this opportunity to talk about what has happened today.

I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee.

I guess I, as well as others, are here today to plead the 10th Amendment. You see, texting while driving is dangerous, and it should be stopped. Careless driving of any form is dangerous, and it should be stopped. We should be grateful for every effort to educate our drivers as to the significance of this particular effort, but the question has to be: Are the efforts only to be done in this particular body?

A driver's license is a State certificate. Driving is a State privilege. And even though Congress has, in the past, overstepped our responsibility in involving ourselves in these areas--and that was wrong--that is certainly not justification for continuing that practice ever forward. The Commerce Clause does not necessarily expand to this area. The Senators, in their wisdom, have included a provision in there dealing with this issue. It's a noble concept. It's a worthy goal.

The approval or disapproval of texting while driving is not the issue. The issue is not should it happen; the issue is who, at which level, should decide if it happens and what the consequences should be.

The issue is, are we the only ones who have the opportunity of breathing the air of the Potomac River, the only ones smart enough to be involved in this issue, the only ones compassionate enough to be involved in this issue. I would contend to you that those who are in our States are equally competent to handle this issue.

It's been mentioned, 39 States already outlaw texting. Ten outlaw any kind of a handheld communication while driving. Thirty-two States ban all sorts of these efforts with novice drivers. My State of Utah has moved forward in this particular area. And yet the Senate has now put in $79 million to incentivize States to do what they're already doing.

We tried to pass a balanced budget amendment on this floor. It failed and I felt sad about that; but I realized also we can accomplish the exact same goals if we respect federalism, which, of course, was reinforced in the 10th Amendment. Federalism simply would require the Federal Government to concentrate on the core constitutional responsibilities given to us in that document and allow the States the flexibility to solve the other problems.

States do not have the kind of restrictions established in the Constitution that we have. States can be far more creative than a one- size-fits-all program from Washington. States can be much more effective in the way they run their programs. States can actually apply justice to unique circumstances within their State borders. That can never be accomplished by Washington. Our only ability is to make sure that everything is uniform. We can accomplish the same goal if we respect the authority of States.

$79 million is a high price to pay for the arrogance that only we here in Washington can do things well. The States are doing it. Not everything has to be ordained, funded, and controlled by those who sit on this floor. The States have every competence, every ability. We should support the 10th Amendment and recognize the States should do this. They will do a better job than we.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 691 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 that, 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 also ask that all Members may have 5 legislative days during which they may revise and extend their remarks.

This resolution provides for a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 4480, the Strategic Energy Production Act of 2012, and it makes in order 27 individual amendments that are specified under the rule, two-thirds of which are Democrat amendments.

The rule provides for 2 hours of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of both the Committee on Energy and Commerce as well as the Committee on Natural Resources. So this structured rule is very fair, and it will provide for a balanced and open debate on the merits of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I'm actually pleased to stand before the House today in support of this rule as well as the underlying legislation, H.R. 4480. The lead sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner), is to be commended for his hard work and leadership in putting this piece of legislation together. I also commend the chairmen of both the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Natural Resources Committee for their support and hard work, as well, on this particular act and on other important pieces of legislation aimed at making our Nation more energy independent.

Madam Speaker, this bill is yet another reminder that this administration is not doing enough to develop our own domestic energy resources, which are plentiful in many parts of our public lands. In my home State of Utah, for example, there are vast amounts of oil and oil shale reserves that remain untapped, largely due to special interest group politics that keeps these lands locked up, even as we go abroad and increase our dependence on foreign sources as well as increasing our trade deficit.

Energy is an absolute prerequisite to our economic engine and creates jobs. If this administration ever hopes to get unemployment down during its tenure, then helping to develop more domestic energy is the key.

This bill, H.R. 4480, stands for a very commonsense proposition. The proposition is that, whenever the President of the United States authorizes a release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the Secretary of Energy will be required to develop a plan to increase the percentage of Federal land oil production by a commensurate percentage to that released from the reserve. The reserve is a reserve. It is reserved for emergencies. Unfortunately, this administration is using our reserve to accommodate common daily life.

It is important and the purpose of this legislation is:

Number one, to develop our resources;

Number two, to make sure that we can streamline the process so that we do not delay the development of our resources;

Number three, to keep the reserve for real emergencies;

Number four, organize a plan to make sure that will be in effect; and

Number five, recognize clearly that energy is needed for job creation. Without that energy, we will not create the jobs that are necessary for this country to move forward.

This bill would actually limit the total amount of Federal lands to be leased, which is only 10 percent of the total of all public lands. Ten percent is very reasonable. The bill also excludes national parks, obviously, and congressionally designated wilderness areas from consideration of this bill.

It's a good bill. It's a commonsense bill. When passed, it will be a key part of our effective and comprehensive national energy strategy.

I urge adoption of the rule, which is a fair rule, and the underlying bill, which is a commonsense bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Berg), the gentleman whose home State has provided a program of death and destruction which has led to a 3 percent or less unemployment rate, through jobs in energy production.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany, a State that truly understands what it means to have an all-of-the-above policy for energy production, and what energy means to job creation.

I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to a Member who is really a great and wonderful Member of this body, the gentlelady from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Chairman Hall, who has probably heard many of these arguments before.

Ironically, I do agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts in one element of what he said, that this administration, President Obama, is drilling on permits that were granted by Bush and Clinton. The unfortunate side is that this administration is not permitting any new drilling permits for the future growth of this country.

With that, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) who has been working diligently for many years on this particular issue and has a clear understanding of it.

I yield the gentlewoman 1 minute.

I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin).

I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to another member of the Resources Committee here who understands this issue very well, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

I reserve the balance of my time.

No; I think I'm it.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

In the 111th Congress, when the other side was in charge, H.R. 2454 was brought forth from the floor. It was called the American Clean Energy and Security Act. There were 224 amendments submitted, and one was made in order. In our bill today, 27 amendments are made in order, two-thirds of which are Democrat amendments. This is a very fair rule, and it will provide for an open and clear debate on the particular issue.

Let's face it, Madam Speaker. The United States has a lot of untapped areas on public lands that are involved not only in oil and oil shale but in natural gas and coal. We are an energy-rich country. We are an energy-producing country. It's about time we recognized that fact and developed the energy that we have for the betterment of our people and for job creation.

We need an all-of-the-above strategy that is not just a rhetorical exercise in an election year but an all-of-the-above strategy that, actually, really creates something without hidden delays disguised as procedural practices and processes.

This bill will create jobs. This bill will keep American dollars at home. This bill will provide economic growth instead of sending our money abroad. This is a good bill, and it is an incredibly fair rule. I urge its adoption.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 688 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter), with also a congratulations and a welcome back to the gentlelady from New York, who has been incapacitated for a while. It is nice to see her back on the floor with her health starting to recover.

Pending that, 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 also ask, Madam Speaker, that all Members may have 5 legislative days during which they may revise and extend their remarks.

This particular resolution provides for a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 2578, the Conservation and Economic Growth Act, which contains 14 titles containing important legislation impacting our Nation's public lands and our national parks.

The rule provides for 90 minutes of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources and makes in order the vast majority of amendments which were filed at the Rules Committee. So this structured rule is extremely fair and will provide for a balanced and open debate on the merits of this particular bill.

It was only a couple of Congresses ago, Madam Speaker, in which the Senate sent over an omnibus bill. It had over 100 particular bills added to it. I should have been happy. Three of them were mine. And even though mine were really great bills, some of the rest of them were really bad. That was 1,200 pages. But what was most egregious about that bill that was sent from the Senate is that 75 of those 100 bills had not had any hearing whatsoever in the House. One in particular that dealt with my State, although not my district, not only had not had a hearing in the House, it hadn't even had a hearing in the Senate when it was put into this pile, and it was brought to the floor under a closed rule.

This bill, every single title has gone through regular order. The committee of jurisdiction has had a hearing on each of these elements. They have had a debate in full committee on each of these sections, and they have had a markup on every one of these bills. The committee has heard and has done the work. The amendments that were germane to the issue and were not assigned to other committees were made in order to be heard on the floor.

So once again, this is a bill that is unique in the spectrum of traditional omnibus bills, tying things together, because it did go through regular order, the committee did hear each of these provisions, and it is appropriate to now send it over to the Senate so they can try to consider something at some time in some form of regular order.

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

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

Within this bill, there are, as I said, several proposals that are there, all of them dealing with Federal lands and all of them dealing with overreach that has taken place, unfortunately, by this administration. Let me just highlight a couple of them and why these bills are useful and very much important.

Title X of this particular section deals with Cape Hatteras in North Carolina. Cape Hatteras in North Carolina was established as a recreation area. In fact, the economy of that particular county, Dare County, was established as a recreation zone and a recreation area. Authorized in 1937, that's still 30,000 acres for recreation purposes.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service started in negotiations with the community of how they would actually try to manage that land, especially governing off-road vehicles. They established certain restrictions that would limit visitation.

And for local residents who were there, the residents agreed to those, even though they weren't really quite happy about it. And everything was going well until special interest groups started the litigation process.

You see, the Fish and Wildlife Service had issued a biological opinion finding that this interim management strategy that was established in the cooperative, collaborative process had indeed solved the problem and that there would never be any kind of jeopardy to any endangered species listed in that particular area. Everything was going well until, once again, there was a lawsuit.

A year after this agreement had been made, there was a lawsuit which this administration, unfortunately, decided to negotiate out of court. The lawsuit was never actually adjudicated. No judge made a decision. Basically, the administration caved to the special interest groups; and they rewrote the opinion that had been ruled by the Fish and Wildlife Service, their biological opinion that it did not jeopardize any endangered species.

So that went into effect. And, unfortunately, in March of this year, they even shrank the rule again to make it even more restrictive than the consent decree that had been settled out of court.

What this bill, this section of this particular bill, does in Cape Hatteras is do what's logical. It goes back to the original concern, the original land management plan that was done with the cooperation of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the local constituents that had been agreed upon, that had nothing to do with endangered species and did not jeopardize anything, simply going back to what had been done before the administration decided simply to cave in to special interest groups and settled out of court.

There's another section, I believe it's section 11, that deals with grazing rights. One of the things that businesses deal with, especially those that deal with grazing rights, is they need a constant to make sure that business is not uncertain. That is a most significant part.

One of the things we're finding out right now, though, is with grazing, especially in the West, excessive paperwork within the Department means we create missed deadlines that cause environmental litigation. And once again, stability is a constant that is necessary in business, and grazing is a business. It's one of those problems that to redo a permit to allow grazing will take 4 to 7 years for a permit that's only 10 years in the first place.

What this bill does is say those permits now go from 10 to 20 years, once again, to give some consistency to those who are engaged in grazing activities. It also codifies appropriation language that has had bipartisan support for over a decade and makes sure that NEPA review in crossing and trailing of livestock on public lands is not going to be subjected to another layer of red tape.

This industry puts $1.4 billion into our economy every year. And if, indeed, we do not treat our ranchers well, the 22,000 ranchers who have these Federal permits, the ability of maintaining this as a viable occupation is put in jeopardy. This amendment, this section fixes that. It solves that problem.

There are some other good ones. In fact, the one that I am proposing I will talk about in a minute. But for now, let me simply reserve the balance of my time.

Once again, I appreciate the opportunity of talking about a couple of other elements in this bill. I appreciate the gentleman from Texas and his comments.

Unfortunately, yes, the study was taken out because it would be a replication of what has already been done; and the land that could be used to expand this is already in the public domain. And what we are simply saying with this particular bill is, no, we don't need to try and force private property owners to sell their lands. If they want to donate it, that's fine. It's not essential to the expansion of this particular park. I think it's the appropriate thing to do.

Let me, though, Madam Speaker, if I could, talk about the other provision,

title XIV in there, which deals with our border security. It's one of those things that I happen to think fairly significant.

If I could start with just a few charts so that people understand what is going on. This chart is simply the division of this country by Border Patrol sections. You'll find out that certain sections have a lot more people coming into this country illegally than other sections.

For 2009 and 2010--those are the last 2 years for which we have full data--there were about a half million people that were illegally apprehended, just apprehended coming into this country. But of those half million, a quarter million, 51 percent or more, were coming through one sector which happens to be the Tucson, Arizona sector. That's not even the entire State of Arizona.

So the question has to be asked, why are 200,000-plus people being apprehended in Arizona when in Maine it looks like about 39 people were apprehended? Why is this area the entrance of choice?

I think it's undeniably that one of the reasons is simply because of the territory on that southern border. Everything in red on this border is land that is owned by the Federal Government. You'll see that 80 percent of Arizona is Federal land, much of that being wilderness and endangered species habitat or conservation rights-of-way.

One of the ironies is our Border Patrol, which is tasked with securing our border, has almost unlimited rights to do what they need to do to protect our border on private property and no one objects to it, which is why the statement of the gentlelady from New York is somewhat disingenuous, because most of her district is, indeed, private property. Border Patrol already has these kinds of options.

It is only on Federal property that the Federal Border Patrol is prohibited from doing its Federal job, and that seems bizarre and, indeed, unusual.

See, this is what the border actually looks like. That's the fence, and that's the one road that the Border Patrol is allowed to use if this happens to be a Federal wilderness designation. The break in the fence, by the way, happens to be there so that animals can go freely from Mexico into the United States and back and forth. I think I could contend that not only animals are using that kind of break in the fence.

Needless to say, the issue at hand simply is: Why is the Border Patrol prohibited from going into certain Federal areas when they need to do it even though the bad guys--the drug cartels, the human traffickers, the kidnapping rings, the prostitution rings--are allowed to go in there?

We have in these Federal wilderness areas 8,000 miles of illegal roads, created by illegal drug traffickers, going into this area, and the Border Patrol by our rules and regulations and laws is prohibited from going into that same area. Is it right that they, in hot pursuit, should have to go to the edge of one of those wilderness areas and then have to wait? Indeed, that is what has happened.

Secretary Napolitano, when she was first put in there, simply said:

One of the issues is, at the Southwest border, it can be

detrimental to the effective accomplishment of our mission.

In fact, it may be inadvisable for officers' safety to wait

for the arrival of horses for pursuit purposes or to attempt

to apprehend smuggling vehicles within wilderness with less

than capable forms of transportation.

The Border Patrol clearly recognizes this. They actually tell us they don't need more money, that they don't need more manpower. What they need is access into that area, which currently they are denied. Let me show you how that works.

This is simply one of the sensors that's used. Instead of having an actual fence, you use the sensor. It's a truck with a sensor on the back of it. In this Federal national monument, which is almost all wilderness designation, the Border Patrol wanted to move this truck from point A to point B. It took the land manager 3 months to grant approval to back up the truck and move it to some other place. During that 3 months, there was a 7-mile blackout area in which there was no surveillance possible. At the end of that 7 months, if the land manager had said, ``No, that area is too sensitive. I don't think you should go there,'' I would have objected, but I would have understood. Unfortunately, after 3 months of review, he let them move the truck, and it was too late to do it then.

That kind of example of what is happening on our border is replicated time and time again. Let me give you some examples.

In 2007, the Border Patrol asked permission to improve two forest roads in the Coronado National Forest, a total of 4 or 5 miles on the border at the edge of this area. They wanted to be able to move their mobile surveillance systems to higher ground to actually get control of the particular area. They would use the road at most once a day, but the Fish and Wildlife Service delayed the decision because they were afraid some of the dirt may eventually get into one of the streams in the particular area. The net result is, in 2011, permission still not being granted in this particular area, a catastrophic wildfire burned 68,000 acres. Three illegal aliens were arrested, and one admitted actually starting the blaze.

In 2010, the Border Patrol requested three helicopter landing sites in the Miller Peak Wilderness. The Forest Service liked the idea because they could use those sites also for fire suppression. Once again, the Fish and Wildlife Service, a competing agency, had concerns because it would have an impact on the Mexican Spotted Owl. Unfortunately, when they did a survey, they found that there were no spotted owls in the area. Nonetheless, the Fish and Wildlife Service stopped the construction of those helicopter pads. Then in 2011--you guessed it--1 year later, a 32,000-acre fire, which destroyed dozens of homes, took place. Once again, it was found that illegals coming into this country started those fires.

The citizens of Tombstone, Arizona, are allowed to go five at a time with hand tools into these wilderness areas in order to repair the pipeline, which supplies water to the city, that was damaged in these fires. Once again, the Fish and Wildlife Service said the Mexican Spotted Owl was the reason for those limitations.

GAO did a survey, a report: 17 of the 26 Border Patrol stations experienced delays, and 14 of those 17 reported being unable to obtain permits or permission from land managers to use it. Stations that were found in California, Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico confirmed that they were unable to control the border due to land management positions. Even on the northern border, in the Spokane sector, they found, once again, they were being blocked from existing roads on national forest land due to environmental concerns.

The GAO report found that it could take 6 months or more for permission to improve roads needed for patrolling in New Mexico. Another Border Patrol station reported 8 months in delay for the permission to move a sensor as the land manager required an historic property assessment. A station in California reported that it took 9 months for permission to do road maintenance on Federal land.

These are the factors that are inhibiting our Border Patrol from doing their job.

Now, in the GAO report--and some people look at the executive summary, and they are looking at it improperly--it said that 22 of the 26 agents in charge reported that the overall security status had not been affected. What that meant was their status of being a controlled sector, a managed sector, or a monitored sector had not been changed; but what they did say is they were being inhibited and impeded in doing their job to try and control our particular borders.

Look, those who are coming in--the drug cartels, the human traffickers--they don't care about our laws. This is an endangered species. This cactus was cut down, but it was cut down by the drug cartel to do a roadblock across a public road in the United States so they could use it to stop cars and then mug the participants of those cars, and this is whether in those cars were Americans or other foreign nationals coming in there.

What is probably worst of all are the rape trees that are taking place--violence against women who are coming

down on American land in these areas. That simply means, as the coyotes lead these women across the border, at the end of that road, as the final payment, they will rape the women and then leave an article of clothing on one of the trees as a trophy for their actions.

This heinous activity taking place on American land is not being prohibited now and will not be prohibited unless the Border Patrol is allowed to maintain access on this property. That's why this bill, this section, is so essential. It is the war on women.

We had 19 people in the month of May of this year who died in the Tucson sector alone. Unfortunately, that is an increase from what happened a year ago in May. We need to end this problem. There are three reasons why this section is important:

One, sovereign countries control their borders. We need to be able to say we control our borders.

Two, I want to see a comprehensive immigration package go forward, but every time I hold a public town hall meeting, I know the first question that will be asked of me, which is: When will we control the border? There is a great deal of anger and anxiety out there, and it is very clear that we will never get consensus for other immigration reforms to take place until we have first reduced the anger and anxiety.

C.S. Lewis said, You do first things first, and second things will be added to it. If you do second things first, you will accomplish neither first nor second things.

This administration seems to be intent on trying to do, for whatever political purpose it may have, second things first. The first thing is to control the border. When we can truly look with an honest answer in the eye of our fellow citizens and say, ``America's borders are secure,'' then there will be a reduction in the anger and the anxiety that will allow us to move forward.

Three, we have to stop the violence against women. These rapes that take place on rape trees on American property--on Federal land on American property--because the Border Patrol does not have access to this area to patrol it effectively must stop. It's our duty and obligation to make that stop.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Once again, Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from California's comments, although I'm going to have to push back slightly on a few of those, if it's at all possible.

This particular bill deals with 100 miles from the border simply because that is the legal definition of border land by both statute and judicial decree. It does not deal with coastal areas. In the committee, those areas were taken out because it is maritime area. The Border Patrol deals only with land borders and those particular areas.

The 36 rules that are waivable is precedent established by this Congress. In California, where the gentleman resides, when they wanted to finish the fence and it was being withheld by certain kinds of litigation, Homeland Security came up with 36 specific rules and regulations they wanted to be able to waive so they could do it. That was the precedent. The rules and regulations that are in this particular bill that's now title 15 are the exact same 36. That's where the precedent comes. That's why Homeland Security wanted that time to finish their job. That's what they needed this time.

However, I'm also making an amendment to this bill that will reduce those 36 because, to be honest, some of those never really were a problem. It will reduce it now to the 12 that the Border Patrol thinks are the most egregious. But there is precedent for that particular thing. All we are doing is trying to give the Border Patrol the same rights on Federal lands that they currently have on private property. There is no expansion of power and no expansion of jurisdiction. It's the ability to say our number one goal is to have border security; and if there is a rule or regulation getting in the way--and there are according to the GAO reports--those should be waived for the purpose of border security. That's the whole purpose. We're not expanding a power. We're not taking anything more than that in particular away.

With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), who would like to speak about this particular rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I appreciate the efforts of my namesake from New York. I appreciate what he is doing. Chairman Hastings of the Resources Committee was extremely specific in which he said that after the Democrat Senate had sent over that atrocious omnibus bill with over 100 bills cobbled together, 75 of which have never had a hearing over here, we would only put together this type of regulation if it had gone through regular order. Unfortunately, the gentleman's bill has not had a hearing in any committee. It has not actually been reported yet, which is one of the reasons why it has not been included in this particular list. Although I'm not denigrating his efforts whatsoever.

I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

I appreciate many of the comments that have been made here. I'm glad the gentleman from Colorado is still here, because in the memo of understanding which controls what the Border Patrol does, Border Patrol is able to go anywhere they want to on foot or horseback. They may go on a motorized vehicle on existing public administrative roads. But there is nothing in the memo of understanding that extends there to prevent them unless it is an existing exigent emergency. And the problem the Border Patrol actually has is no one really knows how to define exigent emergencies. That's one of the reasons why they want to have something specific in the memo of understanding--nor the statute does not help them in those particular areas--because, indeed, land managers have handled those exigent circumstances differently.

I would like to say one other thing as well, because there are some places in this Nation in which the idea of title XIV in this bill, which is the bill that deals with border security, has been expanded with information that is simply inaccurate. Montana, for example, has a 545-mile border with Canada. It has different issues than the southern border--but it's not numbers--but it is remote, and who can cross that border illegally is significant.

The junior Senator from Montana actually asked the GAO to come up with a study on border security in the North, and the report was only 1 percent of the northern border is secure. That was his study that he wanted. Despite the fact that the Missoulian has warned about al-Qaeda plots in Montana, that the Border Patrol chief from Montana has begged some kind of action--indeed, this month the Border Patrol has sent out a warning of the use of terrorists who are talking about--chatter abusing wildfires as an area to distract so they can come in entrance, and one of the States they specifically mentioned was Montana.

Even though that is taking place, there is a campaign going on where this particular issue, border security, has been hijacked in the name of politics. And only because it is my idea that's being the center of this, I find that somewhat unusual, somewhat offensive. It is an effort to say that this effort to try to control our borders is related in some way to the PATRIOT Act or the REAL ID Act or, indeed, that it deals with some other element of expansion of power. Some people have gone as far as saying it is a land grab.

It is unusual to me that this concept of border security was presented in the Senate on an appropriations bill and was passed by a voice vote. Then the bill in which this amendment was placed was then passed by the Senate, and the junior Senator from Montana did not object to the voice vote and actually voted for it and now claims that this same idea is an expansion of government power, thus, something not work.

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

What I also found somewhat distressing is that in this campaign in Montana there is another group called Montana Hunters and Anglers, who, unfortunately, are simply a partisan hit group that are taking out ads directly against this particular provision and saying that other members in the delegation from Montana are supporting something that is wrong. Unfortunately, the members of that hit group have ties to Democrat organizations. The secretary is part of the Obama Committee in the State of Montana. The treasurer is a former Democratic staffer up there.

This group, the Montana Hunters and Anglers, are a faux group. The real supporters of this bill are people like the Montana Wool Growers Association, the Montana Association of State Grazing Districts, the Montana Public Lands Council, Montana Stock Growers Association. These are real groups, and they all support this particular provision and this particular bill because they realize the value of border security that takes place. They also realize what Secretary Napolitano recognized: that if you improve border security in the area by removing violators from public lands--those are the people that destroy things-- the land value is enhanced. It is better for Border Patrol if they have enhanced ability to control those particular borders.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time to close.

In my last minute, Madam Speaker, there are a couple of things I would like to say. First of all, I appreciate the words that were read. Unfortunately, reality is different. One of the reasons why this particular provision is supported by the Border Patrol Union as well as the Association of Retired Border Patrol Agents, reality is sometimes different than what we think it should be. And I also have a list of three pages worth of groups who support not only this provision but the other 13 provisions.

I must in closing, though, bid the apology of the gentlelady of New York for one thing. One of the former Parliamentarians wrote a book and said when we put C SPAN cameras in here, everyone started to read their speeches, and our debates became extremely dull. That's true. But when you read something, you don't make a misstatement. I did. I did a couple. My amendment does not reduce it from 36 down to 12; it reduces it from 36 to 16. I also used the ``disingenuine'' in talking about the gentlelady's remarks. That was the wrong word. That was, indeed, the word I said, but it is not what I meant to say, and I apologize for saying that. That goes over the line of comity and I'm sorry, and I just want you to know that I apologize for ``oopsing.'' That should only be done by Governors, not by Members of Congress.

Madam Speaker, in conclusion, each of these bills in here has been heard by the committee of jurisdiction. It's had a hearing. It's had a markup. The difference between this and other bills that we have seen in the past is that everything had to go through regular order first. Nothing was included in this rule that had not gone through regular order through this particular committee.

It's a good bill. It's a good rule. It's 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.

Mr. Chairman, the minority insists that we are creating some sort of drone zone in title XIV. Now, I understand the intent of that is to muddy the waters on what is otherwise a very clear issue. Can I tell you, I like that phrase, I'm going to use it in the future, but it is also as cute as it is totally inaccurate.

Members should understand that this title specifically and intentionally deals with Federal lands on the northern and southern borders. It does not include private property. The use of the size characteristics are as cute as they are inaccurate.

The legislation does not expand the current reach of the Border Patrol. The Border Patrol already has enforcement authority out to 100 miles today. That's why the 100-mile figure is in there.

The gentleman is also late in his authorization of drones. The use of drones is not authorized by this legislation. The fact is the Border Patrol already uses drones, regardless of what the Federal or the land designation happens to be. With passage of this title and this bill, the impact on drone use will be zero. Whether you support drones or are concerned with drones, this bill doesn't address it. Once again, it's cute as it is inaccurate.

This legislation does not increase or create new enforcement authority. It does not limit constitutional rights. The only source of this bill, this title, is to allow the Border Patrol to have on Federal property the same rights they exercise on State and private property.

These lands will still be managed and administered by the Departments of Interior and Agriculture, but border security will no longer be a second to the whims of Federal land managers. It becomes the priority.

The idea of rounding up cattle by the Border Patrol is as cute as it is inaccurate, but I am going to use it because it's cute.

This bill specifically protects legal uses, including recreation, and specifically prohibits the Border Patrol from limiting public access.

Now, some people have said on the other side they object to this operational control of these areas by the Border Patrol.

What does ``operational control'' mean? It's in the title. It is to prevent all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics and other contraband through the international land borders with the United States.

You're actually opposed to that? You're opposed to doing that? You're opposed to actually allowing our Border Patrol to make sure that is the purpose and that is what is happening?

This bill is about giving the Border Patrol access to Federal lands so they can do their Federal responsibility instead of being prohibited from fulfilling their Federal responsibility by certain Federal regulations. That's silly. That's wrong. It's cute, but it's also inaccurate.

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

Mr. Chairman, there are basically four elements that are involved in the amendment that I am proposing. The first one is to narrow the list of laws that can be waived by the Border Patrol on these areas to maintain operational control of the land. Presently, it lists 36 bills that could be waived.

Now I want you to know that that number was not irrational. It was not picked out of the air. Thirty-six bills have precedence of what this House has already done.

When the government was trying to finish the fence in California, there were litigations and environmental laws that were prohibiting them from doing that, so the Department of Homeland Security recommended the 36 laws that they thought did or could impede the building of that particular wall along our border. Congress agreed with them and, for the purpose of concluding that wall, we allowed them to waive those 36 rules, regulations, or laws.

Those are the same 36 in this bill. It's nothing additional to it. Well, I take that back. Democrats add one bill in committee that was not part of the original list, and that was fine as well.

What we are now trying to do is admit that about 20 of those really are not going to be a problem, but 16 still could be. So it limits it from 36 to 16, as those that can be waived for the purpose of allowing Border Patrol and Homeland Security to do the job for which they are paid to do.

The second thing, it specifically prohibits any additional access to private property. It eliminates the possibility of Border Patrol reducing public access to any Federal lands, and that includes for purposes of hunting or fishing or off-road vehicles.

It adds a provision to ensure that we are to protect tribal sovereignty, that nothing in this bill may supersede, replace, negate, or diminish treaty obligations or agreements with Indian tribes. Existing practices and negotiation cooperation between the Border Patrol and the tribes will continue.

It also clarifies what is the purpose of operation control, which is to prevent all unlawful entry into the United States, including entry by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband through the international land borders of the United States.

There are three reasons why this amendment, indeed, the underlying bill is important. Number 1, a sovereign country controls its own borders. We are not doing that here. We need to.

Number 2, we will never solve our overall immigration issue until we can guarantee that we can, in some way, lower the anger and the rage and the anxiety that is out there. If indeed we can look at our fellow citizens and, with a straight face, say we have control of the border, all of a sudden the ability of solving other problems, some of which are easy and some of which are complex, the ability to do that increases.

And third, and most importantly, the violence against women--the women who are raped along these trails, whose garments are left on these trees as a trophy to the coyote who raped these women, these woman who have absolutely no other source to go, they have no one to complain to, they have no one to ask for protection. This must stop.

The Border Patrol can't stop this practice. Right now, what we're doing is simply putting up signs saying areas are off limits to Americans, but that does not stop this practice. And unless we can give the Border Patrol access to this territory so they can stop this practice, we're not doing anything about it. We are not solving this particular issue.

I'll add one more time. We have talked about the ``drone zone'' in here, which is something, once again, it's cute and inaccurate. This amendment has nothing do with the ``drone zone.'' It does not authorize, nor does it stop drones. It doesn't authorize black helicopters or stop them, or red-headed stepchildren, or illegal Druids coming to this country as well.

But what it does do is allow our professional Border Patrol to have the same rights of access to Federal land that they have on private property and State land. And it says that we will control our border, we will solve our immigration problem, and we will stop the rape trees. We will stop this heinous practice from going forward, and we will do it positively. That's the purpose of this amendment to this title of the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I am prepared to close when you are ready to close.

The 36 laws that were originally placed were there when Homeland Security asked for those and when Congress agreed to it. It is the precedent. I am lowering it to 16 out of benefit to you.

I have been on the border. I have been on the border, and I have seen the rape trees. This must stop. I have also been on the border to see there are 48 different organizations that have endorsed the underlying bill, including the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers, the National Border Patrol Council, the local Border Patrol Council in Arizona, and the National Association of Police Organizations. Those who work this realize the importance of this, and that's why they are supporting it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I hope I will not take the 5 minutes of this time.

With all due respect for my good friend from Arizona, for whom I have a great deal of admiration, I would emphasize again that the title of this section is National Security and Federal Lands Protection. It does not extend to any other property except those that belong to the Federal Government on our borders. It has a 5-year limitation on it. There is a sunset provision so it can be reviewed. But more importantly, the elements that are in this particular title are there for a reason, there is precedent for them. One hundred miles is what the legal definition of border land actually is. The 36 laws--I'm ready to go back to those. The 36 laws were the laws that were presented by the Department of Homeland Security as those potential laws that could cause them damage, and this Congress agreed to that precedent. Congress established that they could be waived for that specific purpose.

I want to once again tell you what Secretary Napolitano said about this particular issue of border security when she first came into office: The removal of cross-border violators from public lands is a value to the environment.

You want to protect the environment, get the drug cartels and the human traffickers off of that particular area. It is the removal of those violators from public lands that is a value to the environment, as well as to the mission of the land managers, which is once again the 48 groups that talk about and support this. They come from conservation groups, they come from agriculture groups, but more importantly, they come from the Border Patrol agents themselves. Those are the ones who have come forth and testified that they need special ability of having access to this land if we're going to control the border, which is what a sovereign country does.

Mr. Chairman, this is the word of what their responsibilities are. This is what we have told the Border Patrol they have to do: Prevent all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband through the international land borders

of the United States. That's in this title. That's their job. That's what the Border Patrol has requested to do.

All we need to do is give them the tools they need to be able to accomplish that, tools on Federal land that will mirror the tools they have on private and State lands. Let them do their job. They need access to this area to patrol it and to apprehend the bad guys. Give them that opportunity.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, can I just inquire if there is any time left from either side?

Let me just say once again, I appreciate the arguments that are given.

When I have been on the border and have been able to talk to the people who work on the border about what they need to protect the border, once again they're telling us that they need the access. The ability to waive these law, these rules, these regulations is what we have done in the past. Congress already did it once before. There is precedent. This is not something that is new, but this is what is definitely needed. This is the right thing to do.

I urge you to reject this particular amendment.

And in all fairness, Mr. Chair, I would like to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona so he has a chance to close on his particular amendment.

Will the gentlelady yield?

Yes, Hawaii was taken out in committee. It is not put in with the amendment that was just passed.

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

Mr. Chairman, the Border Patrol does a great job when they are allowed to do a great job. Unfortunately, one of the ironies we have is there are certain areas of access into this country by those who are illegal that seem to be an area of choice, especially of the drug cartels and the human traffickers. There is also an unusual correlation between these areas of access and Federal property which has been designated as wilderness area or endangered species habitat. In fact, in the last year's figures that I have, over half of the illegal entries into this country went through one sector in Arizona. Only a portion of the State of Arizona is 80 percent federally controlled, much of that in wilderness area and endangered species habitat.

Ironically, the Border Patrol is restricted in these areas from the way they can enforce their purpose of patrolling the border. I find that one of the things that's very strange is the Border Patrol, on private property, has almost unlimited ability to do their job in enforcing border security.

It's only on Federal property that the Federal Border Patrol is restricted on how it fulfills its Federal purpose.

Fortunately, the drug cartels and the human trafficking, they don't necessarily care about that restriction. They, for some reason, don't necessarily respect the environmental laws that we have, and the destruction to our environment is caused by them. The trampling of those sensitive areas, pictures of endangered cacti that have been cut down and used by the drug cartels as blockades on the roads, the amount of trash that is left behind is not only destroying the environment, but also an amazingly expensive effort to try and clean it up. I have often flippantly said that the drug cartel would rather eat an endangered species than protect it.

Nonetheless, the Border Patrol is required to pay for environmental mitigation damages. Since 2007, the Department of Homeland Security has used the money we think we are appropriating to Homeland Security, to the amount of $7 million, to go to the Department of the Interior for this proposed mitigation of environmental damages.

Let me give you a couple of examples of what this has bought us in the past. At the Arizona border they had to reposition their surveillance towers, which, of course, did lead to some security gaps in those areas, but it also caused a problem with the lesser long-nosed

bat, which has the nasty habit in evenings of flying into the towers.

So one of the mitigations that was insisted upon by the Department of the Interior is that the Border Patrol had to pay for a bat patrol, costing thousands of dollars, to monitor and track a bat who may, indeed, sometimes fly into a tower.

On the Sonoran pronghorn sheep, over $5 million has been paid in the last decade for the Border Patrol to create another Sonoran pronghorn herd, and to make sure that they have people there to monitor, feed, and avoid the pronghorn. And if they ever come across it, they have to stand really, really still.

Even though this provision has been revoked in recent years, at times some of this money was used by the Department of the Interior to buy land that had nothing to do with border security whatsoever.

My amendment, therefore, takes what is in this proposal, $3 million that has been earmarked for environmental mitigation, and moves it to a more legitimate and deserving use of that activity by taking it to the Air and Marine Interdiction Account to provide money for the Border Patrol to recapitalize their aging fleet.

Almost half of all the airplanes that the Border Patrol has are 33 years or older. This has impeded their operational readiness. These obsolete planes that they have make it unable for them to assist in properly securing the border. GAO, in its report, said in 2010 only 73 percent of the over 38,000 requests for air support could be granted simply because the fleet was aging at that particular time.

What it's simply trying to do here is a very simple concept. The better the Border Patrol is at controlling the border, the better the environment will be on the border. It's not the Border Patrol that causes environmental havoc; it is the drugs cartels and the human traffickers coming across. To take this money, which would go to mitigation, and put it where it is desperately needed, to try and help the infrastructure so the Border Patrol can better do their job, simply means we'll actually have a better environment by doing it.

It's the right thing to do. It would be an appropriate and intelligent thing for us to put the money where it would do the most good, in giving the Border Patrol the infrastructure they need to do their jobs along our borders, both in the North and in the South.

I urge adoption of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4849) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to issue commercial use authorizations to commercial stock operators for operations in designated wilderness within the Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, May 22, 2012; when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. on Friday, May 25, 2012; when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Tuesday, May 29, 2012; and when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Wednesday, May 30, 2012.

Madam Speaker, despite advice to the contrary, our Constitution establishes a government with two sovereigns, the Nation and the individual States. They worried about that in Philadelphia. In fact, James Wilson wondered if this system would be like two meteors on a collision course, the collision of which would be catastrophic, or if this system would be like the solar system where the planets stayed in their sphere and course and did not interfere with one another. That latter vision we call federalism. It is stated in the 10th Amendment where each level of government had a specific and distinct responsibility.

When the States were interfering with the Federal Government, it produced historical catastrophic consequences. But also when the Federal Government interferes with the role of States, the consequences range from being catastrophic to just plain silly. We are now in the silly system.

In 2010, this Congress passed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. We were wrong to pass it for five reasons: number one, it was a Senate bill. That should have been our first tip-off; number two, it was opposed by the National Governors Association; three, it was opposed by the National School Boards Association; four, it violated the Constitution.

You see, the Federal Government's only advantage is that everyone has to do the same thing in the same way at the same time. The Federal Government can impose that. But schools are given to the States because they require creativity, efficiency, and justice.

Finally, number five: we created a one-size-fits-all Federal program not defined by us. We simply passed this grand idea and then gave power to a Secretary in some building here in Washington to come up with some kind of standards.

Two schools in my district have now been hit by those standards. I care about those schools because from one I graduated a long time ago, and the other I taught for 23 years. They were hit with a $16,000 and $19,000 fine respectively. What was the heinous crime for which these fines were levied against the funds that go to help the kids in these schools? During the lunch hour, their vending machines were plugged in. These vending machines were not in the cafeteria. That violated the standards. They were down in a different part of the school. But since the kids walked out of the cafeteria with their lunches and walked down the hallway towards the gym where the vending machines were and there was not a wall, by our standards, to stop them from doing that, the entire school was designated as a cafeteria and the schools were then penalized.

You see, by the standards that were created, if a kid buys a Coke and then takes it to lunch to drink, that's nutritional. But if he buys his lunch first and then goes down to buy a Coke, that is now, by our standards, unhealthy. Snickers by our standards are healthy food; licorice is not. Ice cream is healthy; Swedish Fish are not. Apparently by our standards, anything that could stick to your mouth is not a healthy food. Starbursts are out; Milky Ways are in.

It was wrong for Congress to pass a law without taking the time to establish standards that were rational by ourselves and giving that power to another body. It was wrong for Congress to invade the role of States. It was wrong to punish kids for these silly reasons. It is wrong to violate federalism. If a community school and their PTA wanted to create these standards themselves, fine.

Federalism means people at the local level should be free to create any decisions they want to do, even if those decisions are dumb. It is wrong for this body to think that every issue has to be decided here in this room, and it is wrong for us to forget that the 10th Amendment has a purpose. It is there for a reason. It should be respected.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 661 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Is the gentleman yielding time to me?

Would you like to start the colloquy, because I really don't have the best answer for you right now.

What I suggest is if the gentleman would reserve the balance of his time, let me say what I have to say about this particular issue, and then we can proceed from that point, if that is okay.

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

There are a couple of different levels on which we need to respond. I have the utmost respect for the gentleman from Connecticut, as well as the gentleman from North Carolina, on this issue. I have a great deal of empathy on this issue. There is the technical approach about which this rule deals, as well as the potential of how we can actually solve the problem, and those are two different concepts. I think you alluded to that fact.

The first one, as to the specifics of this, and as I would then obviously claim the time in favor of the consideration of the resolution, the question before the House is: Should the House now consider House Resolution 661? And while the resolution waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute and the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report, the committee is not aware of any points of order and the waivers are prophylactic in nature, which means Chairman McKeon has filed an earmark statement regarding his manager's amendment and the statement we will read at some time in the future.

There is the ability, though, of obviously trying to find a solution to a problem that has developed, whether it is from miscommunication or not. From my position as managing this particular rule, I cannot commit to that. But I am aware, and I am sure that the committee is obviously recognizing the fact that we have multiple steps as we go forward. The Senate still has to produce a piece of work, and it has to go to a conference committee. At any of those steps along the way, there is the opportunity of trying to find a good solution to this particular issue. Though I cannot make a commitment on my part at this time, I think we can talk about that in the future.

And with that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time and see if you want to go any further with this.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Madam Speaker, at this time, I am limited in the kinds of responses I have here. Once again, I appreciate the gentleman from Connecticut bringing this issue up. It is a significant issue. We have a great deal of empathy for this particular issue, and I'm sure that as we go along through the process of this bill, this issue and some others may be able to be worked out in other venues.

At this stage of the game, though, there are certain restrictions procedurally on what we can and cannot do with this particular issue. This issue, as I said, has had the statement by Chairman McKeon as to the amendments. His statement was simply as follows:

The amendments to be offered by Representative McKeon to H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 under rule XXI.

So with that, there are certain restrictions which we have to do procedurally to go forward with this particular piece of legislation, realizing there are other discussions that will take place before we come to a final conclusion. So in order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for the day, I would urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of this resolution so that we can continue on with the 141 amendments that were made in order and then talk about procedurally how to do some others that may be coming down at some other time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

No.

Madam Speaker, for purposes 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 to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, this resolution provides for a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, and provides for the consideration of specific amendments that have been made in order pursuant to the rule.

I'm actually pleased to stand before the House on this one, as well as the underlying base bill, which was approved in a rule yesterday and was debated on this floor. It signifies the hard work of the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. McKeon, as well as the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Smith), and the complex of wide-ranging bills that go to the floor for our consideration or issues.

One of the things that is so nice about this particular issue, bill, and the relationship of this committee is their tradition of working together across the aisle in a bipartisan manner. It was done again this year in committee. I certainly hope that that policy retains itself here on the floor as well.

Much has already been said regarding H.R. 4310. This particular rule now allows amendments to be considered to that.

Realizing that every one of the issues that we will be talking about was handled under regular order in a subcommittee hearing with a subcommittee mark, and then a full committee hearing--which lasted for over 2 days, going way into the early morning hours of the morning--we have now been requested, as the Rules Committee, to consider 240 additional amendments. At some point in the process we need to stop trying to reinvent the wheel at every level and go on with the work that moves us forward to a product. The Rules Committee, in an effort to try and be as open as possible, made in order 141 of the 240 requests. Of those 141, 49 were Republican, but 63 were Democrat amendments and 29 were bipartisan amendments.

It's going to be an open process. And it's going to be a process that will allow for a wide range of debate, some of which--and hopefully all of which--will in some way be directed to the purpose of this bill, which is to provide authorization for the military defense of this country and provide what our military shape will appear to be. There may be some efforts to try and go with other issues that are tangentially related but not directly to the core responsibility of this bill, which is to shape the future of our military. But it is a fair rule and it is a good rule, which makes lots of amendments in order and which makes lots of Democrat amendments in order and bipartisan amendments in order, with also a few Republican amendments in order as well.

With that, as I'm sure we'll have more time to discuss this rule, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, as we discuss the amendments that we've made to a bill whose purpose is to shape the future of our services and how they will function, not necessarily every kind of tangential issue, I would like to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the full Rules Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, at some point, I will make some comments as to the history of what we are trying to do, but I would like to get a few of the other issues before us--which are amendments-- covered before we collapse into what appears to be the direction in which we are going.

Because of that, I would like to yield 3 minutes to one of the members of the Armed Services Committee, who, indeed, is the chairman of one of the subcommittees and who does yeoman's work, especially with our missile defense system, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves).

I yield myself 2 minutes at this time.

I am somewhat perplexed at the idea that what is happening here is not being fair, according to the standards that we've had in the past. This particular rule makes 141 amendments--two-thirds of them Democrat or bipartisan amendments--in order. Last year, the rule made 152 amendments in order. Yet when the other party was in control of this body, on this same bill, they made in order 82, 69, 58, and 50 in each of the 4 years in which they were in control. The idea of tripling the number of bills that are being made in order to be debated on this floor has to be considered as one of those things that's fair.

The issue that supposedly is not allowed--even though it will be debated because there is an amendment, and it will be part of the discussion here--was not totally ignored. In fact, some of the statements that have been made on how we're not talking about this at all--it was addressed in the committee as well. And the committee voted on a bipartisan vote of 56 5.

But this is where I have some difficulty because all I can do is know what I'm reading. And in section 1216 of the bill, it clearly says the United States military should not maintain an indefinite combat mission in Afghanistan and should transition toward a counterterrorism and advise and assist mission at the earliest practical date consistent with conditions on the ground. It's what the committee went through. They talked about it. It was part of the discussion.

It can be part of the discussion in alternative bills other than this particular one, which we have to have if, indeed, you want to fund the military and pay their salaries and pay their health care and provide the shape of the future military. That's what the purpose of this bill is. To say that we are denying any kind of access just does not meet with the reality of what is in the base and what has been done and what will be done in other particular venues.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin), the chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, a person who has worked very hard on this for his entire career here in the House.

Madam Speaker, I urge the gentleman to read page 544 in the base bill to answer his question.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Walsh).

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I said others were coming down here. I do not know whether that happens, so when the gentleman from Massachusetts is ready to close, I will be ready to close at whatever time that is.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of coming down here and presenting the particular rule on the amendments. I take a little bit of umbrage with the idea that the amendment process that we are authorizing in this rule is not necessarily fair. I would remind people that it took 3 years under the prior Speaker before they authorized as many amendments as we are authorizing just this year alone in this particular bill. It's 141 amendments covering a vast variety of issues.

Sometimes I get the impression from some of the comments that were made that we're not going to be talking about Afghanistan; that's sorely wrong. There is an amendment made in order about that issue. It's given twice the amount of time on that issue as any other issue that's before us here. It is there. The debate will take place. The debate will happen. It may not be the actual verbiage or the pride of authorship that some wished, but it will be there.

Indeed, in this hour of discussion, we've talked about that as well, as was done in the Rules Committee, as was done in the base committee. There is a section, page 544, which does talk about the President's proposal in Afghanistan.

One of the things we have to remember is why we're doing this bill at all. This is one of those significant issues. We talk about a lot of stuff on the floor of the House, and we introduce a lot of bills on the floor of the House which have very little to do with our core constitutional responsibilities. This is not one of those.

During the Articles of Confederation time, the United States was in a situation where we had fewer than 800 men in our military capacity. We had no Navy to protect our shipping. Since we had not paid off the Tory debt, we were in breach of the peace treaty that ended the Revolutionary War. Therefore, British troops were on American soil. There were British forts on American soil. There was a military force on our northern border which was threatening us, and the British were plying with impunity weapons to Native Americans who were opposed to the Government of the United States. What the United States could do about it was absolutely nothing. We couldn't do squat.

Therefore, when the Constitution was actually debated, I don't think it is any insignificant issue that over half of the issues and powers granted to Congress in section 8 dealt with the defense of this country. Indeed, the Constitution was in major part about how we defend this country.

This issue before us today, this bill, is on how we shape the military of the future and the military of the present, how we defend this country.

I would remind people that before World War II started, we had made a decision in this country we didn't need fighter jets any more and so we cut production of them. And when the war started, we were unprepared. Our fighter bombers suffered enormous casualties in those first runs in Europe. In fact, we suspended our bombing runs until we could produce the fighters to accompany those bombers that were necessary to protect our young men and women who were fighting in World War II.

We don't have the luxury of being unprepared in the future, and that is the core of this bill. This bill is about talking about the infrastructure that we have for our military so we are prepared for whatever the future may bring.

The base of this bill restores approximately $4 billion in authorization of necessary Department funding that was recommended by the President for deletion.

Sometime ago, Secretary Panetta went on the record publicly saying the possibility of sequestration would hollow out and have catastrophic impacts on the Department of Defense; it must be avoided. We agree. This bill attempts to do that.

Unfortunately, the Secretary pointed the finger at Congress saying that we were to blame for this situation. In all due respect, the Secretary was half right. We share in the situation. And we share the need for a cooperative administration--and very particularly, a cooperative President and Commander in Chief--to fix the immediate threat to our national security that could come back by sequestration. We don't need threats of vetoes and any attempt to roll back the sequestration cuts to the Department of Defense.

This is an alarming situation. Many of us in Congress would encourage Secretary Panetta to communicate the urgency of this need to his boss, the President, and try to persuade him not to oppose what we are attempting to do in this particular piece of legislation.

We have some military construction replacement projects that were needed yesterday and are being deferred year after year--pushed so far into the future as to render them meaningless. We can no longer make those kinds of mistakes as we did prior to World War II.

Our ICBM fleet will be aging out in the next 12 to 15 years; and as of yet we do not have an adequate replacement policy, nor have we provided the research and development funding needed to a follow-up replacement system. Instead, we are urging what will amount to unilateral nuclear reductions on our part, while China, Russia, India, and others are developing and fielding new and modernized ICBM nuclear systems for their countries as well. Those are the situations which we need to face. That is what is significant. That's what this bill addresses.

This bill addresses the funding and infrastructure needs of our military, and we should never lose sight of that core reason for this bill. And amendments--all 141 of them--either have to add to that concept of making the infrastructure viable, or we're talking about tangents. This is not the avenue for those particular places to be.

In short--I wasn't short, but in long, then, Madam Speaker, that's the purpose of the National Defense Authorization Act. That's what the base bill does. That's what the bulk of the 140 amendments we have authorized do. We need to proceed without getting lost in the purpose and the intent of this particular process and why it is so important. It is our core constitutional responsibility, and we need to take it seriously.

All the other issues that were talked about will be addressed. The issue of our policy in Afghanistan--which has multiple opportunities to be addressed--will be addressed on the floor. There will be an amendment made in order. There will be twice the amount of time in debate on that as any of the other significant issues of how we shape our military forces. The reason it is so significant is because we're not talking about what the military will be in the month of August of this year. The decisions we make on the infrastructure of the military today influence what our military will be in 15 to 20 years. It also influences what diplomatic capacities and opportunities we may have 15 or 20 years from now. That's why it is so significant. We cannot lose track of what is the purpose of this bill, and any amendment that distracts us from that is not productive in what we are trying to do.

I'll say this one more time: this is a fair rule. We have made 140 of the 240 amendments that were proposed in order. It covers a great variety of issues, issues that perhaps should have been covered in the committee as well, but they will be covered again here on the floor, including what we are doing as a policy in Afghanistan.

I urge adoption of this particular rule because it is a fair rule, one that makes more amendments than we did in years--and in years past when the other side was in charge of this. It's a good bill. It's a fair rule. I urge its adoption.

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

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 29 minutes a.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until today, Thursday, May 17, 2012, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2621) to establish the Chimney Rock National Monument in the State of Colorado, and for other purposes, 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.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the sponsor of this bill, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), who has done such great work to move this potential issue forward.

In closing, may I just say that I want to commend the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton) for taking the time and the effort to put forth a well thought-out and locally supported piece of legislation that designates an area of special significance in the district that he happens to represent. This legislation is an example of the way this type of designation should be done, as opposed to by administrative fiat under things like the Antiquities Act.

I urge the adoption of this measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2745) to amend the Mesquite Lands Act of 1986 to facilitate implementation of a multispecies habitat conservation plan for the Virgin River in Clark County, Nevada, as amended.

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.

With that, Mr. Speaker, since this is a significant bill that makes a change that has been long overdue, I yield such time as he may consume to the sponsor of this bill, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck).

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

Authored by Congressman Heck, H.R. 2745 was amended by the Natural Resources Committee and is further amended today to ensure that there is no cost to the taxpayer. This will treat all proceeds from land sales uniformly and, again, at no cost to the taxpayer.

So I urge adoption of this measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3874) to provide for the conveyance of eight cemeteries that are located on National Forest System land in Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota, 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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to Mrs. Noem of South Dakota, the sponsor of this bill, who has worked so hard and has done such a great job on it, to explain this commonsense bill.

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

This commonsense piece of legislation moves nine parcels of land to the respective communities that currently manage and maintain these cemeteries. It frees the Forest Service from administering these cemeteries so they can focus on other jobs, like maybe tackling the growing mountain pine beetle epidemic in the Black Hills. It's a great bill, I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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