Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 406 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

Madam Speaker, this resolution provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 2401, the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation. Fortunately, the anagram comes to TRAIN, so it's the TRAIN Act of 2011.

It makes in order 12 specific amendments out of the 14 that were received by the Rules Committee. Of the two not made in order, one was withdrawn by the sponsor and the other was not germane to the rules of the House. So what the Rules Committee has presented here is a rule that is, quite frankly, not bad. It is going to provide for an open discussion for those who are interested in this particular issue on the floor. It's a very fair rule, and it continues the record of the Rules Committee in this Congress of making as many amendments in order as possible which simply conform to the rules of the House. That's been the goal of our chairman, Mr. Dreier, and say what you will, he has produced a standard of fairness in the floor discussions that we will be having here on the floor in the past as well as in the future.

There are a lot of people that say Congress is simply dysfunctional. I admit, the system was designed to be complex, but there are a lot of people, especially those that have very little contact with this system, who simply stand up and say, why can't you just

reach across the aisle, find some compromise, and work in a bipartisan manner? To those people who are continually asking for that, you got it. It's here today in this particular bill.

The discussion draft of this bill was a bipartisan bill with a Republican and Democrat sponsor. First hearings on this bill were done back in April, so they have done their due diligence in studying the issue and working the bill to the point that they actually scrapped the first bill and reintroduced another, and once again, with bipartisan sponsorship of the bill.

If you look at the cosponsors on this bill, you will find Republicans and Democrats. Even in the final vote in committee, one Republican voted against it, and 29 percent of the Democrats actually voted for it. This is a process to be envied. If you want a good system, a bill that comes through in a bipartisan manner, this is it.

We all know that business is impacted by both legislation and regulation, and sometimes the blatant disregard for the cumulative negative impacts of onerous and sometimes overlapping new rules and regulations have had a disastrous effect on industry and on jobs. The current EPA appears to be driven to regulatory excess by asserting powers or controls in an area where that power and control have never been expressly delegated to the agency by Congress.

So, Madam Speaker, while I'm sure that every Member wants to have clean air and clean water and all Americans want clean air and clean water--they are vital objectives and laudable goals--however, I also think that many would agree that some of the current issues in some areas have gone beyond what Congress ever intended or ever approved, and also far beyond common sense. It has not helped the economic health of this particular country, which is why I commend the sponsors, both sides of the aisle, who recognize this problem and have come up with this legislation to fix the problem.

The underlying bill, H.R. 2401, simply says to the EPA--and potentially other agencies--stop, slow down. Take a more careful look at what you're doing or proposing to do. Take a serious and methodical look at whether or not what you're doing is duplicative of rules and regulations already on the books, whether or not they are overlapping, confusing, or contradictory rules and regulations to those already on the books. It tells them to do an analysis of alternative strategies that may be used to avoid damage to our fragile environment as well as our fragile economy.

This bill tells EPA--and others--that before certain draft regulations go into effect, it actually needs to study and consider the cumulative impacts of these new rules and regulations on energy production, on costs, on jobs, and on our Nation's global competitiveness. Imagine that. Imagine a Federal agency seeking to institute rules and regulations which actually took the time to study the impacts of those plans and rules and regulations first. Who could oppose such a concept? It is just common sense.

There will be some that will complain, when the bill is discussed on the floor--maybe even here on the rule itself--that this goal is to dismantle the EPA and dismantle other organizations. No programs are cut by this process. Nothing is changed by this process. Some will stand up and say it's going to be a biased study. There are no limits to what the agencies can study. What this bill simply does is it makes sure that what has been ignored in the past is no longer ignored.

Are there some specific things that have to be considered? Yes, that's right, because we specifically identify what has been ignored. There is nothing in this bill that forbids any rules or regulations. It just says to the agencies, for heaven sakes, get the facts first.

This bill holds the executive branch agencies accountable and forces them to be reasonable and actually study what they're doing before they implement it.

This is a good bill, it is a very good rule, and I would urge adoption of both.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for not demonizing me or my colleagues and our motives on this bill.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I am pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

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

I have to admit that in a prior existence, when I was a debate teacher in high school, one of the things we taught our kids--because every team did it--was, regardless of what the bill was that the affirmative presented, to come up with a series of problems. In every instance, the negative team would always end with this plan, whatever the plan was, resulting in a melting of the polar icecap, which would trigger a thermonuclear war. It didn't matter what the affirmative plan had. One of the negative arguments was it will melt the polar icecap and trigger a thermonuclear war.

Sometimes when we're here on the floor, I feel that we're doing those same kinds of debate cases, because it doesn't matter what the bill is; it's going to do all sorts of things. This bill simply says that, before you implement a rule or regulation, you're going to study everything, including its impact.

One of the speakers who came to the floor said there are two rules that are going to be prohibited in this bill. Now, there are two rules specified in this bill that say, before you implement them, see what they will do to the jobs and the economic cost. I mean, these rules could increase the electricity costs for everyone, rich or poor, by 3, 4, 5 percent or more. We don't know. Study it first before you do it.

There was a rule that was passed in my State dealing with particulate matter. In my area, in one of the very remote rural areas, we do testing on solid rocket motors.

That testing could violate this rule. No one knows for sure because the EPA didn't do that kind of analysis.

One of the private sector groups said the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency disturbingly admitted that the impact on American jobs is not a consideration in rulemaking, even while the United States continues to struggle through the recession and unacceptably high unemployment.

I'm sorry, that's one of the things that should be considered in rulemaking. Is there an executive order

that mandates it? Yeah, but it's not being done.

So what we want to do is to have a law passed that says, yeah, what is not being considered should be considered. It doesn't stop the rulemaking, it doesn't stop the rule, it doesn't roll back anything, it doesn't kill anybody, it doesn't melt the polarized cap, and it doesn't start thermonuclear war. It simply says we will have a commission, interagency, together to look at specific things; and we will consider it.

So before you come up with another rule or regulation, you know the total impact, what it does to the environment, what it does to the economy, what it does to human beings.

Studying is something we should all recognize and we should all want. This is what the bill does. It doesn't destroy anything, it doesn't cut anything, it doesn't stop anything. It just says before you proceed, you know what you're doing, and that should be common sense.

That should be what we were doing in the first place. And if it takes a piece of legislation to make sure we do what we should have been doing in the first place, let's pass this legislation, this bipartisan legislation with Republican and Democrat sponsors that was passed with Republican and Democrat votes--and actually one Republican voted against it as well.

This is a bipartisan process, this is a bipartisan bill, this is a good piece of underlying legislation, and it is an incredibly fair rule because, remember, 12 of the 14 amendments, every one that could be made in order, was made in order to be discussed and debated on this floor, which is the way we should be doing things at all times. It's a great process, and I look forward to listening to the debate on all 12 amendments as well as the base bill when we finally get to the position of debating this bill on the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, we don't very often get these opportunities. The kids who are at the back that you can't see because you're standing in front of them, this is the first time that we have ever had pages here not in two small groups but one summer group. These pages are going home this week, and they have had a chance to be here to see history in the making on several different fronts.

The Page Board consists of Representative Foxx of North Carolina, Representative DeGette, and Representative Kildee, and me.

I yield to the gentlelady from Colorado.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert in the official Record the page summer class.

I ask this body to please recognize the pages for the services they have rendered.

2011 Summer Page Class

Alexa Abbott, MI, Garrett Adair, CA, Eric Applegate, IN,

Sara Ballou, NY, Caitlin Belcher, WV, Eyvana Bengochea, FL,

Michael Berkowitz, FL, Cameron Bias, VA, Elizabeth Birkman,

TX, Grant Bradley, MI, Sophia Bucci, MA, Jasmine Sky Burnett,

GA, Clark Cali, CA, Thomas Cirone, NJ, Briyana Coleman, VA,

David Crane, NJ, Christina Cuellar, TX, Collin Czilli, IN,

Leesa Danzek, CA, Mary DeStefano, OH, Hannah Eaton, KY,

Sydney Everett, MO, Zachariah Frederic Ewen, VA, Christina

Fischer, VA, Jordan Fox, IL, BreAnna Fraser, NV, Joseph

Geiger III, PA, Taylor Gillespie, NY, Meredith Godfrey, VA,

Jessica Going, CA, Kevin Goshorn, NY, Austin Heckemeyer, MO,

Peyton Hilford, FL, Savana Hodge, TN, Elijah Jatovsky, CA,

Reid Jeffries, OH, Heber ``Nathan'' Johnson, UT, Mary Gray

Johnson, VA, Charlotte Kanyuh, WI, Caleb Markward, OH, Erik

Martin, MD, Jake Mattox, OK, Claiborne McCrery, LA, Brian

McKeon, OR, Grant McKown, GA, Grace Mehta, CA, Adam Mittman,

NY, Thomas Moakley, MA, James Park, FL, Elisabeth Parker, SC,

Jenna Pickering, AL, Caroline Schube, OH, Arthur Sellers, AL,

Paarth Shah, NY, Abigail Shriver, MD, Nicholas Pritzker, CA,

Michael-Joseph Richardson, OH, Amelia Santiago, TX, Michelle

Sauer, TX, Samantha Smith, MI, Stetson Spencer, AR, Michael

Stocker, PA, Benjamin Strawbridge, MA, Samantha Swartz, IL,

Genevieve Gray Taylor, NV, Ashley Tomasello, MI, Matthew

Ullman, NY, Andrea Walton, IN, Grayson Westmoreland, TN,

Sarai Whittington, NC, and Victoria Wilbur, IL.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 682, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

I move to strike the last word.

I appreciate very kindly the gentleman from Virginia and his explanation of this particular provision that's in the bill. Unfortunately, it's not quite that way. Your recommendation of this is that in June the Secretary asked for our input as to wilderness, which is indeed exactly what he should do if he wants to obey the law. That is the proper course. Only Congress has the ability to designate wilderness areas.

You said that the provision that's in the bill would foreclose that process. In fact, you're arguing the exact opposite. This provision in the bill does not allow the Secretary to go around that process but insists that he does come and work with Congress to do any kind of land designation as it is written in the law.

Secretary Salazar and Deputy Secretary Hayes and BLM Director Abbey have all assured us that they have no plans to implement this ill- advised policy they established just before Christmas, a Secretarial order that usurped congressional authority and congressional responsibility. I'm going to take them at their word. Unfortunately, though, the order has never been withdrawn officially. It has been superseded.

The Solicitor General's opinion to clarify the legal status of that superseding of the opinion has been promised us. It was promised to the chairman, promised to the chairman of the authorizing committee. Yesterday at a hearing we asked where that was, and we were told once again, well, it's on its way. What was said at that hearing, obviously, is what they will do is nothing contrary to the provision that was placed in the CR. Therefore, if we are going to take their word for it--in the old Reaganesque form, ``Trust, but verify''--continue this language in here and make sure that what they claim they will do will be done and there is no legal way of getting around it.

Now, I say that legal process for a purpose. Even if I trust the word of the Secretary--and I do--if this provision is in some way legally in doubt--now, once again, until the Solicitor General's opinion is clear with us, it is in doubt--in a litigation-prone society like we have, any kind of radical activist may ask a renegade judge for political purposes to contravene what the policy states it's supposed to be. That's why I support Congresswoman Lummis' inclusion of this language in here. It would oppose any kind of roundabout process of going around Congress and allowing the administration to go around NEPA and around FLPMA, which is actually what the original order did.

It is not that we don't have confidence in this process; it's simply that we want to make sure it is very clean. And if, indeed, we all agree and believe what the Secretary is saying, then this language in here has no impact whatsoever. It should be accepted by all of us. If, though, you want to try to have some kind of dangling aspect out there so that somebody can sue someone

somewhere and maybe change the entire process, then create doubt and actually withdraw language that was in the CR that was approved by the House and the Senate and signed by the President.

What we're asking for is consistency so that what the gentleman from Virginia said will indeed happen, that if wilderness is designated, it will be done by Congress--it is our legal responsibility to do it--and that no one can do these evaluations, which are legal under FLPMA, with only one criterion. That, once again, was admitted by Director Abbey in our committee that that is not the way the law is written, and indeed if you do that, that is abrogation of the law.

Now, once again, you have a process here. If you leave the language in there, it's no harm, no foul. It is consistent with the law, and it is consistent with what the Department of the Interior said their policy will be. You take this language out, and all of a sudden you have created a doubt. Find somebody who has a good attorney, and all of a sudden that doubt creates a major problem for the Department of the Interior, and especially for us in Congress.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Is it not true that the ability to designate and study and do these inventories comes under FLPMA regulation which is not changed by this amendment?

This amendment only deals with the category that was called wild lands, which is a made up category that has nothing to do with any kind of law.

Is it not true that the Secretary and the Interior Department can still do inventories on any consequence, but they are not allowed only to do inventory for one characteristic. They can inventory for all characteristics they're supposed to, and that comes in FLPMA.

I didn't want it, but thank you.

Let me just simply try and come up with this one last time. The idea of inventory is covered in FLPMA; that doesn't change. The Secretarial order that established wild lands is a new policy. That has been superseded by another Secretarial order. It doesn't have an impact on this, which is one of the reasons why the administrative policy says it is unnecessary, given the Department's policy that includes collaboration with stakeholders, to identify public lands that may be appropriated.

The administration is not fighting this thing; they're on board with us. All we're saying is the reason you want to keep this language in here--until the supersession has taken place and the entire thing is repealed and you go back to FLPMA--is in case someone wants to litigate outside of it and try and force the Department of the Interior to do something it has said it will not do. That's what we're about here.

All these other arguments are extraneous. Its relationship to other legislation. It does not have any impact whatsoever. This is simply saying what the policy is, and the policy they're going to continue will be substantiated in the statute in case someone else wants to play around with it.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I rise to support Mr. Dicks' idea but not the process he is using to get there.

It is one of the amazing things as you look about the debate on this particular amendment. It's like ships passing in the night--getting close but never actually touching because everyone who has spoken so far is saying the same thing: that we want to have an Endangered Species Act that works. This needs to be fixed or amended and changed in some way to make it work better, to involve the entire process so that everyone is working towards the same goal; but for some reason, it flat out is not happening, and it's not happening because we have violated the process.

Everyone has said this is not the right place to try and fix the Endangered Species Act. That's also true, but it's the only process that's allowed because we have violated our own intent. Appropriators are supposed to appropriate funds to programs. Authorizers are supposed to create the programs and then every so often reauthorize those programs to make changes based on the need or to make sure that we are moving in the proper direction.

Let me introduce you, or at least remind you, of John Gochnauer--one of my favorite baseball players at the turn of the century with the Cleveland Indians. He was good enough to play regular shortstop for Cleveland, although the first year he played he committed 48 errors, and his batting average was 187. He was still good enough to stay around for the next year when, this time, his errors were just slightly under 100--he had a hard time hitting the first baseman when he threw-- and his batting average was, once again, 187.

I say that specifically because the most inept player ever to put on spikes and play Major League Baseball had a batting average of 187. The Endangered Species Act has listed over 2,000 species and saved 21 for a batting average of 10 if you round up. It's actually .009. That clearly indicates we can do better, and we need to do better.

So the question has to simply be why aren't we doing better? Why can't we fix this problem and have a better success rate?

The answer is very simple:

For 23 years, we have put riders on this particular appropriations act to fully fund the old program, which has prohibited the authorizing committee to ever get people together to make the program better.

Chairman Hastings has simply said his goal is to provide a process that improves the system--and there is room for improvement of the system--but to do that, you've got to get the players to sit down in the authorizing committees where this is supposed to be worked out. The Endangered Species Act needs to be expanded, needs to be fixed, needs to zero in to create people working together for a common goal.

I am actually grateful for Representative Dicks and Representative Simpson and what they have done in this bill. This amendment in the underlying bill does not destroy the Endangered Species Act. It doesn't even cut the funding for those species that are already being worked on. All it does is provide a change in the process to insist that people have to do what we should have been doing for the last 23 years--going to the authorizing committee and fixing the act, not just kicking the can down the road by funding it year, after year, after year, after year, while only 21 species have recovered over the 2,000 that could have and should have been.

I'm sorry. That's what everyone is saying. We all want species to be preserved and recovered, but we all are failing in the process, and after 23 years, we should have learned what we have been doing in the past doesn't work. Maybe if we went back to the way the system was intended to be and was designed to function, we could actually move forward in this entire issue, which, oddly enough, is what everyone is saying.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 363 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 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 during which they may revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides an open rule for the consideration of H.R. 2584. It allows any Member of the House to offer amendments which are germane and comply to the House rules. The rule allows priority recognition for the amendments that have been preprinted in the Congressional Record. I am pleased to support this resolution, which continues the record of our Rules Committee in this Congress of providing for as open and fair and orderly a process as possible.

I commend our chairman, Mr. Dreier, for continuing the record of fairness and openness in the formulation of this rule, which is in contrast to some rules that we have had in past years.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2584 provides $27.5 billion overall for programs within the Department of Interior and the Forest Service, Environmental Protection Agency, the Indian Health Service, and other agencies. But it is a bill that strikes a fiscally responsible balance between providing funds for ongoing Federal programs while also saving the taxpayers 7 percent over last year's enacted levels. It puts us back roughly to the 2009 levels.

There are some who will claim that there are certain programs that have been hurt heavily. It is true, for example, that the Environmental Protection Agency has an 18 percent reduction in funding in this bill. Please remember, though, that this was made possible simply because of unprecedentedly high record appropriations for EPA in 2009, of which $3 billion remains unobligated.

In an era when 42 to 44 cents of every dollar that we spend goes for interest, it makes no sense in continuously overappropriating line items where money is not needed, not used, and sits there vacant.

This is a bill that oftentimes for those of us who live in the West has been full of riders year after year after year. It probably makes no difference here, but I realize that some are going to be very sensitive to this issue. I know the gentlelady from New York is very concerned about these potential issues that may be on this bill. And why should she not be? If you include the military, 0.8 percent of New York is owned by the Federal Government. I will contrast that with my State, which has 64 percent owned by the Federal Government. And we're not the highest.

This is an issue and a bill that is very important to those of us. And, Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill; it is an extremely fair rule. It can't get any fairer than this one. I urge its adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

We find that this particular bill is a great illustration of one of the problems that we have here in the House of

Representatives and, indeed, with government. Our land policy in the United States is one historically that had no purpose or organization to it. It simply happened. But what happened happened disproportionately throughout this country, which is why 1 out of every 3 acres in America is now owned by the Federal Government.

I defy anyone on that side to find for any a constitutional provision that would allow that ownership; but, nonetheless, it is.

The unfortunate thing is it is disproportionate. One out of every 2 acres in the West is owned by the Federal Government. That means 52 percent of the area west of Denver is owned by the Federal Government. Four percent of the area east of Denver is owned by the Federal Government, much of that in military installations.

As I said, the State of New York has 0.3 percent of its land owned by the Federal Government, 0.8 percent if you include military. The State of Virginia has 8 percent owned by the Federal Government, almost all military. The gentleman from Massachusetts, who will be here as well, 1.1 percent of his State is owned by the Federal Government.

And so it means different issues for my State, which is 65 percent owned by the Federal Government; Alaska; Nevada, which is almost 90 percent owned by the Federal Government; Idaho, which is over 60 percent owned by the Federal Government. Things take place differently.

That's why, for example, things like the Land and Water Conservation Fund is a nice fund if it were used to preserve what we already have. Unfortunately, that fund is used to buy more territory, with an administration decision and mindset that no land should ever be given back or given up; more should be accumulated. That's why it's the ability of this appropriations bill to try to put that money--not simply to cut it, but to move it into preservation as opposed to access to buying more land, which makes sense to us in the West because we recognize this heavy-handed tyranny that takes place.

Let me just give you one simple example that was brought up here that deals with uranium mining in Arizona, one of the so-called ``riders'' in this particular appropriations bill. It takes place in what is called the Arizona Strip, which has led some people to mistakenly think that we were going to be strip mining around the Grand Canyon.

The Arizona Strip is the size of the State of New Jersey. That is the area between Utah and the Colorado River. In that area in 1984, Morris Udall, who was at the time the chairman of the Resources Committee here in the House, created a wilderness compromise in which a wilderness area was to be created in the State of Arizona. In that, 56 percent of the State of Arizona was put off limits to any kind of mining endeavors whatsoever. In exchange, certain areas were put specifically for those types of mining areas, including areas in the Arizona Strip, this New Jersey-sized piece of the State of Arizona. The unfortunate thing is it was always intended to be used there for mining purposes because there is a great deal of uranium ore there.

Unlike other kinds of mining, this ore is found in little pipes, strips within the ground that go up and down. And what you need to do is simply bore into the pipe, find the ore in the middle, take it out, and then replace all the stuff back in. So once you are done with that mine, no one ever sees that it was there in the first place. The ore that is taken out is not left in Arizona. It's actually going to be shipped for processing somewhere else. So there will be no tailings. There will be no wind pollution. There will be no dust issues whatsoever.

Certain special interest groups said, well, it could change the water quality that goes through Colorado and then would eventually flow to Las Vegas and do something strange in Las Vegas, as if that were ever possible. Unfortunately, as stated by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, their mines and mining groups, there have been certain interest groups that have inferred, with no substantive supporting data, that groundwater in this particular area of the Colorado River may be contaminated by uranium mining. That simply won't happen, and it won't happen because of where the ore is. The ore is found 100 feet below the surface. There is only 12 inches of rain a year there. There is no particular kind of any runoff that will take place. It is also found 1,000 feet above the aquifer with clay underneath, so there is no way there can be any kind of leaching that goes into the aquifer.

The bottom line is there will never, never be any kind of contamination on this water, which was the excuse used to justify a political reason for taking this land that had been part of the '84 agreement off the table, and it could not be used again.

Unfortunately, the EPA gets involved in this one again because they have determined that if the uranium--or whatever they call the uranium--gets into the water and it's more than 30 parts per billion, that's unsafe. Unfortunately, there are uranium pipes within the Grand Canyon itself which already erode into the water, and it creates a situation where, naturally occurring, there are 4 parts per billion. So they did some testing at existing mines up in the Kanab Creek area to find out what would happen if actually some of this uranium were to leach into the water, and it would increase that 4 number to 6 parts per billion.

In essence, what they are saying is: You could take all of the tailings that could come from these potential mines and dump them into the Colorado River, and you still would not reach the level set by the EPA for drinking water. In fact, the uranium that naturally occurs in the Colorado River, even if you had a catastrophe, is still lower than uranium levels found in freshwater lakes in the desert area.

Now, why isn't all that considered? Because the decision to withdraw that area from mining was not based on science. If it were based on science, then the Department of Environmental Quality of Arizona would not have testified that there was no scientific basis for it. The State of Arizona would not have passed a piece of legislation decrying the withdrawal of that particular area. The guy who was actually part of the National Parks Conservation Association as well as the Audubon Society and the Save the Redwoods League, who was actually the one that did the scientific study in '84 when the original design by Mo Udall was made, simply said there was no legitimate evidence to say there could be any contamination of that air, which basically means the withdrawal of this land was done for political purposes, not scientific purposes.

So to put a provision back into this bill saying that if you're going to do this kind of stuff, it had darn well better be on a scientific basis and not a political basis makes sense. It's one of the right things to do in here.

I realize we have some other speakers here; so I'm not going to take all the time yet, but I would desperately like to talk about the clean water provisions, the navigable water provisions and what EPA does with those because it has a different impact on those of us in the West, where almost all of our land is controlled by them, versus those in the East, where almost no land is controlled by them and they have a great deal of freedom to develop the resources on their own.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I am once again appreciative that data from newspaper articles were put into the Record, because the newspapers have a tendency of quoting one another and also quoting environmental groups. Unfortunately, the data still says the same thing from those who know, the scientific community, that actually knows what they're talking about, who said:

``A few environmental groups claim, without providing any scientific supporting data, that the groundwater in the Colorado would be contaminated with uranium mining. We conclude that even the most implausible accident would increase the amount of uranium in the Colorado River by an amount that is undetectable over those that occur there normally.''

Another said: ``I continue to view such activities as posing no credible threat of environmental harm to either the Grand Canyon National Park or the Colorado River that flows through it. I can see no credible justification for a 1.1 million-acre withdrawal from mineral entry of lands to the north and south of the park.''

Another said: ``It is important to note that the research conducted by the United States Geological Survey and the preliminary findings by the University of Arizona confirm uranium exploration and mining pose no threat to the Grand Canyon watershed or the park.''

This is the study. This is the scientific data. It would be nice if, for once, we used this data instead of quoting one another and quoting things that have no basis in science.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I know that what we do here on the floor is often riveting drama for those who are watching on television. Let me, in some respects, not try to add to that drama and go back to facts, something we don't necessarily like around here.

We've already talked about this so-called uranium issue showing facts. The chart that we just saw from the gentleman from Massachusetts was an interesting chart. The area of the United States that was colored on that chart is the area that there are those in this administration, indeed, on this floor, want to be owned by the Federal Government here.

Let me talk to you just a moment--and I'll even grant some time to the gentlelady from New York if she could actually answer this one--and talk about what some of these issues do to those of us who live under what Nelson Rockefeller called the ``deadening hand of bureaucracy'' because, once again, in the East you don't have to deal with these situations; in the West we do.

Let me talk about simply the Environmental Protection Agency and some of the brilliant things they do in the name of trying to clean up our water and our air and make life more livable for us. One of the suburbs of my community--and I call it a suburb simply because my community only has, what, 18,000 people in it; so I like calling it a suburb--has no rivers, no creeks, no streams, no anything. It does have irrigation ditches. Starting at the top of the mountain, the irrigation water flows down so it covers all the fields, as normally you would want to do.

We passed legislation for the Clean Water Act allowing the Federal Government, especially the EPA, to come in and monitor water that is navigable water systems on interstate commerce. The Great Salt Lake in Utah is all confined in the State of Utah. There are no outlets. That's why it's salty. There is nothing more intra-navigable than the Great Salt Lake.

But because in the 1880s some of the pioneers used to ship sheep over there for summer grazing on the islands in the Great Salt Lake, it is now part of the interstate commerce system and part of the navigable water system of the United States, therefore controllable by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Now, let's see what they did in my particular community. In this community where there were irrigation ditches, the overflow from the irrigation ditches ran down, and the Environmental Protection Agency said the runoff from those irrigation ditches would eventually go into the Great Salt Lake; therefore, that runoff from a ditch was part of the navigable water systems of the United States and controllable as wetlands by the Environmental Protection Agency, even though that irrigation runoff to get to the Great Salt Lake would actually have to run down the mountain, through a culvert for the city road, through one for the train tracks, through one that was the side road of the freeway, through the northbound freeway, through the barrel pit, through the southbound freeway, through another one of the adjacent roads to the southbound freeway, up a 3 percent grade to an area that had been previously determined to be not wetlands area, and eventually into the Bear River system which was stopped from going to the Great Salt Lake by the Bear River Bird Refuge.

They claim that could happen. And because of that, the water from the irrigation system was navigable waters of the United States and the Environmental Protection Agency claimed jurisdiction over it, which meant that the citizens of that community could not expand their sewer system. Instead, they had to take money out of their pockets to ship their sewage either to Brigham City or Willard because the Environmental Protection Agency now controlled the navigable waters because we gave them the power to do that under the Clean Water Act.

One of the things I am talking about here and one of the frustrations we have illustrated by this bill is, unfortunately, time after time these agencies funded in this bill do not consider what they do to real people. Real people in my community are being harmed time after time by decisions made from bureaucrats sitting here in Washington, and then we wonder why we rail against these environmental groups, why we rail against these agencies, and why we don't want to have some kind of control over this process. And the only vehicle we seem to have is the appropriation bill.

The Land and Water Conservation Fund is used to buy more land to get more control; if it were not, we would not complain about it. The EPA is used to get more control over people's lives, and they hurt people in the process. If it were not so, we would not complain about it. The withdrawing of uranium mining on the Arizona strip was done, despite all the scientific testimony, for political reasons. Were it not done so, we would not complain about it.

This is a decent bill, which moves us a step forward to try to control our spending habit, dealing with what is really the core issue and core responsibility of our agencies and trying not to harm people.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire how much time actually remains.

To the gentlelady from New York, I have a brilliant 11-minute speech welling within my bosom; but if you are willing to close, I will be willing to close as well.

Mr. Speaker, I think we've also proven in this bill that we are moving in the right direction to try to control the excesses that continuously take place here and still maintain the core responsibilities that have to be there, and we have done it in a rule that is adamantly fair. It is an open rule that will allow anyone to bring anything down here to the floor until we do a UC agreement that stops it. It is a good rule, and I urge adoption of that particular rule.

In closing, I will once again reiterate the fairness of this open rule. I urge its adoption, and I urge the adoption of the underlying legislation.

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

The previous question was ordered.

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

Mr. Speaker, as previous speakers have said, we do not have a revenue problem, and we don't have just a spending problem. We have a doing problem.

The Federal Government for several decades has expanded beyond our core constitutional responsibilities and, in so doing, we have created the financial crisis in which we find ourselves today. A balanced budget amendment would

be a great addition to the Constitution, in conjunction with and for the 10th amendment.

For, indeed, what we refer to as federalism is a solution to our problems and the salvation to this country. And this bill before us today is an excellent first step on our way to that ultimate salvation.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I

call up House Resolution 347 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for 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 purposes of debate only.

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for a structured rule and makes in order 10 specific amendments that were received by the Rules Committee. Nine of those were offered by Democrats; only one amendment made in order was offered by a Republican. So the vast majority of amendments that were received by the Rules Committee which are in compliance with House rules were made in order under this resolution, with most being from Democrats.

So this is a very fair rule and continues the record of the Rules Committee in this Congress of making as many amendments in order as possible which conform to House rules. I commend Chairman Dreier for continuing the record of fairness and openness in the formulation of this particular rule.

Likewise, I would also like to commend the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Mica, for bringing this bill forward.

Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of this legislation which seeks to restore just a little bit of balance between States and the Federal Government when it comes to implementation of Clean Water Act mandates. The Clean Water Act was originally intended by Congress to restore and maintain the integrity of our Nation's waters, which is a noble goal. Who can be opposed to that? We all support the idea of clean water in our Nation and our communities. But the Clean Water Act was originally intended to be a partnership between the States and the Federal Government and allowed the States to be authorized as the lead authority for water quality programs and permits.

Unfortunately, the bill was written in a very careless and sloppy way, and so the time has come when it can be re-altered or reinterpreted as time goes on. It doesn't matter that the Constitution does not allow that. The Constitution clearly says that all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in the Congress. What we have seen is an agency of the Federal Government start to expand beyond their responsibility because the legislation itself, the core legislation, is somewhat vague.

John Marshall once said that agencies should have the power to fill in the details. We're not talking about details. We're talking about where agencies of the Federal Government have expanded their power and responsibility far beyond what was ever intended, specifically when it relates to the value and the priority of States.

For example, the State of Florida had previously obtained EPA approval for its statewide water quality and nutrient criteria development plan, and even though the State of Florida is well under way in developing its own nutrient standards based on those earlier Federal approvals, the EPA, in 2010, decided to step in and, with what Nelson Rockefeller used to say as the deadening hand of bureaucracy, imposed its own new water quality standards for nutrients in the State of Florida; violating the implicit State and Federal partnership established under the original Clean Water Act and stomping all over the good work that Florida had been doing when it was completing its tasks based on those earlier Federal approvals.

In other States, the same thing has happened. In West Virginia, the EPA retroactively vetoed permits previously issued for coal mining operations by the Army Corps of Engineers.

These examples of overreaching by an administration, specifically the EPA, have upset the longstanding balance between Federal and State partners in regulating our Nation's waters and has undermined the system of cooperative federalism that was supposed to have been established in the original Clean Water Act. The EPA's actions have pulled the rug out from under the States in a very capricious and an extremely arrogant manner, have created an atmosphere of regulatory uncertainty for businesses and local governments, which now have to plan and rely on clean water permits as they think they might be used in the future.

This new uncertainty has an extremely negative impact on businesses both large and small, and has most certainly contributed to the negative impacts on the Nation's economy and the inability of this administration to create jobs and reduce employment below 9 percent in spite of massive record spending and crushing debt.

This bill is indeed common sense. It is a targeted approach at correcting some of the abuses. It is not about distribution of water. It is not actually even about the quality. It is about the process in which we are involved as to who gets to decide. And it also restates that the people who live in the States logically care about their own States and do not have to rely on the largess of the all-wise and all- important Federal Government to make decisions for them.

Passage of H.R. 2018 will not in any way gut the clean air regulations or endanger citizens into drinking dirty water. The EPA retains its ultimate authority. However, the bill has been narrowly drafted to preserve the authority of States to make decisions about their own quality standards without interference or retroactive second guessing by those inside the Beltway, bureaucrats who have little or no local knowledge of the conditions or qualities that are under their consideration.

The growing excesses of the EPA in second-guessing the States and retroactively revoking previously granted approvals must stop. The status quo hurts people, and it does not help the value or the quantity or the quality of our water.

This bill is a good start. It is not completion of the issue, but it is a good start in trying to provide balance and

rationality back into the public process that we have and, more importantly, allowing people to know that when decisions are made, they are not going to be arbitrarily taken away and changed in the future. No government can operate that way. No business can operate that way. This should not be the policy of the United States. This is a good bill. More importantly, this is an extremely fair rule, and I urge its adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), a member of the Rules Committee.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

I have no further requests for time, and I am ready to close as well.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my good friend from Colorado and the way he has conducted the debate so far in this rule.

I have to admit, in closing on this particular bill, that as someone who as a State legislator worked on a complex that dealt with the largest undeveloped river in my district that went through and crossed six different State boundaries before it found its way to the Great Salt Lake, the idea that only the Federal Government can actually solve issues that happen between States or across State boundaries is somewhat almost insulting to the idea of the States.

It may be true that in every issue there is always some catalyst that brings it about. The issue in Florida and West Virginia--to which I responded--was a catalyst, but it is not the only situation that has provided the basis for this particular bill. We have a letter from the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry, which has written in support of this bill simply because Louisiana is currently facing a similar threat from the EPA.

The Chamber of Commerce strongly opposes several amendments to this piece of legislation, but they also wrote: ``The Clean Water Act grants States the primary responsibility for protecting water quality. However, recent actions by the EPA upset and supplant this partnership with arbitrary Federal power that is being exercised even over States with effective delegated regulatory programs. Individuals and firms that meet the requirements of, and obtain permits from, State regulators ought not to be left exposed to the enforcement whims and caprice of the Federal Government,'' which is the reality.

Finally, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture also talk about this bipartisan piece of legislation that addresses the Environmental Protection Agency's ongoing regulatory overreach, and that it allows the basis, if we pass this bill, for States and the Federal Government once again to be able to work together.

I have stated repeatedly that one of the problems we do have with the provisions of the Clean Water Act is the concept of accountability. Where is someone allowed to kind of comprehend against what the Federal Government does when it overreaches? Let me give you one specific example, since the gentleman from Tennessee did, and it states the same concept that happens to be there. I will call this guy Gene, because that's his first name. But he was a farmer on a family farm, a sugar beet farmer--which I would remind you is a root crop. You try to have a sugar beet crop in a wetland and you come up with just rotted vegetables. But one Federal bureaucrat from these agencies, driving by his property one day, seeing it flooded, declared it to be a wetland, even though the farmer said the only reason the water is here is because we have a pipe from the creek that goes over to the land. And when the farmer removed the pipe from the creek to show that the water was not naturally flowing into that area, he was threatened with a jail term if he actually moved that pipe one more time.

Now even though they took core samples from the water conservancy district to prove there was too much clay in that land to ever have any kind of water bubble up from the underground aquifers, this one bureaucrat from these agencies still maintained this was a wetland. When asked how long would it take to determine--even though the science is against him--that he is wrong in his determination, his response was, well, 6 to 7 years because I want to go through a wet and dry cycle to see if maybe per chance water may not come up again on this person.

Now the issue, and why I'm so passionate about this is because, for Gene, this farm was his heritage. More importantly, it was his retirement, and it was his legacy for his kids. And what one bureaucrat, using the broad powers given under the Clean Water Act, was able to do is basically impose a taking on this person's property without ever compensating him for it, because they didn't take the land away; they just told him what he could do with it and--more importantly, because of that regulation now on his property--for what he could sell. He was able to finally unload his property at a quarter of the value that a neighbor, which this one bureaucrat did not see, was able to sell his exact same lot on the exact same road with the exact same type of land. That is the unfairness that has developed with a bill that is so loosely written.

Two Supreme Court decisions have criticized the bill and implored Congress to go back there and do our jobs and to tighten it up so that you don't have conflicting strategies and conflicting patterns and conflicting rules and regulations in different parts of the country. That's what we're attempting to do here.

There is a pattern of abuse. It hurts people. It is time to respect the idea that States care as much about their own States as the Federal Government would care about their States. And you can make the presumption that they probably care more. That's why this is a good bill, and that's why this is an issue of Federalism.

This is going back to what the original Clean Water Act was supposed to do, to encourage and indeed control and ensure that there would be bipartisan cooperation between States and the Federal Government. And unfortunately, as the years have progressed, the role of the States have been diminished by arbitrary and capricious actions on the part of the Federal Government. That can no longer be. That is the status quo that is unacceptable. That needs to be changed. That is exactly what this bill is attempting to do.

In closing, I would like to reiterate the fairness of this structured rule and urge its adoption, as well as urging the adoption of the underlying legislation.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the voice vote by which amendment No. 61 offered by the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) was adopted be vacated to the end that the Chair put the question de novo.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I would ask the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Young, if he would enter into a colloquy regarding the Minuteman III Warm Line Solid Rocket Motor Sustainment program.

As the chairman is aware, the Air Force has proposed to terminate the Minuteman III Warm Line Solid Rocket Motor Sustainment program beginning in FY 2012. The Air Force has not presented this committee a viable plan to sustain this strategic weapon system beyond the year 2020 as these motors age out, and the program of record now requires the system to be deployed until 2030, which does leave a 10-year gap of vulnerability with no Minuteman III-specific industrial base to support this weapon system.

Would the chairman agree that it is vitally important that the Air Force undertake what is called a smart closeout of this program to include taking definite steps to preserve the essential tools, the uniquely skilled workforce, suppliers, equipment, and production facilities needed to continue to produce and support the readiness of Minuteman III motors through their current operational life cycle through at least 2030?

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, do you also agree that all funds provided for Minuteman III modification in this bill may only be used to support the current Minuteman III system and that no funds have been either requested in the President's budget request or provided by this committee to begin a new start program for a future, currently unauthorized Minuteman III follow-on capability?

Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for his kindness and his answers.

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Gohmert

Offered By: Mr. Bishop of Utah

Amendment No. 7: Page 109, line 25, strike ``acquisition

management'' and insert ``product support''.

Page 110, line 1, after ``systems,'' insert the following:

``, other than those mission assignments or transfers

approved by the Secretary of the Air Force or the Secretary's

designee prior to June 19, 2011,''.

Fellow Members of the House, if you would turn your attention to the back rail there, you will see the pages who have served us for this past semester.

Thank you. You are supposed to applaud after I speak.

These are the kids who still get up in the middle of the night--at times which I thought was only a rumor--so they can go to an accredited high school in the Library of Congress and complete a full day of studies before they are here at 10 o'clock to serve us.

They have learned the process of government by watching us, which is a scary thought, but in the process of doing that, they have gained a healthy respect for our system, and they have learned lessons that they will take with them and made friendships they will take with them through the rest of their lives, and they have served this body well.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Reclaiming my time, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, who is also a member of the Page Board.

Mr. Chairman, once again, we thank the pages who will be having their graduation ceremony tomorrow and then leaving us. We wish you very well on your further endeavors. Thank you very much.

Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, most people are clearly not aware that national security on our borders is compromised on public lands by Federal land managers who have the authority to deny the Border Patrol access to those Federal lands. Most people are not aware that we put money into this budget thinking it is going for Homeland Security, only to see it mysteriously transferred over to another agency without Congress ever understanding or authorizing where that transfer is or what that transfer may be.

It is estimated that we have had direct transfers of at least $9 million, although the numbers are not clear. If you add up what the Department of Homeland Security spends on their own part that is not a direct transfer, we may be in the neighborhood of $50 million that is spent on this particular program. This money can be used for land acquisition.

If we really want land acquisition, we put this money in the Interior budget, where it belongs, so we know what it is, we know why it is there, and we can track for what it is used. This becomes simply a secret slush fund from Homeland Security to Interior, and Congress has no idea or clue on how this money we are putting into Homeland Security's budget is being used.

Let me give you a specific example. Border Patrol wanted to put surveillance towers on a strategic location on the Arizona border. Unfortunately, the land manager would not allow them in a particular area, so they had to be moved at least 4 miles away, creating specific blackout areas on that particular land situation. Security gaps. It was 4 miles of heavily trafficked area. Then, because there happened to be a bat in that area, of their own sources Homeland Security still had to monitor the amount of bats who may accidentally fly into those towers for 5 years after those towers were put in there, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars to monitor and count bats. And if they came across a pronghorn antelope while they were doing it, Homeland Security had to back away, without turning its back on the pronghorn, at a speed no greater than 15 miles an hour until it was a certain distance away from that situation.

We have already been told of situations where mitigation funds have been spent on a species that has not existed in that area for the last decade. What we are trying to do is spend our money wisely. We need to curtail this practice until at least Congress has the ability of completely understanding where this mitigation money is going and can approve it ahead of time.

Madam Chairman, most of the environmental degradation that is taking place on our southern border, especially in the State of Arizona, is not being done by the Border Patrol; it's being done by illegal immigrants the drug cartels, the human traffickers, potential terrorists who are coming in here with no design and no care about the ecology of the area, or endangered species, or anything else.

If we truly want to improve the ecology and improve our environmental quality on that border, you put every dime you can into Border Patrol, you let the Border Patrol have the access that they need to do their jobs, because stopping the illegal bad guys coming across is the only way, the only way we will ever have a true environmental solution on that particular border. So far we do not know how this money is spent. It is wrong. This is indeed the right approach to take on this particular problem.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

It sounds nice on paper, but it doesn't work in reality. You do not know where that money is being spent. The mitigation money is not going to the area where the mitigation needs to be done.

Once again, I will tell you, if you care about that environment and you want to solve the mitigation effort, put the money into the Border Patrol, not into this slush fund to move money from Homeland Security into Interior for the acquisition of land and property.

It is unrealistic.

No.

Okay. You got 30 seconds. Go for it.

Reclaiming my time, I will try to do this as quickly as I can.

That should be the role of the Interior appropriations, because there is no oversight that takes place here. We have already been berated on how little we are spending on Homeland Security.

Spend Homeland Security money on Homeland Security. Do not create a slush fund that we have created in the past so money goes to Interior. If you want to do it, go to Interior, where the money should be spent in the first place, and do it the right way.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 276 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition to the point of order.

The following discussion we have just had on the floor is certainly enlightening and interesting. There is much that I think is significant to what has been said by the gentleman from California.

However, Mr. Speaker, if you would forgive me, I need to talk directly to the point of order itself.

The question before the House is, should the House now consider House Resolution 276. While this resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, the Rules Committee is not aware of any point of order. The waiver is prophylactic in its nature. Specifically, the Committee on Rules is not aware of any violation of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, nor has the Congressional Budget Office identified any violation of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

In order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for the day, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the 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 purposes of debate only.

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides a structured rule for the consideration of 152 individual amendments to H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012.

I would like my colleagues to realize that the Rules Committee received 220 amendments for consideration of this bill; and of the 220 filed, 75 percent of them, or a total of 152, are made in order.

Even more remarkable, the vast majority of those that were not made in order were either withdrawn by the sponsor, were duplicative of other amendments filed, were redundant restatements of provisions already included in the base bill, or violated House rules. So this is an overwhelmingly fair and generous rule, and it continues the record of the Rules Committee in this Congress of making multiple amendments in order as long as they conform to the rules of the House.

One must commend Chairman Dreier for continuing this record of openness. Likewise, I wish to commend the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), as well as the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), for bringing a bill to the floor under a continuing tradition of bipartisanship and mutual cooperation.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes the Congress has a reputation of being contentious and partisan, and that reputation is, unfortunately, occasionally deserved. However, as one who has been a member of the Armed Services Committee and is currently on leave from that committee, I have been pleased to note that, when it comes to providing for the common defense of our country--a core constitutional responsibility-- partisanship has usually been checked at the door with regard to the conduct and the product of the Armed Services Committee in their annual Defense authorization bill, as was this bill, having passed by a vote of 60-1 from committee. This rule builds on that bipartisan tradition when it comes to the Defense bill, and it makes more Democrat amendments in order than Republican amendments.

Yes, you're welcome.

Our Nation faces some daunting challenges: to provide adequate resources for our national defense going forward, to pay personnel and to provide promised benefits for our all-volunteer force. The modernization of our aircraft fleet is slipping further and further behind, and the average age of our fighter jets is 150 percent of their designed capacity. The age of our bombers is at a record high even as demands for their utilization is great in Afghanistan, in Iraq and increasingly in other places in the world. The infrastructure needs of our military continue to slip further and further behind--the cliche is that they're moved to the right--and a backlog of needed improvements to fill vital military missions grows even greater.

A strong national defense is directly related to a strong national economy and to a strong jobs outlook. National defense makes everything else that we enjoy in this country--our cherished way of life, our freedoms--possible.

The underlying legislation, H.R. 1540, does a remarkable job, given all of the fiscal restraints that have been involved, in continuing to provide for our common defense. For that purpose, I wish to inform my colleagues that this is a good bill, and we are adding to that a good and fair rule for the amendments.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young).

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

I have a great deal of sympathy for the gentlelady from Guam, and on the Resources Committee where that bill still is, I will work with you on that, but I do object to unanimous consent.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take just one moment to clarify the record with respect to amendment No. 61 by Mr. Conyers in the Rules Committee report. Printed in report 112-88, Mr. Duncan of South Carolina was inadvertently added as a cosponsor to the Conyers amendment No. 61. I want to clarify for the record that Mr. Duncan of South Carolina is not a cosponsor of that particular amendment.

I appreciate the discussion we have had so far. I would like to remind my colleagues here that if every amendment made in order in this rule were to have its maximum amount of time, we would have already approved a maximum of over--well, we have a minimum of 26 hours of debate on this particular issue.

I am appreciative of the concerns of Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts. I also want him to realize there are multiple amendments that were made in order dealing with this and similar subjects. And I am very appreciative that Mr. McGovern, as a veteran of the House, understanding the rules of the House, has been wise enough to use this debate time also for speaking about that particular amendment, which will vastly extend the amount of time he has to cover that issue. That is wise of him; that is good of him.

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.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Colonel Yolanda C. Dennis-Lowman, United States Army, for her remarkable record of achievements during her service from July 8, 2008, through July 19, 2011, as the Commander of the Tooele Army Depot, Utah.

Under her active supervision and guidance, Tooele Army Depot was officially designated by the Secretary of the Army as a Center of Industrial and Technical Excellence (CITE) for Ammunition Peculiar Equipment (APE) maintenance, which is a very significant achievement.

Because of her commitment to safety and the solid policies and procedures she implemented during the 2009-2010 timeframe, the depot achieved more than 610 consecutive days without a loss time injury, which was the best record within the Joint Munitions Command and Army Materiel Command (AMC). It was under her watch that Tooele Army Depot also received the AMC Safety Award, of ``Best Installation.''

During her tenure, the Army implemented the Logistics Modernization Program (LMP) at Tooele Army Depot. By way of explanation, LMP modernizes the systems and processes associated with managing the Army's supply chain at the national and installation levels, and permits the planning, forecasting, and rapid order fulfillment leading to streamlined supply lines, improved distribution, and a reduced theatre footprint. Thus, LMP better supports the warfighter so that they can be better equipped and ready to respond to present and future threats. Colonel Dennis-Lowman managed and supported the depot team during this difficult and challenging LMP transformation.

Further, her guidance and leadership led the depot to excel in continuous improvement efforts. In 2010, the depot exceeded the Value Engineering goal by more than $800,000 ($1.48 million versus $2.29 million), and exceeded the Lean Six Sigma goal by more than $140,000 ($931,000 versus $790,000).

In 2010, the depot shipped approximately 39,012 tons of conventional ammunition and received and processed 33,218 tons. This was in direct support of the ongoing war efforts around the world, as well as training requirements.

Colonel Dennis-Lowman was recognized by the publishers of Utah Business (magazine for decision makers) as one of the ``30 Top Women to Watch--Women Making a Difference in Utah Business.''

She advised and supported a depot team during a Green Belt Project, Water Management. This team was awarded the 31st Annual Secretary of the Army Energy and Water Management Award, as well as the 2009 Federal Energy and Water Management Award within the small group category.

During her command, the depot's Law Enforcement and Security Branch did very well and received ``commendable'' ratings during the Headquarter, AMC Force Protection Assessment. In 2010, Tooele Army Depot received the AMC Anti-Terrorism Award for Small Installations.

Her guidance was instrumental in receiving OHSAS 18001 (safety), ISO 9001:2008 (ammo shipping/receiving and ammo equipment and manufacturing), and ISO 14001 (environmental) certifications.

Colonel Dennis-Lowman coordinated the effort for Tooele Army Depot to be the first Army installation to have a wind turbine. This wind turbine was completed in June 2010, stands 262 feet tall, and produces 1.5 MW of electricity, which is enough to power 300-400 homes, and translates to $206,625 in savings per year. In 2010, the depot's energy usage was 8% lower than during 2009, resulting in a cost savings of over $117,000.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, Colonel Yolanda C. Dennis-Lowman has served in a most exemplary manner as Commander of the Tooele Army Depot, and has demonstrated remarkable leadership abilities in the face of substantial challenges. I congratulate her on her accomplishments, and invite my colleagues to join me in thanking her for a job well done, and join me in extending well wishes to her for much success in all future endeavors.

I thank Chairman Pearce from New Mexico for using the Western Caucus to illustrate some of these ideas and situations that are here.

I'm also grateful that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun) was just here and tried to show how whenever you have a policy that prohibits or discriminates or lessens the amount of energy that we have in this country, it has a direct impact on individuals and people. As he was showing, it has a direct impact on the cost of food. For every dime that diesel fuel increases, that's $400 million the agricultural industry has to put onto the cost of food. Not just in transporting the food but for the fertilizer to grow it, for the boxing, the shipping, the manufacturing of it--all of those things are added to it. For every penny that the cost of gasoline increases at the pump, that is $1 billion that's taken out of the household income of Americans.

And whom is that going to impact the worst? Obviously the people at the lower end of the economic scale, who have the most difficult time making their budget stretch to pay for higher transportation costs through fuel, for higher food costs because fuel goes up, for higher heating costs because fuel goes up. They're the ones who are hurt.

Now, I also appreciate Mr. Pearce for illustrating that actually we have a situation in which the West, without trying to be specific to a region, but the West has been treated with the heaviest hand over the past few years and has suffered the greatest consequences of that heavy hand.

Last year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, they simply said that the region that had the highest unemployment for last year and the year before happened to be the West. Six of the top 12 States that had the largest decline in employment-to-population ratio since the recession that began in 2007 are found in the West.

Three of the top five States showing the most stress last year in the summer were found in the West, and unfortunately, Washington's misguided policies over the last several years are simply making these situations worse.

Let me, if I could, talk about a couple of specific situations that I have found in my State that have added to this problem of what we call the ``war on the West,'' because they have had the dual whammy of not only increasing the price of energy, which is the price of living and the price of doing business, but at the same time of decreasing jobs in our particular area. Part of that is because the West simply has, as a region, over half of its land owned by the Federal Government. This government--it was not planned this way; it just kind of happened--owns 1 out of every 3 acres in the United States. Yet, west of Denver, it owns 1 out of every 2 acres in the United States, and we get to have the fun of working with the heavy hand of the Federal Government on all sorts of efforts, especially when the Department of the Interior has unlimited, arbitrary and capricious powers given to them.

For example, the Bureau of Land Management in the State of Utah went through what they call ``regional management plans.'' I have 16 areas. Half of them went through a regional management plan. The people on the ground,

who are working there, who live there and who know that area, spent 7 years in developing a regional management plan, which means simply: How will the land owned by the Federal Government--and remember, it's still half of it--be used for development purposes?

For 7 years, they held the public hearings, and they went through all the processes. They came up with their plan. The Secretary of the Interior came into office, and in the first few days, he simply said, Those plans don't fit the needs of this country because they authorize 77 oil and gas leases, places where the professionals on the ground determined that the best use of government land was used to develop oil and gas in the State of Utah. The Secretary simply said no. He believed the last administration had made a rush to judgment, and therefore it was his best decision to suspend not only those oil leases but also the land management plans at the same time. He did it simply by the stroke of his signature. There was no work with it. There was no counterbalance. There was no checks and balance system. He simply said, I think it was wrong. It was a rush to judgment. I'm going to stop it.

Now, like everything else, this situation went to court, and the judge ruled that, actually, the Secretary was wrong. There was not a rush to judgment by anyone other than the Secretary when he suspended those leases. However, because there was a timing element--one of those technicalities--and because those who were suing waited too long to file the lawsuit, the decision of the Secretary would stand. Now, what the Secretary said is, I'll be magnanimous, and of the 77, I'll let 17 go forward. The other 60, they stay off the table. I don't care what the regional management plan did.

The end result of that was simply that you don't have a whole lot of leases that will be put out for development. Unfortunately, it has a ripple effect through the community because not all leases are found on Federal land. There is also State land and very few pieces of private land; but oftentimes they abut one another, and if you block the leasing opportunity on this piece of land, it sterilizes the leasing development opportunity on its neighbor land at the same time. Plus, if all of a sudden the Department of the Interior is sending a message that they're going to be tough on this kind of development, industry gets the message, and they're not going to fight that kind of issue, and they will leave at the same time.

The net result of this one action by the Department of the Interior was that unemployment in one rural county in Utah was a loss of 3,000 jobs in a county that only has 30,000 residents. The unemployment tripled over a course of months and only and solely because of this one decision: that not only did we not have the ability of drilling on those Federal lands, but you also lost the opportunity for the private sector to go onto State lands and onto certain private lands. Then there was the ripple effect as they realized what simply happened, which is that the private sector said, I'm not going to put up with this. They took the investment capital that they were willing to put into the region of rural Utah and took it somewhere else where they didn't have to deal with the Department of the Interior.

We have the same situation in the West in another particular area, specifically with oil shale. The U.S. Geological Survey, which oddly enough is part of the Department of the Interior, has estimated that, in a 16,000-square mile area of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, there are, roughly, 2 trillion barrels of oil that can be extracted from oil shale. That is more energy than we get from Canada. This is not a new and unusual process. Estonia, in the Baltic states, has been using this same process of extraction from oil shale for 80 years, and they have done it successfully and in an environmentally friendly manner.

We could copy that same proposal--but no. Once again, this administration has decided to slow-walk any development, slow-walk any allowance of projects to go forward to demonstrate what we can and cannot do. The net result of losing this opportunity for oil shale is at least $1.9 trillion added to the economy of this country, and there is projected to be up to 100,000 new jobs that would be lost simply by this one decision as well.

Now, this is a small area, but if you compound that fact of what is happening not just in my State of Utah but what is happening in Colorado and Wyoming and New Mexico and Nevada and the rest of the West and if you see the compounded problem we have, you truly can understand why in the recession the West was the hardest hit--because we were dealing with the Federal Government in a way that was certainly unfair.

I'd like to say one last thing before I yield back to the gentleman from New Mexico.

In the last days, as the gentleman said, we have been talking about the ability of trying to jump-start our energy portfolio, our energy self-dependence, our energy ability in three bills specifically dealing with offshore development. We have that same potential for energy development onshore as well that we need to talk about at the same time; but sometimes we also need to talk here simply about understanding how words have meaning. We have been throwing around words in the debate over the last couple of weeks in a way that, I think, has been somewhat unfair and somewhat dilatory, and it has clouded the actual issue of what is going on.

For example, there are those who are saying we don't need to actually develop any new oil or gas resources. There are plenty of leases out there that aren't being produced. I want you to know, when you deal with words, that ``lease'' is not the same thing as a permit to drill, and a ``permit to drill'' doesn't mean you're going to find anything for production. Just because there is a lease does not mean there is production. I had a company that was in my office today which has a lease in one of the Western States. They received the lease 6 years ago. Only this year did they finally check off all the boxes, run through all the bureaucratic hoops and do the environmental impact statements to get the permit 6 years later to finally start preparing to drill to see if it is actually productive. Those 6 years cost a lot of money to that company, money which could have gone to providing work, providing jobs, as well as resources to help grow the economy of this country. That's a real cost, and that is real and legitimate.

We've heard comments before about how this country doesn't have enough oil because we don't have enough reserves to make it worthwhile. According to the CRS, Congressional Research Study, we have $1.2 trillion worth of gas that is available for production here in the United States. That puts us in the top five countries in the world for oil. We are not an oil-poor country. However, when we talk about reserves, reserves are not the same thing as the amount of money that's available. Our reserves are a definition that is established by the SEC, and by the definition we use, we will always have fewer reserves than other countries, by definition.

In addition to that, a reserve can't count as a reserve until you can actually get to it. When we put parts of this country off, when we have a moratorium, by definition, that takes us out of the reserve. So, when someone says we don't have as many reserves as other countries, it's probably true. That doesn't mean we don't have enough oil that can be used and produced. It simply means it doesn't fit the definition. ``Reserve'' is not the same thing as ``amount of producible oil.''

Just like as the gentleman from Georgia said, a subsidy--and we talked about all the subsidies the industries are getting--is when the government actually pays cash to somebody. The oil companies are not getting cash from the government.

A subsidy should not be confused with a tax credit or a tax deduction. If it were, when I fill out my long form and I write down my charitable contributions and get to write them off, that means the Federal Government is subsidizing me or subsidizing the charity to which I'm giving. That doesn't make any sense.

What we need to do is talk about the words as the words really are meant to be and make sure that the words are used the proper way and not for some rhetorical effort to inflame the situation and reach some other result.

The last word we need to talk about is simply ``jobs.'' Right now, there are twice as many government jobs as in all of manufacturing combined. In 1960, those ratios were reversed. We have gone to a lot of effort over the last 2 years to pass jobs bills, all of which produced government jobs. What we need to do is look at jobs in the private sector, and the private sector which creates a reliable, long-term job, a job that also equates wealth that goes back into the system and helps to grow our economy and grow our country.

Those are the jobs we should be after, and those are the jobs we need to do. Unfortunately, we will never develop those jobs until we have a governmental energy policy that is reliable, that is not dependent on the whims of some foreign country, and that helps us develop the resources that we have in this country. We can do it and we need to do it, and I appreciate Mr. Pearce from New Mexico for bringing up this issue because that's exactly what we need to do as a policy.

With that, I thank the gentleman.