Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman from Texas.

Let me start, if I could, for just a second about jobs, because we are talking both inside these Halls and outside about jobs. The President and the Vice President are going on, it's called his recovery summer tour in which he's going to talk about the creation of jobs. In the talking points sent out from the White House, they are talking about the 30,000 miles of new transportation, 80,000 new homes that will be weatherized, 800 programs in parks that are being increased, 2,000 drinking water projects, all in the name of creating jobs.

The President's also asking Congress for $20 billion in additional stimulus money to protect government jobs, in addition to the $135 billion we did in the original stimulus bill to do that. And for only $2 billion--now think of that, less than a tenth of what the President wants in a new stimulus bill to create and protect jobs; a rounding error in either the TARP or the TARP 2 or Son of TARP or Stimulus I or Stimulus II--this administration could protect 25,000 to 30,000 jobs in the private sector.

These are scientists and engineers, and these are the jobs that this administration's policy with NASA are going to let go and give their pink slips.

But early on in the Bush administration, it was decided the space shuttle era had ended. After the problems and the catastrophes with Challenger and Columbia, a Presidential commission came through and decided we wanted to come up with a newer, safer way to go to the Moon, space station and beyond; and the result of that was Constellation.

Constellation is a program that is designed to be safer than the space shuttle by a factor of 10. It's using solid rocket motors because those are the safest type of vehicles. It separates the cargo from the passengers so, if there is a problem, they can be safer. Time magazine called this the best invention of last year. This is the science that we have to come up with the best way of going into the future, and it's built by a free enterprise company. It consists of the Orion capsule where the passengers would be, as well as the Aries rocket that will power it at the same time.

If this White House, if the administration, if NASA gets their way and decides to cancel this greatest invention of the last couple of years, there is no Constellation, there will, as has been said, still be astronauts who need to go up to the space station. As has been said, they will be going up on Russian craft, and in the next year's budget, this administration has already penciled in $75 million per astronaut visit. As has been mentioned by the good gentleman from Texas, Russians have learned the lessons of capitalism, and they realize when they have a monopoly they can play that game. But $75 million per astronaut trip so that we can subsidize the Russian rocket industry.

So that, indeed, as we are looking at the future and we're coming up with this, this summer of recovery is not necessarily going to be about American jobs. The summer of recovery is how we will be spending American taxpayers' money to make sure that the Russian technicians are on the line building Russian missiles. Perhaps the Chinese are on the line starting to build new Chinese missiles so that we can keep their jobs and we will rely on Russian technology because we know how effective that has been in the past, Russian technology for our astronaut visits.

We sometimes ask the question, where are the jobs? Well, in Russian, you also ask it. In their version of where are the jobs, with this policy of this administration, NASA, jobs aren't going to be here. Jobs are going to be in Russia. Jobs are going to be in China, eventually in India; and even Japan's getting in on the trick. That's where those jobs are going to go.

We are firing 30,000 American citizens who have good jobs in science and engineering to build the Constellation program and for what? To lose our leadership in space? To subsidize the Russians and the Chinese industry? To put more Americans out of work in this summer of recovery? It simply does not make sense.

I'd like to enter into an interchange with the gentleman. We've got a lot of things to talk about how this interfaces with our military commitment and what this administration is doing that is totally unusual in trying to push this program forward to destroy--we're not losing the space race this time. We're forfeiting the game.

I appreciate the way the gentleman from Texas has put this. Let's face it: two concepts this administration kept throwing at it: we're going to save money in this and we're going to privatize it, both of those concepts are flat out false.

As has been said, this administration expects to spend $6 billion more on NASA than they are right now without doing any kind of manned space flight, $6 billion more for satellites to do climate control and feeding the hungry in the world. And in addition to that, the money that will now go to these new companies, these startup business companies, this is not free enterprise.

The Constellation went out on a bid that was won by free enterprise companies. The people building right now are free market sector companies. What this administration wants to do is to take the money away from those who are already building Constellation, scrap the program, and then turn over to any other group to come up with a new plan, a new goal. We don't have a new plan or a new goal, but they're going to give it to new companies.

This government is basically saying these private sector companies are now going to be the losers; our friends in this private sector group are now going to be the winners. But as the gentleman from Texas said, this group is not just simply a business free enterprise group. They're already being subsidized by NASA to the point of millions of dollars and have already told NASA they need more.

This has nothing to do with free enterprise. This has everything to do with this administration picking winners and losers among the free enterprise and elements. So those who have the contracts now are going to lose them and lose their jobs, and that money is going to transfer over to another group that is also being subsidized by NASA. It's not free enterprise, this bit, and this is not saving the taxpayers money. This is simply mind-boggling that we are now going to simply say we have no plan for space.

I thank the gentleman from Texas again as both he and Mr. Hall were very eloquent in pointing out the problems that we are facing with the cancellation of the Constellation program by NASA.

I'd like to take one small detour from here to try and point out once again that the decision by this administration to cancel Constellation, by NASA, was done arbitrarily, capriciously, and actually without foresight of what the implications would be and their unintended consequences on our military side. For what this administration did not realize is that the people--the industrial base that builds the rockets to send a man to the moon--are the same people who build the rockets to shoot down North Korean and Iranian missiles that are coming at us. This industrial base is there with the expertise, and if you fire 20,000 to 30,000 of that base, this is not a spigot you can turn on and off and add them back, if indeed by some miraculous idea you think you need to change direction and start over again. That is what we have found--that the impact on NASA has a unique, specific, and dangerous impact on the defense of this country because if we are having a missile defense system, the fact that we are going to fire 25,000 to 30,000 people in this industrial base means that those people will not be working on our missile defense system.

The Defense Authorization Act that passed this House and is now over in the Senate, in the report language it concluded that if indeed Constellation is canceled, the cost to our military for our missile defense program will increase 40 percent to 100 percent, that the increased cost to anything that is propulsion, any of our technical missiles--the HARM missile, the Sidewinder missile, anything that has that propulsion--it will increase the cost for us to build those 40 percent to 100 percent. The Minuteman III cost will double. The Navy's missile program cost will double, and it's at a time when Secretary Gates over at Defense has said that they want the administration to find roughly $100 billion in cuts for next year's budget.

Now, did we ever take the time to figure out the implications of this program? Not only are we firing 30,000 of our best and brightest, our scientists and engineers, not only are we ceding space to the Chinese and the Russians and eventually the Indians and the Japanese, no longer are we forfeiting the game, no longer are we no longer taking a part, we are putting our missile defense system at risk at the very same time. This administration has naively lurched into this program without considering the unintended consequences.

If I could also say one thing in conclusion before I yield back to the gentleman from Texas. There are three things that NASA has done in trying to push this program of cutting Constellation that violate the obvious intent of Congress. Number one, Congress passed in the omnibus appropriations bill language that said the Constellation would not be cut until Congress approves those cuts. Nonetheless, first of all, they deferred the Constellation contracts, didn't terminate them--it was cute--they just deferred them so the money would not flow. Number two, they then moved the Constellation manager--didn't fire him, they just moved him--to disrupt the program. And number three, and a very novel, unique way--in fact, the spokesman said, well, these are unique circumstances--for the first time ever, ever in the history of NASA, they have said termination costs, the liability of termination costs must come from existing contracts. NASA has never done that when it terminated a program. When Congress told it to terminate a program on solid rocket motors, they always appropriated money for the closing costs. What this means is that the premarket private sector companies that are building Constellation right now have got to, from their current contracts, take money out to terminate, which means they fire their employees and they turn to their subcontractors and they break those contacts so they fire their employees. This is all a concentrated effort on the part of NASA and this administration to destroy this program before Congress has a chance to finalize our work and say whether we want it destroyed or not. I think it's very clear that this Congress has never at any time given the indication to NASA that we think Constellation should stop. But this is a program being done by the administration in violation of clearly the intent of Congress and, as the gentleman said, maybe even under the specifics of the rule of law of Congress, to force us into a fait accompli where Congress does not want to go and this Nation should not go.

This is a sad situation, this is sad, this is unprecedented on the part of NASA, and it is not good for the country. I appreciate being able to be a part

of this evening tonight because Constellation is very, very important to this country. This is our future. We should not lose that. I yield back to the gentleman from Texas and thank you for allowing me to be a part of this.

I have only one last insight to give, and I appreciate, once again, the gentleman from Texas taking this time to point out how significant this issue is that, indeed, the Constellation program was the way forward into the future. It was to replace the space shuttle. It went through the science. It is our future. It is being built by the private sector. Yet, we are deciding to cancel it with no other goal in mind. We don't have a plan. We don't have a program. We don't even have a name. We don't have an idea for what the future may bring.

There was a study that was done after the last space shuttle catastrophe, and it said there are two things that will destroy manned spaceflight, the mission to manned spaceflight and NASA. Those are, number one, not to consider human safety, as the gentleman has said. Then number two is not to have an organized plan.

I just have, in a note of irony, a flyer that went to all of our offices that came from NASA that tomorrow, in the Rayburn foyer, there will be the new era of innovation and discovery, which means that there will be an interactive, all-day event highlighting NASA's robust Earth and space science portion, cutting-edge aeronautics, and continued leadership in human flight.

I am so grateful that there will be an interactive game that we in Congress can play about spaceflight, because, if the decisions of NASA and of this administration are allowed, there won't be a real manned spaceflight for us to see. At least we'll have a game so that we will remember what we used to do and what might have been.

I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlelady from North Carolina yielding me the time.

We are here today to talk about a rule that would qualify certain amendments to solve a procedural problem, a mistake that the majority party made here. But why not use this rule as an opportunity to something really more, to help solve and resolve ongoing problems. One could look at the far map that I have of the United States over there. Everything that is in red is land and property owned by the Federal Government. Ronald Reagan looked at that and said, You never see something like that this side of the old Soviet Union. Think about that. One out of every three acres of this country is owned and controlled by the Federal Government. And I hate to say this, but in 2007, OMB did a study and said that, of that, $18 billion worth of that property is excess. It is useless. It is needless.

This year, Peter Orszag updated that report and said there are 14,000 buildings that the Federal Government owns that are excess, and 55,000 buildings that are underutilized and not necessary. When I first came here, The Washington Post did an editorial that said, Until the District of Columbia can get hold of all the excess land and buildings owned by the Federal Government and put those to economic use, the economy of Washington, D.C., would never grow.

Those of us in the West have been saying that for a long time. In fact, this year, I introduced two land transfer bills. In each bill, both the Forest Service and the BLM as well as the Army Corps of Engineers owned land that they did not use, they did not need, they didn't even know about it. One parcel of land was sold to the Federal Government in the 1940s for $1, and the Forest Service did not know they had that land.

The local officials understood that this land is useless, and these buildings are useless, and thus, they are put to some kind of profitable need. The D.C. bureaucrats, though, said their policy is no net loss of land or real estate. In fact, the only way they will give up something is if they get more in return. That is pure insanity. Use this rule to go against the excesses of land and the excess buildings that we have so that we can send a true message to the business community and the money lenders who have money to invest in this economy that we really are serious about the debt by taking all of the excess and using it to pay down the debt, that we are serious about building a business climate here that will encourage people to invest in this company, and do that first by saying, We will retire our excess property and use it to build down and take down this debt.

Madam Speaker, I come to the floor today during this specific time to talk about issues that are taking place on the borders of the United States. The issues I talk about are issues that impact both the northern border and southern border as well. But we have had quite a bit of hype in the media lately about things that are taking place on the southern border, so I would like to try to focus my attention primarily on what is happening between the border between the United States and Mexico. I also want to try to narrow the focus of the discussion tonight in some particular way because I'm not talking about everybody who is coming through the border, both legally and illegally. I'm talking about certain kinds of bad guys that are doing great harm to this particular country.

Let me talk about the kinds of people for which we should be vastly concerned. I am talking about drug cartels and drug runners. The sad fact is that almost all the illegal drugs coming into this country are coming across Federal lands that abut our southern border.

I'm talking about human traffickers. The sad reality is, those who are hijacking and kidnapping people, those who are running prostitution rings, those who are bringing people in here for unspeakable kinds of activities are coming through Federal lands on our southern border. If you go down to those lands, you will see the rape trees, established where those who are leading innocent individuals will take people across the border, physically abuse them, rape them, and then leave an article of peril on a tree as a memento, a reward, a symbol of their success in such a heinous activity. That is happening on Federal land along our southern border.

And I also want to talk about the potential of terrorists who can come through Federal land on our southern border almost without any kinds of inhibitions. You see, not everyone who is coming through the southern border with Mexico are from Mexico or even Latin American. In recent years the Border Patrol has intercepted people from Yemen, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, people from most of the countries that are on our enemy watch list, those types of individuals for whom we should be suspect are the ones who are being captured and caught and detained. And the question is, how many are not being captured and caught and detained?

We have found discarded apparel, backpacks with old Chinese passports that had been modified, that had been cut up, that had been reused. We are not really sure exactly why they were there and for what purpose they had, but we know that those types of individuals are coming across our southern border.

So please let me try to emphasize: The reason there should be such concern is because of some of the kinds of people who are illegally entering this country, whose sole purpose--it's not to find a job or not to join a family--but whose sole purpose is to further the illegal drug trade, whose sole purpose is to further illegal human trafficking, and whose sole purpose could easily be for terroristic reasons.

Now one of the ironies of our situation on the southern border is, if you look at this picture of the southern border, the land from San Diego over to El Paso, everything that is colored along the southern border is different kinds of Federal land. Well over 40 percent of the southern border is Federal lands, 4 million acres of which are in wilderness categories.

I want to make a distinction between the southern border from El Paso to San Diego because if you go from El Paso down to the Gulf of Mexico, it's slightly different. First of all, you will notice from the map there is not a lot of Federal lands there, and the Border Patrol has a great deal more latitude and, consequently, a great deal more effectiveness on private lands, working with private individuals and local law enforcement, than they do in the areas where there are Federal lands; plus there's a river that makes a difference as well.

So I want to concentrate on all of that colored area between San Diego and El Paso where it is the Federal lands that are causing the problem.

And they are causing the problem not for an unreasonable reason. I think we can all logically understand this. The Border Patrol is being very, very effective in urban areas. The Border Patrol is also being increasingly effective along the Texas border where they are dealing with local law enforcement and private property owners. And that means that if you want to come into this country illegally to do drugs, do human trafficking, or for terroristic purposes, you try to go through the area that is the easiest.

The easiest access to this country has now become Federal lands along the southern border, and that means that even though this issue has been with us for many years and many administrations--going back to the Reagan years when we were talking about this particular issue--and even though the failings that I will be mentioning in this hour deal with this administration, they also dealt during the Bush administration, the Clinton administration, and years before that.

The only difference though is that now the situation is being exacerbated because the success we have in urban areas and on the private sector land means that the bad guys are being funneled more and more into the Federal lands where it is simply easier access to get into this country. So the problem has always been there. The problem, though, is intensifying, and that is why we must look differently at what we are doing.

Two agencies, actually three agencies are responsible for that southern border. They include those who own the lands, which is the Department of Interior and the Forest Service, and those who are charged with patrolling and protecting those lands, which is Homeland Security, specifically, the Border Patrol. And my contention to you today is that those three agencies have collectively failed in their responsibility.

A few weeks ago, a deputy sheriff from Pinal County, Arizona, comes to one of those sections of land which is wilderness designation, which means he no longer is able to stay within his vehicle--because, by our laws, we cannot have a mechanized vehicle in a wilderness area--so he has to get out of his car and walk into this wilderness area where he promptly walks into an ambush and is shot. Two weeks later, in the same area, the same wilderness area where the Border Patrol is not allowed to do their routine type of patrol work, two dead bodies of Americans are found in that exact same spot on Federal land.

You look over at the Rob Krentz family where, through a wildlife refuge, once again, because it has an endangered species on it, Border Patrol is prohibited from going into that area. Unfortunately, the murderer of Rob Krentz was not prohibited from entering this country through that wildlife refuge. He confronted a rancher whose family goes back to 1907 in Arizona in that particular ranch. This is an elderly gentleman who was on a motorized vehicle on his own land. He did not have the opportunity of facing the issue of whether to fight or flee because he didn't have the capacity to do either. He had just had surgery on his back. He had just had a hip replacement, was scheduled for another hip replacement. He basically was immobile.

And in years past, when a rancher confronted drug cartels, drug runners, the human traffickers, they would usually flee. But for whatever reason--and this is becoming more and more constant--for whatever reason, this time the drug cartel decided to stay there, and they killed Rob Krentz, and they killed his dog. And then he fled on a very out-of-the-way route to going back through the exact wilderness refuge from which he entered into this country. I'm sorry, this is an example of where we are failing.

A Mexican rancher brutally murdered, bound and duct taped, was thrown into the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument on the U.S. side back in November. To this day, nobody has actually issued any kind of press release to allow anyone to know that that is happening. And the sad part is the examples I am giving you right now are not isolated. We have had several members of our Border Patrol who have been murdered in this exact same area. More and more individuals, both Americans and of Mexican extraction, are being assaulted, murdered, raped, and robbed in this particular area, and it is all happening on Federal land.

So the question one has to simply ask is, you know, Why? Why would this, indeed, be the situation in which we find ourselves? And one of the problems that this Congress needs to address--because only this Congress has the ability to address it--is some of the internal conflicts between different Federal agencies. If you have the Interior Department and Forest Service who own the land, they have certain laws that we, in Congress, have wisely passed on how they must manage their land. Homeland Security, though, is responsible for border protection. They have other requirements and laws, and not always do those laws fit together easily. In fact, sometimes they are in conflict.

It would be very simple to say, Well, common sense will tell you just to sit down and work out the issue. Unfortunately, we're dealing with the Federal Government, where common sense is not necessarily a high priority. Indeed, some of the land managers, working under the Department of Interior as well as the Forest Service, almost are doing their work as if they have blinders on. Dedicated to the task at hand and the legal requirement they have to consider the value and the protection of the land as their highest priority, and dedicated to fulfilling that legal requirement, they are sometimes oblivious to the real world that is around them. They forget that there are other missions that have to be there.

So sometimes it is more important to protect 22 pronghorn goats on this land who are endangered than it is to consider definitely more than 22 young men and women in America who are obviously subject to the suffering and the pain that comes from the use of illegal drugs, which are coming through that exact same territory. It is almost as if we have this attitude within the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service that because those are their lands, they will allow the Border Patrol to go in there under certain circumstances. And yet, at the same time, we have had the criticisms filed with us that allowing the Border Patrol to go in there and monitor these lands and protect the border for this country sometimes takes up to 6 months just to get the permits to run the programs that they need.

Now, we were told the other day that, Well, this is changing. We are working together better, that now we are coming together as Homeland Security and Interior Department and Forest Service. We have worked those out. No longer does it take 6 months to get the permits for the activities to take place. We're now doing those within 30 days, sometimes 60 days, occasionally a bit longer. Here is the question. We're talking about securing this border. A drug cartel does not wait 90 days from the entrance into the country before they continue on. They are not waiting for the bureaucratic wheel to spin so slowly in this country to get together and work together to solve this particular problem. And until we can come up with a new way of doing these issues, it will continue.

We had a meeting with these three groups again the other day in which they were proud that a communication tower, which was essential for the Border Patrol to be able to do their work in guarding the access and monitoring the access into this country, was not allowed to be put on the site the Border Patrol wanted because that would have been on wilderness designation. And once again, because of the laws we have passed, you may not put any new structure on a wilderness designation. So they were very proud. They were very proud that they had, after several months of negotiation, came up with a deal to move the tower to an area that was acceptable to Homeland Security and acceptable to the Interior Department. Now that sounds great that they did the deal--with one small caveat. The tower doesn't work in that area. There is now, by everyone's admission, a 3-mile hole in the coverage, which means in this effort to try to monitor what is coming in and out of American territory, there is now a 3-mile black spot where no one will ever know what is coming in or coming out. And I'm sorry, that's causing a problem.

It is not unusual for the drug cartels, who are very sophisticated, to understand this concept. Therefore, with this 3-mile hole, that becomes the primary route of entrance. And the only reason

that that 3-mile hole exists is because, to obey our laws and to have, first of all, the concept of protecting the land upper most, you didn't put the tower where the tower would work. You put it on an alternative site.

Now once again, perhaps years ago when only a few people were coming over occasionally, perhaps years ago when people who were there coming over to try and get jobs to milk cows or to change sheets or to pick tomatoes, occasionally that would not have been a problem. But as I have said, we are no longer talking about that group, those kinds of people coming in. We are now talking about effective, organized drug cartels having running battles with themselves as well as Mexican authorities on that side, and they are the ones who are now in increasing numbers coming through those black holes on the Federal land that we have simply created because we have not taken the blinders off to look at the overall picture.

It is human traffickers and all the violence against women who are coming over in increasing numbers through areas that we are not allowing to be regularly patrolled. And the potential of a terrorist coming into this country through these areas that no longer have any kind of security simply because we are giving precedence to a land concept of wilderness or endangered species, and that takes precedence over securing our border and trying to protect the citizens of this country.

Now, most people when you talk about this just shake their head in amazement and say, That is silly. That violates common sense.

The only thing we have to say to those citizens who say that is, You are right, it is silly. And it does violate common sense. And that is why this Congress needs to do something about it because only we have the ability of taking all three agencies and making them work to see the large picture, the overall goal, and not simply what their narrow focus may be in their job requirement or their job vision.

The question was made on whether the Border Patrol can do routine patrols along our southern border. Without dropping a beat, the representative from the National Park Service and the Department of the Interior said, Well, of course not. Only under certain circumstances, only when there is evidence of incursion will they be allowed to go into these areas because that is when they need to. Once again, if we are now inviting people to use these areas because we are stopping them other places so now they are coming on Federal land, one of the things that we need to do is make it much more difficult for someone to come onto this land illegally, and that means you need to have Border Patrol doing routine patrols.

I think in the back of everyone's mind if we start thinking about what the Border Patrol could or should be doing as we envision it personally, we would obviously see a bunch of people in a motorized vehicle, armed, going up and down the border making sure that they are checking for signs of incursion and making sure that those who want to come into this country are having a second thought and saying maybe there is a better route that is not across Federal lands.

So the first question one should ask is, Why not? Why aren't they allowed to be in there? For, indeed, if the bottom line means that our Border Patrol is not allowed to go on Federal lands to do their job, we are creating our own problem. Initially last week, I believe, or maybe 2 weeks ago, the President announced a new initiative to send 1,200 National Guardsmen down to the border. I am encouraged by his commitment to do something about it. However, once again one has to ask: If the Border Patrol are not allowed to go onto Federal lands, the National Guard will not be allowed to go onto Federal lands. I don't care how many thousands of people you send down there, if they are not allowed to do their job, if they don't have the access so they can do the patrolling, it doesn't make a difference. That is silly. It is not going to work. And that is the concept that somehow some way we ought to recognize. We ought to figure out.

There is also one other issue that goes along with that that should be a special concern to this Congress in the way that we operate here because in one of the oddities that has developed over the years, we have Congress appropriating money to agencies of government who are then extorting that money from other agencies of government, i.e., for the Border Patrol to do their work, one of the things and conditions that is put upon them by the Department of the Interior is that they have to pay mitigation fees, which means this Congress, without knowing the details, appropriates money to Homeland Security for the Border Patrol who will then have to pay that money to the Department of the Interior for mitigation fees or to buy other lands to compensate.

This Congress has no control over that process. That's wrong. This Congress has no say over that process, and that is wrong. And the idea of transferring money from one group to another without the oversight of Congress is wrong. It is illogical. It should not happen.

Here is the irony: as a Member of Congress, when the Homeland Security budget is brought to this floor, I as a Member of Congress do not have the ability to come in here and transfer some of that money from Homeland Security over to the Interior budget. But the agencies are doing it, and they are doing it without reporting it to Congress, without understanding what Congress is about. Those agencies, by one extorting money from the other, have the ability to do something that Members of Congress cannot.

And I am sorry, Madam Speaker, this is illogical. And I am sorry that we are going to authorize up to $50 million in this year's budget to give to Homeland Security so they can send it over to the Interior Department or the Forest Service, and the Interior Department or the Forest Service will, without ever checking on why we are doing that, what we are doing, and how this money is supposed to be spent. The money all comes from the same pot, and it should be Congress' decision on where that money is spent and how that money is spent. It should not be a matter of internal negotiations between the haves and the have- nots between different agencies, and that is a practice that has been going on in this administration and in the prior administration and the prior administration before that.

The difference, though, is today the dollar amount is much more significant, and the issue is much more significant.

Some of the news agencies made a major brouhaha yesterday by reporting a new sign that has been put up by the Department of the Interior. I believe this is on the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge. And what the sign says to Americans coming down to this American spot for wilderness protection for endangered species, as well as recreation opportunities, is very clear. And amazing. It tells Americans danger, there is a public warning, travel is not recommended because the area of American land owned by the Federal Government in which they would be entering is active drug and human smuggling areas. Down here the BLM encourages visitors to use public lands north of Interstate 8.

How many other places in the United States do you have the United States Government putting up signs telling Americans not to enter into American territory because it is too dangerous for Americans to go into American territory, that drug cartels from foreign nations have taken over control of this territory, and you enter at your own risk? Unfortunately, this is not unusual. This sign went up this last week.

For years, both the Interior Department and Forest Service have been recommending for people not to travel in these areas. And if you do, you go at your own risk. Ninety-five percent of the Organ Pipe National Monument is a wilderness area, and 90 percent of that wilderness area is controlled by Mexican drug cartels, and no American is allowed to go into that without some kind of armed escort.

Further north I went to the Ironwood Monument. Once again, we were told and warned that it is a dangerous area, don't stop along the roads; continue on driving; try not to get out of your car and continue on foot in those particular areas.

These are areas well within the border of the United States. And, sadly, this is not atypical. Going back to the year 2006, once again a different administration, but in 2006, the Department

of the Interior issued a report about this that was never released to the public. But in it it indicated that in the year before, 2005, there were at least five murders, two rapes, 39 armed robberies, and they are estimating somewhere between 200,000 and 300,000 illegal incursions on this piece of property. I want you to know, those are the only ones that the Federal Government investigated; anything that was reported to local law enforcement was not included in those figures.

Now, because this has now been spun out in the national media, and because the sheriff in Pinal County simply said there are areas in his jurisdiction that are out of control, and that area that is out of his control where he cannot provide protection are all Federal lands that are owned by the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service where he nor the local law enforcement nor the Border Patrol had the ability to do what they need to do to try and control that particular area, Interior Department sent out a memo today, a media advisory trying to put this into some kind of perspective.

And what they said is that don't take this out of perspective. It is only a small area of the land that is closed to Americans. In fact, they put out this sign which is somewhat blurred, but they simply said, and this is the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, they are not closing all; they are only closing this portion down here that is the portion of America that no Americans can go into because it is too dangerous for Americans to go down there. They also then said that the amount of violence that takes place here annually year after year after year is decreasing, so we should be heartened.

I think there should be another question that should be asked. As a policy for this Congress or this administration, How much of America's land should we accept as uninhabitable for Americans? What percentage of American property should we just say, okay, foreign entities, foreign substance groups, drug cartels, you can have 5 percent of our land as yours, we just won't bother you in that? Maybe 10 percent, 2 percent? What percent is acceptable to say that America can turn over our control of American land to cartels and groups from outside this country and it is acceptable? How many murders are acceptable before we are happy? Is five murders too many? If we only have three murders a year happening on Federal land, is that enough to satisfy what we are doing?

Look, the bottom line is quite simple: what we have been doing is failing, and we have to do something different. We have to do something different.

Part of it is to use common sense and say the Border Patrol should be allowed to go where the Border Patrol needs to go.

I have here a picture of one of our Federal lands, once again in Arizona where you see traffic barricades. These traffic barricades, nicely put here, are cool; except the goal of these traffic barricades is to prohibit the Border Patrol from going into Federal land that has wilderness categories and wilderness designation. This is not to stop the bad guys from coming in, this is to stop our guys from coming in.

At Organ Pipe National Monument, these fence barriers used to be our border between the United States and Mexico. These used to be put in there to stop Mexican cars from coming into the United States. Well, we have a different wall there now that is much more effective, so we don't need those. So instead, the public land manager in this particular area took these barricades and put them inside his territory, once again not to stop foreigners from coming in, but to stop the Border Patrol from going in. Somehow we have to realize that what we need to do is to allow the Border Patrol to have routine access, routine patrols, and not stop them from going into these territories.

Now, once again, we have met with them and they say we are working these things out; everything is going to be fine. In fact, some of the gates we are now putting up have locks on them, and we are giving the Border Patrol keys to the locks; besides, if they really need to, they could just push through those gates. However, local security, the local law enforcement doesn't have a key to those locks. If a deputy sheriff in one of those counties is chasing a bad guy into that area, they are prohibited from that pursuit. Somehow we have to get common sense back into the situation because what we are talking about simply does not work.

And there is an irony in this. The sole purpose of trying to stop the Border Patrol from securing our borders is because of the fear that they may cause damage to the environment, that a motorized Border Patrol truck could actually screw up the land or chase away an animal or do something else. So, therefore, we are prohibiting them from doing that except for some extraneous and unusual circumstances. But the irony is the bad guys, the drug cartels, the human traffickers, potential terrorists, they are not inhibited by any of that. So they go into that area, and they don't care what kind of environmental damage they do.

Madam Speaker, you have probably seen these pictures before. This is a picture of Federal land. This is wilderness land where Americans are not supposed to go: no motorized vehicle is supposed to go; no wheeled vehicle is supposed to go; only on foot with backpacks or on horseback. That is for us. Unfortunately, the drug cartels and the human traffickers come in here and they leave all of their stuff behind. They change clothes so they can get picked up along the highway and go further inside the United States illegally.

This is what is left behind. This is what the landscape looks like in these areas that we are trying to save for their environmental purpose. The irony is we are failing. We are failing because the people that need to be kept out are not being kept out and the people who could solve the problem are.

One of the unique finds we found is that once again the Border Patrol--trying, I guess, to come up with some pocket change and pocket money for their activities--are going into these areas, and this cacti that has been cut down is an endangered species, which means it is illegal to cut it down. They didn't care; they cut it down, anyway. It is placed across a road, the purpose of which is to stop an American traveler in this Federal territory because they can't go over the cactus. Once they get to that spot, they are then robbed with armed gunmen.

The irony once again is if the Federal Government were to go in there and try to pick up this cactus and move it off the road, that's a felony. That's illegal under our Wilderness Act. Sometimes, once again, we have to come up with other areas, what to do. We have placed water towers within Federal territory in an effort to try and make sure that those illegal visitors coming in here who happen to run out of water will not die. That's a humanitarian effort. However, what is so bizarre is the Border Patrol can't go anywhere near those water towers for fear of running off an illegal alien that may need the water. We are doing that.

We have done this kind of stuff, once again, going back through several administrations. But the cost is higher now, the issues are higher now, and the danger is higher now. We can no longer afford to continue on with that particular pattern. I would also warn you that right now, as we speak, in the Coronado National Forest, there is another wildfire.

Most of the wildfires that are taking place on Federal land in the southern border area are not accidental wildfires; they are started by the bad guys, the drug cartels and the human traffickers, for two reasons: either they will start the wildfire as a diversion to take Federal forces to the fire so they can go the other way, or, much more practically, if they're in deep trouble, they'll start a fire to get somebody to come and rescue them. Most of the fires are started that way.

We have one now in Coronado, which is called the Horseshoe Fire. Estimates are $10 million that it will cost the taxpayers to fight this fire caused by illegal aliens trying to come into this country, not for jobs or for family but to do harm; illegal trafficking, drugs and, once again, the potential of terrorism. That's what we need to deal with. That is the issue that is at hand.

There is one last concept with this. Arizona passed a law dealing with illegal immigrants. It has been highly controversial. The merits or the rationale

of Arizona's laws notwithstanding, I have no intentions of even talking about whether I think it is a good or bad law. It is insignificant. What is the reality is that the law was produced because of the anger, the angst, and the anxiety that is caused by the funneling of thousands and thousands of drug dealers and human traffickers into the State of Arizona. Because we have done such a good job in the other area, we are now funneling them through those Federal lands. The Federal Government's action caused that law. And I would think it would be wise, before this Federal Government decides to go to Arizona and tell Arizona what they should or should not do internally with their laws, for the Federal Government to realize we are causing the problem and for the Federal Government to simply go down there on Federal lands and say, It is a Federal responsibility. The Federal Government will stand up. The Federal Government will ensure that we have control over this territory. The Federal Government will stop the worst possible invasion of this country by the people who are trying to do harm; mainly, once again, the drug traffickers, the human traffickers, and the potential terrorists. That should be what the 10th Amendment is about. That's the concept of Federalism. We are causing the problem and now we are criticizing local government who is trying to react to it; whereas, local government wouldn't need to do that form of reaction if we simply did our job first.

Once again, look at the map. That's the territory, everything that's colored. That's an open invitation for people to come into this country because it is so easy. And that's the problem. And because it has been exacerbated, because it's happening to a greater extent, because the damage is worse than ever before, and because the potential harm to this country is so great, this Congress has to step up and decide that we will get these entities together and we will establish what the standards are. The standards should be very simple: that not 1 inch of United States property should be given over to a cartel, and Americans should never be told not to go into parts of this country because it's too dangerous for America. We should come up and establish a policy that the Border Patrol will have open and complete access and no other agency, especially Interior or Forest Service, will tell the Border Patrol what their job is and how they will do it; and that there will be continuous and routine patrols of our border until such time as the drug cartels realize that it is no longer easy to come into this country that way. That they will find some other route is obvious, but that this is our responsibility, our land, and that we clearly are failing, and that the problem is getting worse every day is our fault and our responsibility, and we must take control definitely on that.

I hope this country recognizes what we're talking about, but, more important, I hope this Congress recognizes what we're talking about. I will say, I think this Congress has. The language in House bill 5016 which would solve this problem was passed in this body overwhelmingly on a bipartisan vote on a motion to recommit. The bill to which it was voted and attached is waiting over in the Senate with very little likelihood of being moved. Senator Coburn in the Senate attached similar language that would help solve this problem to an appropriations bill. It was passed by voice vote in the Senate, and then before it came to final passage over here in conference committee, the language was removed. Both bodies of this Congress have said what they believe should take place, and common sense from Americans tells us what should take place.

Now is the time for us to realize we can no longer simply ignore this situation, and it's our fault. What we have been doing does not work. We need a better approach. We need to make commonsense situations. We need to have our land managers see the higher picture of what is important for this entire country, and we need to do it now, because the situation gets worse every day, every day we wait.

Mr. Speaker, with no budget or overall spending plan, the administration apparently wants at least another $25 billion to save the jobs of local government workers; yet at the same time, the administration's space plan would destroy 30,000 jobs, many of them scientists and engineers who are working in the private sector who would cost this government nine times less. Is there any kind of wonder why so many people watching what we're doing in Washington suffer from policy whiplash? It's almost as if this administration is saying, If you are a government worker, we'll bend over backwards to help you, but if you're in the private sector, especially a scientist or engineer, you'd better be hoping that Wal-Mart is hiring.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to plead the Tenth. Earlier today, this body voted on H.R. 4855 that would establish in the Department of Labor an annual work/life balance award for employers that have developed and implemented work/life balance policies. The bill would also establish an advisory board to administer the award. Now although I oppose this legislation, I want to make clear that I actually think that the ultimate goals of this bill are good ones. The sponsors had the best intentions. I want to repeat that. The goals and objectives of this bill are respectable, even noble ideas. No one questions that a proper work/life balance is extremely important. But just because something is important doesn't mean Washington has to write a law to protect it, or create a bureau to encourage it, or really have anything else to do with it. In fact, it's simply not the job of the Federal Government to promote good work/life balance.

Now there will be many more egregious bills in the future that will mandate by the Federal Government to States and locals and to the people behavior in certain circumstances, but not the incredibly worse bills that are out there withstanding. This Constitution makes the principle very clear: the Constitution gives Congress here in Washington certain powers that are limited. And in case we weren't clear on the concept or we didn't get it, it includes the Tenth Amendment which states: ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'' In other words, if a power is not assigned to the Federal Government in the Constitution, then it must be automatically assumed to be assigned to States, localities or to no government entity at all.

So just imagine that, Mr. Speaker. A problem in America not being solved with the involvement of the Federal Government. Some in this Chamber cannot envision such a world, but it can exist.

So I rise today to say that I do believe in the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment. I remain hopeful that the Congress will remember our limitations, begin to return the consideration of life's most important elements back to the States and local governments and churches and private groups and families where they really should be handled. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, on this particular issue, I plead the Tenth.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to be here and for talking especially about the 10th Amendment and about some of the efforts that Members of this House are making in a way to try and emphasize the significance and the importance of that particular amendment to the Constitution.

You know, Mr. Speaker, for the people who are allowed to work in this Chamber or for those who come in to visit, there are all sorts of historical references that they can see.

Up around the top of the wall over here, there are the cameos of the great icons of the world, of the great lawgivers of the world. Moses is the greatest of all lawgivers. He is the only one who has a full face, and he is looking directly at the Speaker. Everyone else has a side view going around here.

And there are only two Americans in this pantheon of great lawgivers in the history of the world, George Mason and Thomas Jefferson, who are on either side of the Speaker's rostrum, with some great language from Webster, telling us to use our resources to develop this country, which is in between the two.

I always thought it was somewhat ironic that Jefferson and Mason were the two great lawgivers whom we have from the United States in this Chamber, because neither of them actually signed the Constitution. Jefferson was not present at the time, and George Mason was one of three people who spent the entire time at the Constitutional Convention but who, at the end of that time, still refused to affix his signature to the document itself.

As I was teaching school, I insisted that every one of my kids had to say why Mason was one of those who did not sign the document. What was his rationale for it? Of course, it was because the document did not have a Bill of Rights.

Now, I was always hoping that one of my students would ask what I still think is a more significant question, which is not why did Mason not sign but, rather, why did all of the other brilliant men, the Founding Fathers--Washington and Franklin and Madison and Hamilton and Wilson and Dickinson and the rest--not go along with Mason? Why did they not add a Bill of Rights into the base document?

It was certainly not because these Founding Fathers did not believe in the idea of individual liberty. They had another method, another mechanism, that they thought more specific than actually listing down what our rights are and are not. It was the structure of government. Though not specifically

named in the document, it becomes the essential element of the Constitution. And the purpose of that structure was to ensure that individual liberties would be maintained and that personal dignity and personal freedoms would be benefited and would grow in this country.

So those Founding Fathers, when they built our system of government, divided power horizontally between the three branches of government-- executive, legislative, and judicial--with the goal and purpose of balancing those three so that individual liberties would be protected. Indeed, the problem is, if ever those three branches horizontally are out of balance, where one branch of government has far more ability to control the outcome of policy than the other, it is individual people who are hurt. It is their rights that are put in jeopardy.

Now, they thought it was going to be very easy for those three branches of government to maintain that special balance because each one would have a vested interest in maintaining their particular roles within the system. Yet what is often forgotten, especially in public school classes about government, is, in addition to that horizontal balance of power, equally important to the Founding Fathers was a vertical balance of power between the national government and the States.

Once again, the purpose of that balance was supposed to be to protect individual liberties. Again, if that balance is off kilter, then individuals are harmed. But the question always was: Would the Federal Government, the national government, be sufficient to try and maintain itself and to govern itself to create and maintain that balance?

In the Federalist Papers, obviously people like Madison and Hamilton, who wrote those Federalist Papers, envisioned this. This was part of their argument to this Nation on why the Constitution should be adopted.

Madison, in Federalist 45, said that the powers delegated by this proposed Constitution are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State government are numerous and indefinite. Why? Because powers reserved to the States will extend to all the objects which concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.

In Federalist 32, Hamilton said the same thing when he simply said that any attempt on the part of the national government to abridge any State power would be a violent assumption of power unwanted by any article or clause of the Constitution.

Indeed, when Hamilton was arguing on whether to add a Bill of Rights to the Constitution itself, he simply asked the question: Why should we prohibit that which cannot be done? The assumption always was that there would be limitations on what the Federal Government can do, not so on the States.

Now, the final one from Federalist 51, also by Madison, said that the dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on government, but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution--this concept of separating power horizontally between the three branches of government and vertically between the two levels of government--is one of those auxiliary precautions that the Founding Fathers realized we needed to have.

Scalia, in an opinion of the Supreme Court, once said that that Constitution's brilliance--and I'm paraphrasing this--is to divide powers among different levels and different branches of government to resist the temptation of consolidating power as a simplistic solution to the emergency of the day. That's what we are talking about.

Now, I want to emphasise very clearly that this is not the same thing as States' rights. States' rights, as we traditionally use that term, was an idea about power designed actually by Jefferson and Madison when they were talking about the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions and by Calhoun when he was talking about nullification and by Jefferson Davis when he was trying to fight the Civil War and by other groups when a lot of evils have actually been perpetuated.

States' rights is about power. Federalism and the 10th Amendment are about balancing power between branches of government, between the national government and the State government. And the balance--not control--the balance is there to protect individuals.

Because it is so easy for the Federal Government to ignore that or to forget it, we have formed a 10th Amendment Task Force. The goal and propensity of that task force is, once again, to try and reemphasize the significance of federalism and to disperse power from Washington to restore that constitutional balance of power through the liberty- enhancing elements of federalism.

We have five goals: One is to educate Congress and the public about federalism. Two is to develop proposals to disperse power to regions, to States, to local governments, and to private institutions, to families and to individuals. Three is to elevate federalism as a core focus of our leadership in Congress. Four is to monitor threats to 10th Amendment principles and to federalism. Five is to help build and foster a federalist constituency.

What we are trying to do is to make people more aware of the importance of federalism, of the importance of the 10th Amendment and how it impacts their lives and also to find ways to empower States so they can stand up to the national government and so they can reestablish the balance that was always intended to be there. Because, once again, if that balance is out of kilter, then all of a sudden individuals are harmed and people are harmed. It affects their daily lives.

If I could interrupt at this point, I would like to introduce one of the members, one of the 10 founders of this 10th Amendment Task Force to perhaps talk to you a little bit about the importance of the 10th Amendment and about the importance of federalism in restoring personal liberties and in making sure that government does not have the heavy hand that hurts and harms people, which was the intention of the Founding Fathers.

So I would yield to the gentleman from Texas for as much time as he wishes to consume at this point.

Mr. Neugebauer.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for going over some specific examples of what this means to individuals.

Mr. Speaker, I hate to admit this: I'm an old school teacher. I taught history. So when I read about what the Founding Fathers intended and how they tried to structure this government, I find that fascinating.

I also recognize, unfortunately, for most people, when you talk about federalism or the Tenth Amendment, their eyes will glaze over. All they remember from those concepts is probably some essay they had to write in high school and something they didn't enjoy then and probably don't want to think about it now.

But the bottom line is, the Founding Fathers actually foresaw our day. They recognized that the solutions we need for the crisis of this day that impacts real people today is the concept of federalism. That balance, that balance which, unfortunately, has been out of balance for quite some time, is that solution and, indeed, the salvation of our future.

But, as you can obviously tell, I'm old, which is something that bothers me. However, I also recognize that the world is different. When I was a kid, television was a whole lot easier. There were only three channels and one PBS station. The dial only had 13 options on it, and, yeah, I had to actually get up and go to the TV and change the dial, so I didn't change channels that often. But that was life.

Now, when I go back this evening to my apartment, I will have a television set that gives me the option of 161 channels. Okay, it's true I still watch the same five all the time anyway, but I do have 161 options in front of me.

No longer do we have simply a telephone that's on the wall with the telephone company telling me what to do. I can go into a store and find all sorts of plans on how to communicate with other people in television today.

There are 14 kinds of wheat thins. There are 16 different varieties of Pringle potato chips. There are 160 different kinds of Campbell soup.

Even if I want vanilla, I can still go to a store that offers me 31 opportunities to pick something else.

The entire life of everyone today in the business world is one that deals with giving people choices and options. Whether it's telephone plans or kinds of cereal to buy, I have all sorts of options and choices in front of me. The business world has recognized that if they want business from me, they have to give me choice and options.

Everywhere in our life today we give choices and options. When I was a kid and I heard a song I liked, I had to go to the store and by the entire vinyl record and then put it on and hope I could drop the needle in the correct groove without destroying the record. I don't need to do that anymore. Today my kids have given me an Ipod, which means if I hear a song I like, all I now have to do is call up one of my kids and say, come over and put it on my Ipod because I don't know how to work the stupid thing. But I still have a choice.

Even--and I'm not trying to be a snob here--even in Dvorak's ``New World Symphony,'' which I like, I have to admit I like the first and the third movement, and not the second, so no longer do I have to sit through about 15 minutes of stuff I don't like before going from the first to the third. I simply took it out so I can go directly from the first to the third. Those are options.

Everybody in America today has choices or options given to them, until it comes to dealing with the government, especially with the Federal Government, because once again, all of a sudden now you come back to Washington and you find out that Washington still believes in one-size-fits-all-mentality programs and mandates. This is the only area where that's found. And the question you should be asking is: Why?

Well, it's very simple. That's our purpose of being the Federal Government. If you need to have something occurring in this country, where everyone is doing the exact same thing at the exact same time in the exact same way, the Federal Government, the national government here in Washington, is the only one that can orchestrate and mandate that. So if we have to be in lockstep, this is the level to go. This is the place to accomplish that task.

But, if, indeed, maybe something different is needed and creativity and options are important, it's not going to happen from Washington. Never has, and I don't think it ever will in the near future. If indeed you want something different, then you have to empower State and local governments to accomplish that task. If you want creativity, you allow States and local governments to fit situations to their particular needs and demographics.

Like my State of Utah is unique among the other States. We have more kids than any other State as a percentage of our population. We have more small businesses than other State as a percentage of our population. And we have a higher percentage of our small businesses with no insurance that they offer their employees than any other State in the Nation.

If you want to do some kind of health care program, for example, that fits the needs of Utah, with their high student population, their high small business population, you're going to have a program that's going to be vastly different from a State on the east coast. That doesn't happen here in Washington. It will happen if you empower States to come up with a new idea.

If you want efficiency, you empower States. If you want justice so that circumstances to a local level that are mitigating circumstances can be taken into effect, it can only happen if you empower State and local governments to do that.

Louis Brandeis, in one of his Supreme Court minority decisions, again talked about the States as the laboratory of democracy, which simply

meant, if you want people to explore creative ideas, allow them to do so. If States are the ones who are exploring those creative ideas and they do something well, it can be replicated by everyone else and maybe molded to fit the demographics of everyone else.

But if a State makes a mistake and it is wrong, only that State is negatively impacted. When Washington makes a mistake, everyone is impacted negatively, and it is very difficult to try and get out of that particular situation.

That's what the Founding Fathers were talking about. That idea of trying to give people choices and options can be accomplished if one truly believes in the idea of balance between a national government and States so States are empowered to be created, to be innovative, to come up with new ways, new approaches, and new ideas. And when we in Washington try and set mandates down to tell States how they will do things, we take away the creativity. And unfortunately, we also take away efficiency, and we take away choices and options from people.

That's what federalism means. It's not an essay to write in high school. It's about how people can live their lives to make choices for themselves. And it's very important.

With that, I'd like to take a break here and yield some time, or as much time as he may consume, as well to another great Representative from the State of Texas, who also is one of the participants with this task force, who recognizes the significance and importance of allowing people choices in their lives, and that does not come when the Federal Government sets its one-size-fits-all agenda on top of people. I yield to the gentleman from Texas for as much time as he may consume.

I appreciate Mr. Conaway from Texas for once again putting it in perspective and giving us some specific examples. One more time: If you're dealing with the difference of whether Washington comes up with a program or dealing with whether a State has the ability of coming up with a program, it's one more time where if the State does it, the efficiency of that program is far superior.

Let me give you a couple of examples of what we have done this year in this Congress. We passed a bill in the House, I don't think it's gone through the Senate yet, dealing with school construction, allowing the Federal Government to assist States with school construction. Now on the surface that sounds like a nice idea. The State of Utah, though, happens to be one of the States that has an equalization program which means already, districts that don't have a need and have extra money for construction will have some of that money taken away and given to districts where there is a greater need.

As I asked the sponsor of that bill, how will this Federal aid affect equalization, the answer was simply they didn't know; no one had ever thought about that kind of a concept. And indeed as the bill was developed to try and make sure that the aid went out to what we thought as Congress would be equitable, aid went out to Title I schools only, under the assumption that if you were a Title I school, you had poorer kids. Therefore, as a poorer district, you would need more assistance. Well, the bottom line is any aid money that would flow under our Federal program to the State of Utah would go to districts that didn't need the aid in construction. The districts that did need the aid in construction or that help and benefit didn't get anything.

And that system unfortunately was replicated in other States, where districts that did not need extra Federal help in school construction would indeed have gotten extra Federal help. It simply means that we don't necessarily know all of the variances that a State and local government does and therefore we make different decisions.

When I was Speaker of the House in Utah, I was obviously always upset with the Federal Government for putting more restrictions on me as a State legislator. There was one year in which the Federal Government in all their wisdom insisted that we buy a new computer system. That was back in the era when computers were big and bulky and they took up most of a room. We didn't want it but we did not have any option. If we wanted to have Carl Perkins funds, which go to technical education, we had to buy a new system, a new computer system, out of State funds. We couldn't transfer money. It had to come out of State funds. The bottom line is we did not spend as much on kids for technical education that year because instead we had to take our funds and spend it on a computer system that we didn't want, that we didn't need, and we also never used; simply because it was a Federal mandate. That's what you lose in this process.

Utah had some great registration rolls, until the Federal Government insisted that motor voter had to be a mandate that every State did. So instead of being able to go through our election rolls, our voter rolls, every 4 years as we were doing to make sure they were current, we now could not do it until 10 years had passed. Consequently, if you look at the number of people who are now registered in the State of Utah and the number of kids we have, the numbers quite frankly don't add up. Our voter rolls are in worse shape because the Federal Government insisted the State had to do it a particular way in every State, whether it made sense or not, and the State had to actually pay for that opportunity at the same time.

We had a bill before us a few weeks ago in which we tried to mandate physical education. There is nothing wrong with physical education in our public schools. There is nothing wrong with emphasizing it. There is nothing wrong with kids needing it. What is wrong is that Congress is not a school board. And school boards should be making those kinds of decisions.

One of the things that we have to realize is that words in the course of history change their meaning. If you went back to the time of the Constitution and you used the word ``awful,'' awful back then did not mean something that was bad; awful meant something that was good and inspired awe. If you talked about a natural man, a natural man was somebody back then who was a reasonable individual. If you also talked about the verb to discover, discover back then did not mean to find something you don't know about; it meant to reveal something about which you do know to someone else. Words have different meanings.

One of the phrases that's in the Constitution, both in the first article as well as in the preamble, is the phrase ``general welfare.'' That's one of the phrases that means different things. Today we have the tendency of reading that word and emphasizing the last word of ``welfare.'' The Founding Fathers when they wrote that phrase emphasized the first word of ``general,'' which simply meant that the Federal Government was only supposed to do things that impacted the general welfare, with emphasis on the word ``general.'' It meant only doing those things that impacted everybody in this country, not a particular person. That's

why Presidents Madison and Monroe vetoed road projects. Jackson vetoed a road project because the road project only helped and benefited people in the area of that road and therefore was not general welfare. Well, we have changed that concept as time simply has gone on, not necessarily for the better.

I was giving a speech once on this very floor in which I talked about how they meant general welfare to be and how it was a restricting concept, not an expansive concept, and I got a call from one of the C- SPAN viewers the next day saying I appreciated the speech, it was very nice; however, she took umbrage at what I said because she said there were certain programs the government did that she liked. I said, ``Ma'am, you have missed the very point I and the Founding Fathers were taking.'' The Founding Fathers said you don't have to have all these programs. What they said is not every program has to be designed and administered and funded through Washington; that those programs are opportunities and can be done equally as well being done by a State and local government as they are here.

Through all my life, my party has talked about trying to reduce the size and scope of government. I think as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) pointed out, that the deficit we had in 1962 was $100 million dollars, our deficit today should be somewhere around $3.5 trillion. Obviously we have failed somewhere. In the history of this country over the last half century, both Republicans and Democrats, the growth of government in Washington has continued. The best thing I can say is one party has had a slower growth pattern than the other party, but that's about the best you can say, because growth has happened. It is almost as if leaders in Washington, regardless of party, are unable to stop the size and the expansion and the growth of the Federal Government.

The reality is that our current system is basically rigged in favorite of government growth. The incentives, the bureaucracy, power structure, institutions of Washington, have all evolved to help the Federal Government to acquire more power and influence, not less. What we need to do is look at the change in approach, and that's what the Founding Fathers were talking about. Not our goal but our approach. What the Founding Fathers were talking about is not simply cutting government, it was dispersing government, so different levels of government could do different kinds of programs and not everything has to come through Washington.

That's one of the things we're talking about with the 10th Amendment Caucus is how can we find ways to disperse government programs back to local governments where they can be done more creatively, more efficiently, and understanding local circumstances, whether it be P.E. programs or school constructions or technical education or voter registration rolls or roads or anything else.

Now, that's what the Founding Fathers intended, that the programs be implemented at State level and the tax money for those programs remain at those State and local levels, which is why, as Mr. Conaway said, this is not a program about liberals and conservatives. If a liberal wants to expand government, fine. It can be done under federalism. But what you do is make sure that the government that is closest to the people runs it so it is a much more effective and efficient government program. And if you are a conservative who wants limited government in some way, then fine, you can do that as well. You both get what you want if federalism and the 10th Amendment are respected here in Washington as true principles as the way we govern ourselves and how we conduct ourselves in the future.

That is, indeed, the goal of what should be here: the goal of the importance. That's the importance of the 10th Amendment. It should allow people to get what they want, which is better government, more efficient government, better and more efficient programs.

I recognize that we have a couple of others who have joined us here.

I am appreciative that the gentlelady from North Carolina, Representative Foxx, is here. I'd like to yield her as much time as she may wish to consume on this topic as well.

I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for coming down here and helping assist with this. She did a wonderful job in trying to put everything in some kind of perspective.

I think what we've talked about tonight is an effort to try and ensure that what the Founding Fathers did when they wrote the 10th Amendment in the First Congress, when that was part of the Bill of Rights, and indeed what they did in Philadelphia is they structured government the way it was. It had a purpose--separating power horizontally between the branches of government and, equally important, separating vertically between the national and States--had a specific purpose, and it was to ensure that there would always be a balance so that not one entity had too much power to use that to abuse people.

Making sure there is a balance is the key element to protecting individual rights and individual liberty. By allowing States to have a primary function, we become more creative. We have differing ideas, which means if people really want choices and options and a way of making sure that government is efficient and government is what they want in their particular area, you must empower State and local government to do that; which means you have to take away the power and the authority of the programs from Washington--which, by its very nature, can only come up with a one-size-fits-all system--and disperse that power, authority, and programs back down to State and local governments where people, once again, can have greater impact, greater input, and those programs can be done to meet the needs of our particular area.

This is a great country because of our size and diversity. But it also means if you want to have a government program that helps people and is not simply to blindly put a standard, as Nelson Rockefeller said, by the deafening hands of bureaucrats, then you need to make sure that we empower State and local governments so they do those programs. General welfare means that State and local governments get a greater role in how government programs are run because they can do it much more effectively and much more efficiently.

I have a few minutes remaining, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to yield those few minutes to another great legislator from the State of Texas, which is blessed by a lot of good legislators we have here in Congress, and Mr. Gohmert would like to talk for a few minutes about Article V of the Constitution. I would like to yield time to him to accomplish that.

I appreciate the gentleman from Texas broaching this particular issue. Some people have asked me what is the Federal Government going to do about jobs. It's very clear the Federal Government has two options. One is you can actually create Federal jobs and fund them and run them and hire people for them, and the second is the Federal Government can create an environment that encourages the private sector to create jobs.

Indeed, at the beginning of the Great Depression in the 1930s, one of the problems that the country had was there were a great many people that had money that did not invest that money. They sat on the money because they were watching what the government would do and had a great deal of anxiety as to what the government would do, would it attack business or would it build a climate that was favorable to business.

In some respects, I think we have that same situation today where there are people out there with money that could invest and expand the economy but, indeed, are waiting and watching to see what the policies of this country will be with some level of anxiety as to what that policy actually would be.

If I can try and put this on a very personal level, I'm doing a history of my family and my father. My father, who was older when I was born, went 2 years at the depths of the Depression without a permanent job.

I have sometimes wondered what it would be like to be in that situation. Indeed, in the depths of the Depression, he was finally bailed out by collecting a job that was actually a government job. He got one of the New Deal-era jobs.

As much as he was grateful for that, he always warned me to be wary of those types of jobs created by the government, for he told me that a government that could create the job to give to you is also a government that can create and defund the job and take it away. Indeed, that is exactly what happened to him a few years later. The government decided to change courses, and that job was no longer there.

I thought it was very wise of him to recognize that those distinct possibilities were there and the Federal Government has two things we can do: one is create jobs, which is temporary at best; or one is create climate and an atmosphere that expands the private sector. I think I would at least argue at this point that that would be the wisest approach for this government to take.

For all of you who are giving us your riveting attention right now, on behalf of the Page Board, we would like to turn your attention to the rail in the back where some of the 67 pages are who have been here this year, some of the best and the brightest high school juniors in this Nation. These 67 pages were nominated by you; they have been serving you; they have been here for the past semester observing you, listening to you, learning from you, which makes you all guilty of child abuse or at least guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

However, this is their final week. They are in finals right now at the accredited high school which they attend, and they will be finishing their service to the House next week when, hopefully, we will be in recess. So we will not have a chance to bid them a farewell before that time, but we are extremely grateful.

I would ask that the names of these 67 pages who have been serving this semester be added to the Record.

Mr. Speaker, if it would be possible, I would ask the Members of this body to rise and to give some thanks to the service of our pages who have been with us this semester.

(Applause, the Members rising.)

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Chairman Kildee, Representative DeGette from Colorado, Representative Foxx from North Carolina, and myself, who are the Page Board, we appreciate all of your service.

Spring 2010 Page Class Graduates

1. Kyle Aguiar, CA

2. Jacquelyn Andrews, NJ

3. Tyler J. Barnett, CA

4. Aaron Benudiz, CA

5. Zoe Bertrand, NY

6. Paris Bess, OH

7. Zakariya Binshaieg, WA

8. Addison Blair, UT

9. Charlotte Bowers, OR

10. Martin J. Boyle, MA

11. LaVontae Brooks, IL

12. Kathleen L.M. Calcerano, PA

13. Halley Cameron, CA

14. John Barrett Cannafax, FL

15. Christopher Connolly, VA

16. Sarah Coyle, MD

17. Thomas Crawford, CA

18. Ryan Davenport, NC

19. Devin Marie DePalmer, CA

20. Elizabeth Maria Dixon, FL

21. Jacob Fessler, KY

22. Jillian Rose Fisher, TX

23. Tori Greaves, CA

24. Blair Gremillion, LA

25. Samantha Guarneros, TX

26. Talitha Halley, TX

27. Garrett J. Helgesen, UT

28. Daniel Herzstein, CA

29. Alice Hewitt, CA

30. Henry Huang, CA

31. Rachel Janik, IL

32. Jamal L. Johnson, Jr., NY

33. Terrence Kim, NY

34. Tekeisha Chanae King, SC

35. Rebecca Levine, PA

36. Thomas Marion, GA

37. Catherine Ann Martlin, MA

38. Cameron McGarrah, AR

39. Matthew Charles McKnight, OH

40. Lauren Milosky, CA

41. Giovanni Navarrete, IL

42. Joshua A. Nawrocki, FL

43. Lucy Nieboer, MN

44. Tyler Odom, PA

45. Sarah Okey, OH

46. Benjamin Hollis Olson, IA

47. Jessica Maria Orozco, TX

48. Grace L. Pazak, IN

49. Garrett J. Perconti, NJ

50. Marvin Lee Pierre-Louis, NY

51. Alex Pommier, CA

52. Riley J. Quinlan, IL

53. Paul Reitz, OH

54. Alice Rockswold, MN

55. Nicholas Rudnik, GA

56. Nathan Shepherd, GA

57. Lauren A. Smith, OK

58. Marina Ariel Stevens, MD

59. LaShaun Yevette Steward, TX

60. Samarth Suresh, CT

61. Joseph Fortunato Tantillo, NY

62. Nicholas Scott Taxera, CA

63. Cassidy Anne Taylor, OR

64. Matthew Weiss, NY

65. Cortez Lewis Williams, MI

66. Jessica Gayle Williford, NC

67. Sara Zimmerman, IL

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of following my good friend from Florida in his wonderful address to the House. I wish to talk about one particular issue.

There was a newspaper article that came out today that said that President Obama is scheduled to send 1,200 troops to the Arizona-Mexico border. If indeed that report is accurate, I commend him for that type of activity, because his goal is to try to stop three of the most heinous organizations that are entering this country through public lands on the southern border: Illegal drug traffickers; illegal human traffickers and all the violence, especially against women, that they present; and the potential terrorists coming into those areas.

The escalating violence on the southern border is of unprecedented proportion. Unfortunately, the success of stabilizing that border is not in the number of bodies that we send down there, but the ability of those bodies to have

full access to the border region. Unfortunately, the land manager policies that we have on our southern borders allow the criminal element unfettered access but prohibit the Border Patrol from going into those exact same areas.

The traffic barriers that are put up in this picture on Federal lands in the south are not border barricades to stop illegals coming in from Mexico, or drug cartels, or human traffickers. They are to stop the Border Patrol from going into Federal lands on our southern border. The end result of this activity of all these drug traffickers, the human traffickers coming in, is the massive amount of environmental damage that is done.

If I could give a quote from a 2007 article in the Tucson Weekly dealing with Ironwood National Monument talking about these smugglers that are coming in and their vehicles, mostly stolen from Phoenix: They often travel at night without headlights, with tape over the brake lights. They have been clocked tearing through the monument's dirt roads at 89 miles an hour, endangering the lives of residents and visitors alike. And it also ensures that many of these load vehicles never make it out of the monument, for they smash into trees and run into ditches. The BLM has towed 300 vehicles a year out of this one monument since the year 2000.

These loaded vehicles, as well as the constant foot traffic, destroy habitat and threaten cultural sites and endangered species.

The trash that is left behind, this is from Ironwood, requires pickup crews to have biohazard training and armed guards watching them as they do their work. They have even attacked the cacti in the area, simply cutting it down, leaving it there across roads to create a barrier so they can stop park visitors and there either rob them or steal their autos at the same time. This also destroys the natural environment that happens to be there.

This is not just taking place in the South, I want to emphasize, though. It is also taking place in the North. Although 40 percent of the land on our southern border between California and El Paso is owned by the Federal Government, we have the same situation on our northern borders, with over 1,000 miles of land, 13 States that intersect 12 national parks, four Indian reservations; and the exact same problem exists on our northern border.

In a letter to House Republicans, Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano talked about Border Patrol issues in the Spokane sector up in Washington. She wrote, the sector is currently working with Interior and Forest Service regarding Endangered Species Act issues related to grizzly bears and road use. Government biologists claim agents in vehicles on some roads are detrimental to bears. The sector, however, must occasionally have some motorized presence in those areas, and a related important issue is retaining access to critical areas. The sector must maintain the ability to respond via a motor vehicle when required.

The importance of this?

Well, the guy who was charged in the 1997 plot to bomb New York City's subway system crossed illegally across our northern border into Washington.

In 2005, a 360-foot drug smuggling tunnel on private land was also found going from Canada to Washington. This illustrates how much effort smugglers are willing to do to try to attempt to come into this country, not just in the north, but also in the south.

We had a testimony today in Resources where some people in the Park Service said, well, if there are exigent circumstances, obviously we make allowances for the Border Patrol to go in there. The problem, though, is definition of that term. Interior defines that term as a life and death situation. Homeland Security defines it as when there is evidence of a crossing. Those definitions are in conflict.

Until the Department of the Interior and National Park Service rules are changed in both the North and the South along our borders and allow access to Federal Border Patrol and Federal employees, there is no amount of numbers that's going to make a difference. Instead, we simply have the worst of both worlds on both borders.

I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) for introducing this issue and yielding the time.

Madam Speaker and the gentleman from Texas, I think there are three terms I want to kind of emphasize over and over because it is the crux of the concern we have on our southern border: once again, it is illegal drugs. The bulk of the illegal drugs coming into this country are coming over on Federal lands in our southern border;

The second one is human trafficking. And all the violence, especially the violence against women that is assumed with that concept of human trafficking coming across our border;

And the fact that we have gaping holes in our border security, which is almost an open invitation for potential terrorists to come into this country.

Now, the same issue, I need to be very clear, of our southern border is a concern in our northern border. But for the purposes of discussion today, I want to talk about the southern border and those three concepts: illegal drugs, human trafficking, and potential terrorists coming into this country. Because the bottom line is, Madam Speaker, Border Patrol is working. They're doing a great job. They are successful in urban areas, which means that most of the illegal traffic, the drug cartels, the human traffickers, potential terrorists, are now coming in rural areas along our southern borders because simply it is much easier.

You can look at this map from California to El Paso, Texas. Everything that is colored is land owned by the Federal Government. Over 40 percent of the land along our southern border is Federal land. And 4.3 million acres of that Federal land is in wilderness category. This is the area in which we are having the illegal drugs and the human traffickers and potential terrorists coming because, flat out, it is easier to do that. And it's easier simply because our own Department of the Interior, which controls this land, to a lesser extent the Forest Service because they control lesser of the land, have simply placed as their number one policy for control of the land, realizing or protecting endangered species and wilderness categories, which simply means they are looking at the law very literally and, basically, hiding behind it.

And one of the documents sent by the Interior Department says, Federal agencies are mandated to comply with a variety of land use laws, and compliance with that law, meaning wilderness and endangered species, both insulates those entities and agencies from legal liability.

Now, what we're asking people to do is simply what I think should be common sense. But, unfortunately, the Interior Department and, to a lesser extent, the Forest Service, don't use common sense. They're hiding behind legal niceties.

We realize that Homeland Security, which is in charge of our Border Patrol, gets this point. I was reading in the paper just today of a farm in Vermont that is now under potential threat of eminent domain by Homeland Security to take it over to beef up our border security along the north, which is so ironic because in the south that same entity that wants to beef up the security in Vermont is prohibited by another agency of government to do so.

It is ironic because, as you see in this picture, this is part of the Federal land we have in the south, and you can there are vehicle barriers that are placed in this land. I want you to know those vehicle barriers are not to stop the drug cartels from coming in or the human traffickers. Those barriers are to protect against the Border Patrol driving into endangered species area and wilderness designation. It is to stop us from doing our job.

Now, once again, I'm trying to emphasize again, we're talking about the illegal drugs coming in here, the violence and human trafficking and the potential, once again, of terrorists coming into this land.

One of the eight entities along our southern border, and I read this in the paper on Sunday, it's the brown piece, if you can see it in Arizona--I hope I pronounce it properly--the Tohono O'odham tribe in Arizona, roughly about 70 miles of that border, recently participated for the first time, their

tribal police and the FBI on Saturday of last week with the largest drug enforcement operation in tribal history.

What they said when they raided homes to stop illegal drugs from coming in is that no longer is the tribe satisfied with having a corridor for the drug cartel coming into this country through tribal lands. They were setting down a marker that the tribe was going to enforce the border against illegal drugs coming into this country, which is the exact same thing, the message that should be sent out, but unfortunately the Federal Government isn't. The Department of the Interior, Forest Service, are not sending that same message out. Instead, as was mentioned by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), Department of the Interior is holding Homeland Security for hostage, demanding money.

Now, this is one of those strange coincidences. The Congress appropriates money both to Interior and to Homeland Security; and then all of a sudden we find negotiations between the two. Interior is demanding mitigation fees from Homeland Security. It's all coming from the same pot. Common sense would say we work that out ahead of time. But since 2007, at least $9 million have gone from Homeland Security over to Interior as mitigation fees. And apparently they have agreed to $50 million to do more than that, to try and protect these wilderness designations against incursion by Border Patrol because of all the damage they may do.

Look, this is where the irony takes place. This is the wilderness we are trying to protect by keeping Border Patrol out. The trash you see in here was not made by Americans visiting this wilderness area. It was not made by the Border Patrol trying to protect the border and security. It was made by the illegal drug cartels and, once again, the human traffickers coming through and leaving the litter behind. In our effort to protect the land, we are destroying the very land we are trying to protect. And once again, this is just, flat out, not common sense.

I could give you some quotes from Secretary Napolitano, a letter she sent out at one time. She said, One of the issues affecting the efficacy of the Border Patrol operations within wilderness is the prohibition against mechanical conveyance. The Border Patrol regularly depends upon these conveyances, and the removal of such advantage is detrimental to the ability to accomplish national security missions. While the Border Patrol recognizes the importance and value of wilderness area designations, they can have a significant impact on Border Patrol operations in border areas.

For example, it may be inadvisable for officers' safety to wait for the arrival of horses to pursue, for pursuit purposes.

One of the major challenges in deploying our SBInet technology to remote locations along the border is ensuring compliance with environmental regulations. Environmental regulations may be subject to varied interpretations, depending on what level of the agency or the organization is involved. The removal of cross-border violators from public lands is a value to the environment, as well as to the mission to land managers. That's what we should be doing.

Here is also where the human element comes in here.

2002, Park Ranger Kris Eggle was shot and killed while in the line of duty while pursuing a member of the drug cartel who had crossed into the U.S. border illegally through one of those areas.

In 2008, Border Patrol Agent Luis Aguilar killed in the line of duty after being intentionally hit by a vehicle that had illegally crossed into the United States through Federal lands again.

Rob Krentz, a long-time pioneer down in the Arizona area. This is an elderly gentleman who just had his back fused and had one hip replacement and was scheduled for another, so the ability to either fight or flee was not in his vocabulary. He was murdered along with his dog, once again by a member of the drug cartel who came across on Federal lands which prohibits the Border Patrol from going into those lands because of endangered species. And when the murder took place, he went a long, circuitous route to get back to Mexico, going once again through those exact same lands that are not open to the border security.

For example, I showed you the picture of the barricades. Well, this is the area in which the murderer entered this country and exited the country. Now, once again, those barricades are not to stop the drug cartels and the murderers from coming in. Those stop the Border Patrol from having mechanical access to these particular areas.

The Krentz family sent out a release that said, ``The disregard of our repeated pleas and warnings for impending violence towards our community fell on deaf ears that are shrouded in political correctness, and as a result we have paid the ultimate price for their negligence in credibly securing our border lands.''

Because this family came and testified before Congress in 2007, these are the words they told Congress at that time. ``The Border Patrol should not be excluded, nor should the national security of the United States be sacrificed, in order to create a wilderness area that is not even roadless, as required by law. It has almost produced a state of war on drugs. It is now too dangerous to hike. There are break-ins, high-speed chases, fatal and nonfatal shootings. The pristine areas of the proposed wilderness areas have already been trashed. Drug smugglers should not take precedence over honest, hardworking Americans who recreate and whose livelihood is damaged.'' They estimated $6.2 million in damage to their ranch and water lines because of illegal foot traffic.

And finally, they gave a plea that was not heard. ``We are in fear of our lives and safety and health of ourselves and that of our families and friends. Please defend the law and our rights. We live it. We have been refused legal protection for our property and our lives when dealing with border issues and illegals. We are the victims.''

Mr. Krentz is no longer here, once again, because we put a higher priority on the sacredness of the wilderness characteristic of land and endangered species than we did on simple common sense of controlling the border to stop the drug cartels, the human traffickers and the rape trees that go along with them, and the potential of terrorists.

A couple of weeks ago, once again, a deputy was wounded on wilderness land where he was forced to leave his vehicle and walk into the wilderness area, by the rules of how we handle this land, where he walked into an ambush, again by a drug cartel. He lives, but he was wounded for it.

We have an area down in Arizona called the Organ Pipe National Monument, one of those creations of executive fiat that we did so well with. Two-thirds of that national monument within the United States is off limits to Americans because we do not control it. The drug cartel controls that territory. We are talking about the sovereignty of the United States. We are giving it up along the southern border to the bad guys.

These are people who aren't picking tomatoes or milking cows. These are drug runners. These are human traffickers. These are people who create violence of unspeakable levels against women at all times. These are the potential terrorists. And we, because of our inaction, are giving up vast stretches of American property to the drug cartel so that not even Americans can go into these national monuments. There is no common sense. No rational person would ever say this should be our policy. But indeed, we have come to that particular policy.

I am very disgusted with our Secretary of the Interior who talks very good about this issue, but has yet to change the policies, and people are getting shot and killed down there. We mentioned the Arizona law. I think if the law that has been proposed by the ranking Republican on both Judiciary and Homeland Security and Natural Resources and myself, who is the ranking member on the Public Lands Subcommittee, if we were to have that policy, it would have eliminated a great deal of the fear and anxiety that was the primary motivation of this particular law.

If people realized the priority of this Congress and this Nation is to secure the border to stop the bad people from coming in, to stop the drug runners and the human traffickers and the terrorists, perhaps there wouldn't be the

need to create some kind of State entity. But that's what we should be doing. And what is so sad in this Congress is during this past year both Houses of Congress have recognized that.

The Senate added language to an appropriations bill that said, despite our other rules, border security and the securing of our southern border will be the highest priority on our southern border. It was passed in the Senate, stripped in committee before it came to the floor, and therefore was not added to our law.

We here in the House took another bill, and on a motion to recommit, we added almost the exact same language; overwhelmingly passed here in the House in a bill that now sits in the Senate and is now going nowhere. Both Houses, bipartisan, have recognized that this is common sense, this should be our joint policy, but as of yet, we have yet to move forward on that.

Secretary Salazar at one time went to the southern border. We issued four challenges to him. I would like to reissue those challenges:

End the Interior Department's policy of having Homeland Security and Border Patrol having to gain permission for access to all territory;

Two, acknowledge that environmental damage and destruction is happening by all these illegal crossings;

Three, stop impeding the Border Patrol's access both electronically and on foot to these particular areas, and;

Number four, end the Interior Department's practice of extorting mitigation funds from Homeland Security.

Those are four things that could be done administratively and should be done administratively today. If we could do that, we would know that we would put a great dent on the illegal drugs that are destroying this country, the illegal violence that is taking place on that border, and the potential of terrorists, as we simply have gaping holes in our southern border--and, ironically enough, in our northern border--that need to be stopped simply by saying our number one goal in the southern border is to stop this illegal activity by securing the border. And after that, after that, then we can move on to other issues.

But if a nation is going to be sovereign, we must control all our lands and we must control our border. And there is nothing that should stop us from doing it. Common sense tells us that. Unfortunately, common sense is not the rule today. It must be the rule today.

I yield back to the gentleman from Texas.

If the gentleman would yield?

It is one of those peculiarities that has happened that some of the barriers that used to be used and are now surplus because a bigger fence is now in place have now been put into other areas. And indeed, it's been a barrier to stop Americans and the Border Patrol from going into road areas in these particular areas.

It is not necessary for us to have a fixed fence along the entire border. But where we do not have a fixed fence, we need to have the electronic devices necessary for monitoring that area, especially the hilly areas, the very mountainous areas along the southern border. That makes a whole lot more sense. The problem is, if once again you have identified wilderness characteristics in that land, you may not put the electronic recording devices on wilderness land. Therefore, the Border Patrol is forced to move their recording devices area, which once again creates these huge gaps in the security. That's what we are trying to say.

There is nothing wrong with trying to protect the wilderness, trying to protect endangered species, but first of all, we have to stop the drugs. We have to stop the human trafficking. We have to close these gaping holes for potential terrorists coming in here. If we can't do that, the wilderness characteristic has no meaning. It has no value to us. That has to be our number one priority. Common sense tells you that.

That's why I am proud that on the bill that we have, Representative King from Homeland Security, Representative Smith from Judiciary, Representative Hastings from Resources joined together, along with 40 other cosponsors, to try to push this through again and make clear that what we are doing is simply what common people would say is the right thing to do.

I yield back again.

If I could just amplify that point in some small degree. And once again, as the gentleman from Texas recognized, as you notice, there's only one national park along the Texas side. Everything else--which is an added benefit because Texas now cooperates a whole lot easier than unfortunately some of the Federal agencies do that are from New Mexico through to the Pacific Coast. But you're right.

There are, within these drug cartels, they do have lookout spots with night vision, machine guns. They have all of the equipment that's necessary as they now are engaged in a war amongst themselves.

The deputy who was recently shot was the 12th shooting that took place in this area. The bulk of those shootings are not necessarily against Americans but cartel versus cartel. The difference was this is the first one that actually got hit with one of these shootings. And what is more illustrative of this situation, as this deputy was basically lulled into an ambush, and especially as our good friend, the rancher down there, who was doing nothing more than simply traveling on his land in a cart because he did not have the ability to move very freely, in the past drug cartels when approached would disappear. What we're finding out now is there's a change of attitude. All of a sudden now they are not running away. They stood their ground, and they shot the rancher, and they shot his dog. They stood their ground, and they lured the deputy into an ambush and shot him.

There is a change in the attitude that is taking place there. And as the gentleman from Texas said, this is a change that's not taking place in Mexico--which would be bad enough--this is taking place in the United States. And still the Federal Government does not change its policies and procedures to combat that.

We seem as if there are land managers who are satisfied with making sure that drug cartels control our territory.

In Oregon Pipe National Monument, indeed the land manager down there, Mr. Baiza, seemed to be more concerned about the fact that the Border Patrol, instead of doing a Y to back up and go around, was going in a circular pattern on his land than he was about the fact that two-thirds of his land is controlled by the drug cartel, and Americans cannot go there unless they are escorted with an armed escort. And even then--it is amazing that as part of our publicity to attract people to visit public lands, we tell them, You can't go here. That seems like a bizarre concept, and it certainly doesn't define sovereignty as I thought sovereignty was defined.

I yield back to the gentleman who was spot-on in that observation.

I appreciate that, and I understand we do have some sensitivity to the issues that are taking place in Mexico, and I am proud that the Mexican government is starting to crack down on the illegal drug cartels on their side of the border. And it is a violence that is spilling over. And in some respects, we don't have the ability to control that.

But where we do have the ability to control--and once again I have to go back to the fact that our land policy is now the prime area in which the violence is taking place, in which the drug cartels are trying to go, where we do have the ability to control, it is simply wrong for us not to do that. It is wrong for us to have as our national policy--it's wrong for us to have any other national priority than securing our southern border for the safety of our people.

And once again, what we are talking about is the worst kinds of people we want to keep out of here. We're not talking about stopping, as you mentioned very early on, stopping all immigration in this country. There are certain kinds of entrepreneurial spirits we want to have in this Nation. The drug cartels are not that person. The human traffickers are not that person, are not that. Those who are bringing in potential prostitutes are not that. Those who are actually doing the rape trees with the monuments--just unthinkable violence--those are not the kind we're after. And the potential terrorists carrying a bomb or any other kind of device is now something that we must have as uppermost in our consideration.

And that's why when we have the opportunity at least to establish policy and procedures on the Federal level that deal specifically with Federal land, it is just flat out wrong of us not to insist that we do that.

The gentleman, if I may, asks a pertinent question, a two-part question. First, I wish the Federal Government didn't own quite so much land; I would be happier with that. But if they are going to take control of that land, they have to take control of that land.

In deference to some within the Department of the Interior and Forest Service, because once again I think common sense would say if people were of like mind and people were of good purposes, they should be able to sit down and work these situations out. This is not rocket science. This should be common sense. But in deference to some of them, the law to which they look for guidance says they have to manage it for wilderness designation and endangered species aspects first. That is the way they are interpreting it. I personally think they could reinterpret that very easily administratively if they chose. But that is the interpretation, which is one of the other reasons I think the law that we have proposed, the law that passed in the Senate but didn't get over here, that we passed over here but didn't pass in the Senate, needs to be put in place so we make it very, very clear that on these public lands, indeed, public security is the number one priority, and that we want to stop the drugs and the violence from coming across here.

That's the irony of the situation in which we find ourselves. The very land we are trying to protect is the land that is being destroyed by people who don't care about the quality and purpose of the land. And this is what we must stop. This is, unfortunately, what the reality of today is. And that is sad. And it should be one of the reasons why our policies should be very clear and very open, and why, when you talk to people, they shake their heads in amazement, because this just does not make common sense.

I think you may have some statistics about that.

I appreciate your emphasis on the public attitude there. I do not have a window into the hearts of what Arizona legislators may or may not have done. But in the back of my mind, I cannot keep telling myself, or I cannot keep wondering, that if we as a Federal Government had actually taken charge of our southern border and our northern border, if we as a Federal Government had stopped the most heinous of individuals who are freely coming in here now, perhaps the anxiety level or the anger level would not have made necessary the particular Arizona statute. Now, that's pure speculation on my part as well. But I cannot help thinking that if we were doing our jobs and getting all of the government agencies--Interior, Ag, Forest Service, and Homeland Security--to work together and do the right thing for people, just to take a commonsense approach, that we would lower at least the rhetoric of the discussion, and we would raise the security feeling of people, and maybe people like Rob Krentz would be alive today to be with his family.

Madam Speaker, from April 24-26, 2010 more than 1,200 students from across the country visited Washington, D.C. to take part in the We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution National Finals.

I am proud to announce that a class from Sky View High School represented the State of Utah at this prestigious national event. These outstanding students, through their knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, won their statewide competition and earned the chance to come to our nation's capital and compete at the national level. At the National Finals, Sky View High School won the Unit One Award by earning the most points in that unit of the textbook, which discusses the philosophical and historical foundations of the American political system.

I also wish to commend the teacher of the class, Mike Rigby, who is responsible for preparing these young constitutional experts for the National Finals. Also worthy of special recognition are Kathy Dryer, the State coordinator and Shanna Futral, the district coordinator who are responsible for implementing the We the People program in my district.

I congratulate these young ``constitutional experts'' on their outstanding achievement at the We the People National Finals.

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

House Resolution 1272 commemorates the 40th anniversary of the May 4, 1970, Kent State University shootings. On May 4, 1970, people gathered at Kent State University in Kent, Ohio, protesting American involvement in Vietnam. Hostilities escalated and four students, Allison Krause, Jeffrey Miller, Sandra Scheuer, and William Schroeder, were shot, and nine others were injured. This year, 2010, marks the 40th anniversary of this tragic event.

The event will always be remembered and has been commemorated in several ways. The site of the shooting, as has been mentioned, has been entered in the National Register of Historic Places. Kent State University has established memorial markers, scholarships in memory of the students, a collegiate course on the events and effects of the shootings, and an annual commemoration. Kent State has also begun to design a visitors center to help people explore and understand the event.

The death and injuries that resulted from the May 4 shootings at Kent State are no doubt tragic. Kent State University, the National Guard, and this Nation have learned from the events, and have worked to ensure it does not happen again. The shootings evoked a national response and had far-reaching effects.

It is important that we commemorate the students who were at Kent State University that day, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today also in support of House Resolution 1157, congratulating the National Urban League on its 100th year of service to the United States, and I appreciate the gentleman from Florida for having introduced this piece of legislation.

The National Urban League is a nonpartisan civil rights organization based in New York City that advocates on behalf of African Americans and against racial discrimination in the United States. It is the oldest and largest community-based organization of its kind in this Nation.

Founded in New York City on September 29, 1910, by Ruth Standish Baldwin and Dr. George Edmund Haynes, among others, it merged with the Committee for the Improvement of Industrial Conditions among Negroes in New York, which was founded in 1906, and the National League for the Protection of Colored Women, which was founded a year earlier, and was renamed the National League on Urban Conditions.

The National Urban League helped train black social workers and worked in various other ways to bring educational and employment opportunities to blacks. Its research into the problems facing employment opportunities, recreation, housing, health and sanitation and education spurred the League's quick growth. By the end of World War I, the organization had 81 staff members working in 30 cities. In 1920, it took its present name.

Today, this organization remains committed to improving the lives of Americans. There are more than 100 local affiliates in 36 States and the District of Columbia providing direct services that impact the lives of more than 2 million people nationwide. We congratulate the National Urban League for 100 years of service to our Nation, and I ask my colleagues to support this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge once again support of this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise today in support of House Resolution 1312, and also mention a conflict of interest since I did spend 28 years as a public school teacher before I joined this august body here. This resolution recognizes the roles and contributions of America's teachers in building and enhancing our Nation's civic, cultural, and economic well- being, and supporting National Teacher Appreciation Week.

Teachers provide one of the greatest services to our youth, which is education. Educators bear the responsibility of teaching the next generation, and, apart from parents, are one of the primary sources of knowledge and values of our kids. In today's challenging learning environment, teachers provide more than economic leadership. Teachers plan and organize classroom activities, they assess student performance, they understand the basic needs of students, they encourage them to improve, working closely with parents as they relate to students' performance and discipline, they motivate students, encourage them to participate in extracurricular activities, they make the highways safe, and entertain the community on Friday nights.

Showing teachers appreciation and recognition during the upcoming National Teacher Appreciation Week is a terrific act of gratitude that reminds us of how important teachers are, and reminds us of what an integral role they play in our lives.

Teachers today devote time to professional development, their own education, and on class preparation outside the classroom. Most teachers spend much longer than the official school day working on teaching duties, and often spend their own money to meet the needs of their students. Teachers make these time, energy, and monetary commitments, and they deserve recognition for such.

Today we also recognize the importance of having well-trained, dedicated, and skilled teachers in schools. We honor all teachers who have made a difference by preparing tomorrow's leaders.

I also want to thank my colleague from Missouri (Mr. Graves) for introducing this resolution, unfortunately 7 years after I retired, but introducing it nonetheless. I ask for your support.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Obviously, this is an issue that is very dear to my heart at the same time, as I know full well how dedicated teachers are in putting in of their own time and their own effort to make their classrooms a success. And it is one of those particular areas in which they need to be recognized.

It would be nice if we could recognize them in other ways that are more substantial and maybe monetarily more satisfying, but at least to recognize the fact that teachers do put of themselves and give of themselves in an effort to try and deal and work with the future generations. That is one of those things that cannot be ever underestimated or underidentified.

So I appreciate the fact that this time, which is called National Teacher Appreciation Week, an entity that was started by the PTA, is indeed one of those elements that we should take the time to recognize the significant factor, the significant effort that all the teachers make in not only our public schools but our private schools as well, and indeed you can probably expand this in some particular way to extend to those who are teaching at home, which means our parents are teachers in and of themselves. They too need to be recognized for the commitment they make to our students. It is an important effort. It is an important entity.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the sponsor of this particular resolution, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves).

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, as you know, it is very difficult for me to speak without chalk in my hand at any given time.

Today, I rise to support House Resolution 1149, supporting the goals and ideals of National Charter School Week, which is being held now. Actually, it runs from May 2 through May 8 of this year. This week has been designated as the 11th annual Charter School Week.

Charter schools are innovative public schools that have unique freedoms and responsibilities. They explore new educational approaches, and they are free from some rules and regulations governing traditional public schools. In exchange for this freedom, charter schools are held to a higher level of accountability than traditional public schools might be.

Charter schools must demonstrate the success of their students' academic achievements to parents, to policymakers, to authorizers, and to their communities or face closure. Many charter schools have met and have exceeded in this challenge. Most charter schools meet necessary student achievement and accountability requirements, and they often set higher individual goals to ensure that they are of high quality and are truly accountable to the public. However, despite these innovative approaches and promising reports of parental satisfaction, charter schools often face unique and unusual obstacles in creating and replicating successful schools.

One such obstacle is State caps, which limit their growth. Twenty-six States and the District of Columbia have some type of limit, or cap, on charter school growth. Most caps restrict the number of charter schools allowed. Others limit the number of students that a single school may serve. These caps prohibit effective charter schools from being created and replicated and, thereby, from serving students in need, oftentimes in niche needs.

It is essential that Congress continues to support public charter school programs and that it continues to recognize the unique attributes and benefits of charter schools. These programs provide support for the development of charter schools. These programs have helped to create a public charter school system all across this country--schools that work to improve academic achievement, oftentimes for low-income students.

It is important that the charter community is able to continue to provide a high-quality option based on innovation, on freedom from red tape, and on partnerships between parents and educators and that it is able to continue to give hope, oftentimes to disadvantaged and at-risk students across this Nation.

It is, indeed, one of those good things that we are doing in our school system, and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

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