Floor Statements

Well, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding. Yes, this presents a particularly interesting conundrum that we do have here. The President has talked about how our most important element is to create jobs. And it is. For our people we need jobs. I recognize, though, that much of what we have in this budget that you have already mentioned does not create jobs. It actually has a stifling impact on jobs.

Some things, though, in which jobs are our responsibility, we also have put a stifling influence just on the decisions we make. This budget is $3.8 trillion. That's a whole lot of money. It's $1.6 trillion more than we have. That's a whole lot of money that's going to go there. And in every one of the budgets that takes place it's about choices. In our own families we do the same thing. We have certain things we want and certain things we need. My problem with this budget right now, specifically in the areas that I am deeply concerned, is that we have a lot of stuff in here that we want that's being funded

and a lot of things that we need that is not being funded.

One of the few constitutional responsibilities we have in this country is defense. Last year, you and I were down here with others very frequently talking about missile defense. It is essential for this country. We cut missile defense. Once again, it was about prioritization. I think and I believe you thought we put our priorities in the wrong place. And you don't build a missile without people. When we cut our missile defense program, we took jobs away.

Unfortunately, in this particular budget, once again we go after another kind of missile program and have decided to take it out. What it simply means is this budget decides to go after NASA and take away the Constellation program and specifically the Ares 1 rocket. Now I hate to say this, but Time magazine determined what were the Fifty Best Inventions of the Year. And the number one invention was the Ares rocket. This is our process to replace the space shuttle. This is how we are moving into space exploration in the future. I hate to say this. I think space exploration is one of the core responsibilities of the Federal Government.

But in taking this out what you are doing is cutting 7,000 jobs nationwide of people involved in space, engineering, math, and science, which--once again, the President wants to encourage kids to study and to go into engineering, science, and math, but we don't have any responsibility of trying to encourage that on the real side. And where the problem comes is the people that make the motors for these rockets make the motors for our missiles.

In defense.

Both of those are core responsibilities of the government and one that this administration has decided to cut. And it's not necessarily that they are companies that are making these-- there's actually two companies in America that do make those motors; one hasn't made any in a couple of decades. But it is people that do it. When you cut these programs--when you cut the missile defense last year and you cut this rocket program this year, the people with the expertise that we need to build the defense of this country are going to be gone. They're either going to find another job or, unfortunately, they're going to go on unemployment so we can pay them for not doing their jobs that we need to defend us.

This is one of the travesties of this particular budget. And it would be okay with me, perhaps, if they had come up with a new plan, a new role for NASA, something they are going to move us forward with, but they did not. All they did is simply cut the program, throw people out of work--if it goes through, I should say. We still have the right to say what it is. But this budget would cut the program, throw people out of work and, more importantly, fail for us to defend this country, which is our constitutional responsibility. It would fail to allow this country to move forward in space exploration and in defense because the industrial base of this country would be gone.

The acquisition guys over in the Pentagon understand it. They say it's not necessarily about jobs, it's about the kinds of jobs. And therefore it is important for the future of this country to have the right kinds of jobs in the industrial base. And it's not simply a spigot you can turn on when once again we decide, oops, maybe we had the wrong idea and we need more missiles to defend us against the Iranians and the North Koreans and who knows what else might be out there. You can't just pick it up again. If you lose the capability, you lose the capability. And, I'm sorry, in this budget we lose the capability we need to defend this country.

It's not just about the amount of money. It's about where we put our priorities and do we do what we need to do first and then cover the wants. I'm sorry; we're paying a lot of money for a lot of wants. Let me give you a simple example. If you took what we spent in the stimulus last year for ACORN alone, you could fund this program again and still have close to $2 billion left over.

That program got more funding in the stimulus bill that was passed last year than it would take to carry on with this program moving forward.

I think you are exactly right, and that's why, with all due respect, this is like a double disappointment to me. Not only are we spending too much and taxing too much, but we are not spending it in the right place.

I appreciate the gentleman from Florida and what he's saying. I think we're saying the same thing.

There are some core responsibilities the government would have to do, and the government has promised that they would do these. And the people working on the NASA side are the same kinds of people we need on the defense side. And one would think, as Mr. Hensarling showed the amount of money that's being thrown around in this particular budget, with all that, with $3.8 trillion, you could at least cover the needs, at least cover what we have to do.

If I could ask the gentleman from Missouri, because I appreciate you said the key word of ``priorities.'' Before we actually deal with our priorities, we have to look at what is in this budget and what isn't in this budget, and I think what the gentleman from Texas is going to show is we could have done better for the American people in this proposed budget, and we must. The status quo is not acceptable. The way we've been doing things is not acceptable. There has to be a better alternative.

I would be happy to yield.

Madam Speaker, consistent with the Republican Leadership's policy

on earmarks, I am submitting the following earmark disclosure information regarding project funding I had requested and which was included within the Joint Explanatory Statement of Managers to accompany the Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3326, the Defense Appropriations Act of Fiscal Year 2010, which is commonly referred to as the Defense Appropriations Conference Report for Fiscal Year 2010 (even though no formal conference was held). To the best of my knowledge, these requests: (1) are not directed to an entity or program that will be named after a sitting Member of Congress; (2) are not intended to be used by an entity to secure funds for other entities unless the use of funding is consistent with the specified purpose of the earmark; and (3) meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable. I further certify that neither my spouse, nor I, have any personal financial interests in these requests.

Project Title: Senior Scout, Electro-Optical Infrared Capability Amount: $4.8 million

Requesting Member: Rob Bishop of Utah

Bill Number: H.R. 3326

Account: Army Aircraft Procurement

Address of Requesting Entity: Utah Air National Guard, 169th Intelligence Squadron, and Lockheed-Martin, 7563 South 4470 West, West Jordan, Utah 84084.

Matching Funds: None

Detailed Spending Plan: Not applicable.

Description and Justification of Funding: Funding would provide for infra-red imaging capabilities for better all-condition imagery of high-value intelligence target identification and location functions.

Project Title: Senior Scout, Line of Sight Datalink

Amount: $2.4 million

Requesting Member: Rob Bishop of Utah

Bill Number: H.R. 3326

Account: Army Aircraft Procurement

Address of Requesting Entity: Utah Air National Guard, 169th Intelligence Squadron, and Lockheed-Martin, 7563 South 4470 West, West Jordan, Utah 84084.

Matching Funds: None

Detailed Spending Plan: Not applicable.

Description and Justification of Funding: Funding would upgrade the Senior Scout platform by incorporating line-of-sight equipment, antenna systems, and infrastructure components for increased data processing and dissemination capacity to meet greatly increasing military mission demands.

Project Title: Senior Scout, Remote Operations Capability

Amount: $2.4 million

Requesting Member: Rob Bishop of Utah

Bill Number: H.R. 3326

Account: Army Aircraft Procurement

Address of Requesting Entity: Utah Air National Guard, 169th Intelligence Squadron, and Lockheed-Martin, 7563 South 4470 West, West Jordan, Utah 84084.

Matching Funds: None

Detailed Spending Plan: Not applicable.

Description and Justification of Funding: Funding would upgrade the Senior Scout intelligence platform by upgrading the remote data processing functionality, improving processing times and dissemination of crucial time-sensitive intelligence to end-users.

Project Title: Automated Composite Technologies and Manufacturing Center

Amount: $9.6 million

Requesting Member: Rob Bishop of Utah

Bill Number: H.R. 3326

Account: Defense Production Act Purchases

Address of Requesting Entity: ATK, Inc., Freeport Center Building H- 8, Clearfield, Utah 84016.

Matching Funds: None

Detailed Spending Plan: Not applicable.

Description and Justification of Funding: Funding would be used in partnership with the Ogden Air Logistics Center at Hill AFB, to continue multi-year effort to develop high tech cutting-edge carbon fiber placement and equipment in support of Air Force aviation platforms and weapons systems, leading to better technical competence within the government depot system in support of these systems.

Project Title: Dugway Field Test Improvements

Amount: $3.6 million

Requesting Member: Rob Bishop of Utah

Bill Number: H.R. 3326

Account: Army RDT&E

Address of Requesting Entity: ITT, Inc., 8262 South 5260 West, South Jordan, Utah 84088.

Matching Funds: None

Detailed Spending Plan: Not applicable.

Description and Justification of Funding: Funding will incorporate cutting-edge radar and sensor technology into the capabilities of U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground, Utah, for use in its vital chemical and biological defense test mission, to allow for more accurate test characterization of biological and chemical threats. Project is in conjunction with the Space Dynamics Laboratory at Utah State University.

Project Title: Multiple Source Data Fusion for Dugway Proving Ground

Amount: $2 million

Requesting Member: Rob Bishop of Utah

Bill Number: H.R. 3326

Account: Army RDT&E

Address of Requesting Entity: ITT, Inc., 8262 South 5260 West, South Jordan, Utah 84088.

Matching Funds: None

Detailed Spending Plan: Not applicable.

Description and Justification of Funding: Funding is needed to support the U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground in its unique mission of chemical and biological defense testing, by supporting technology improvements to monitor and analyze chemical and biological stimulants, including development of stand-off referee instrumentation and data fusion methods.

Project Title: Precision Strike Munitions Advancement with Integrated Millimeter Wave Power Sources to Satisfy Army Strategic Goals

Amount: $3.28 million

Requesting Member: Rob Bishop of Utah

Bill Number: H.R. 3326

Account: Army RDT&E

Address of Requesting Entity: Innosys, Inc., 2900 South Main Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84115.

Matching Funds: None

Detailed Spending Plan: Not applicable.

Description and Justification of Funding: Funding will be used to develop an integrated millimeter wave amplification portable power system to support autonomous operations of precision strike weaponry, such as micro UAVs and helicopters, providing warfighters with greater and more flexible weapons and tactical surveillance capabilities.

Project Title: Transitioning Stretch Broker Carbon Fiber to Production Programs

Amount: $3.2 million

Requesting Member: Rob Bishop of Utah

Bill Number: H.R. 3326

Account: Army RDT&E

Address of Requesting Entity: Hexcell, Inc., 6700 West 5400 South, West Valley City, Utah 84118.

Matching Funds: None

Detailed Spending Plan: Not applicable.

Description and Justification of Funding: Funding needed to continue industry efforts to develop advanced carbon fiber technology to allow for the forming of more geometrically complex weapons system and aviation components at the time of manufacture, and also to allow for the development of a Mil-HdBk-17 approved data base, which is necessary for the new technology to be certified for use on current and future defense program production.

Project Title: Unserviceable Ammunition Demilitarization via Chemical Dissolution at Tooele Army Depot

Amount: $1.6 million

Requesting Member: Rob Bishop of Utah

Bill Number: H.R. 3326

Account: Army RDT&E

Address of Requesting Entity: Battelle Memorial Institute, 4225 Lake Park Blvd., Suite 200, West Valley City, Utah 84120.

Matching Funds: None

Detailed Spending Plan: Not applicable.

Description and Justification of Funding: Project would continue efforts begun in FY09 to design and construct a prototype acid hydrolysis conventional munitions demilitarization process for the disposal of high-risk/high-cost unserviceable and obsolete ammunition stored at Tooele Army Depot, Utah, in a more environmentally responsible manner.

Project Title: CAD/CAM Aircraft Structural Overhaul Work Center

Amount: $2.5 million

Requesting Member: Rob Bishop of Utah

Bill Number: H.R. 3326

Account: Air Force RDT&E

Address of Requesting Entity: Mission Support, Inc., P.O. Box 160135, Freeport Center Building Z-15, Clearfield, Utah 84016.

Matching Funds: None

Detailed Spending Plan: Not applicable.

Description and Justification of Funding: Funding will be used to provide computer-aided design/computer aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology in workstations for the Ogden Air Logistics Center at Hill AFB, Utah, for use primarily on legacy aircraft repairs of aviation component parts, such as the A-10 weapon system, increasing parts manufacturing accuracy and reducing repair and overhead costs to the government.

Project Title: UAV Sensor and Maintenance Development Center

Amount: $3.92 million

Requesting Member: Rob Bishop of Utah

Bill Number: H.R. 3326

Account: Air Force RDT&E

Address of Requesting Entity: Space Dynamics Laboratory at Utah State University, 1695 North Research Park Way, North Logan, Utah 84341.

Matching Funds: None

Detailed Spending Plan: Not applicable.

Description and Justification of Funding: Funding would provide technical assistance to the Ogden Air Logistics Center at Hill AFB,

Utah, in the areas of developing, calibrating, and integrating various sensors and other payloads onto UAV platforms, which will facilitate future R&D development of UAV capability within the military.

Project Title: Compliance Tools Development for Metals in Antifouling Paints

Amount: $800,000

Requesting Member: Rob Bishop of Utah

Bill Number: H.R. 3326

Account: Navy RDT&E

Address of Requesting Entity: Kennecott Copper (Rio Tinto) and International Copper Association, 260 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10016.

Matching Funds: None

Detailed Spending Plan: Not applicable.

Description and Justification of Funding: Funding would be used to develop environmental modeling software tools to survey site-specific naval installations for buildup of harmful heavy metals in harbor sediments caused by paints and coatings on naval vessels at port. This tool will allow the navy to measure and monitor which coatings are best and most cost-effective for anti-fouling paints (some of which contain copper), and allow the Navy to remain in compliance with environmental standards.

Project Title: Tomahawk Cost Reduction Initiative

Amount: $3.28 million

Requesting Member: Rob Bishop of Utah

Bill Number: H.R. 3326

Account: Navy RDT&E

Address of Requesting Entity: Williams International, Inc., 3450 Sam Williams Drive, Ogden, Utah 84401.

Matching Funds: None

Detailed Spending Plan: Not applicable.

Description and Justification of Funding: Funding is needed to incorporate new manufacturing technologies into the Tomahawk production line that will reduce the per-unit costs for future missiles. This funding has a quick pay-back period on this proven ``weapon of choice'' in many conflicts.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me some time.

It is with mixed emotions that I speak on this particular bill. This is not the worst bill our committee has ever produced. We have produced some real stinkers that we have hidden in other pieces of legislation. However, it

is symbolic of the problem that this administration and leaders of this Congress have.

We have a Secretary of the Interior who, every time we wish to use Federal land to actually help improve the lives of Americans or creating jobs, will always yell that we have a process we have to do; we cannot commit a rush to judgment. And now when we have a piece of territory, land that will be taken off the tax rolls in a territory that is in deep financial problems today, this historic cattle ranch is now considered something that we must hustle through the system.

We just voted on a bill to solve problems in the wilderness areas of Idaho, which, if we had taken the time to see what was in there instead of rushing to create the most restrictive environment we can on this land in Idaho, we would not have needed the legislation. That is why this administration and this Department of the Interior have said they want to wait until the study is completed and the process is done.

If one of the arguments in favor of passing this bill is we don't really know how much land we will ultimately have and how much it will ultimately cost, that is a great argument to wait until the study is done and we figure out how much land we really want to have and how much it will ultimately cost.

But it is also symbolic of a deeper problem. This Federal Government already owns 650 million acres of land. One-third of this Nation is owned by the Federal Government. Now think of that. One out of every three acres in this country is owned by the Federal Government. I have had three land transfer bills in the past few years here, and in each case, the land that was controlled by the Federal Government was land they did not need, they did not use, and in every case, they did not even know they had the land until a land title search pointed out that, indeed, it belonged to the Federal Government.

At some time you have to say enough is enough. The States with the biggest problem in funding their education system are found in States that have a predominance of public lands. It is a one-to-one relationship between States that have that problem. In my State of Utah, only 18 percent of the State is in private property. The Governor of Utah controls 18 percent. The rest of the State is under the heavy hand of the Secretary of the Interior, and both my adjective and noun are appropriate.

One of the issues that we simply have here is we will be hearing that we should have a spending freeze on nondefense and nonentitlement programs, and we will hear that tonight. Does it seem logical that we should spend up and then decide to freeze? Does that indeed solve our problem?

As I said before, this particular bill, which will probably cost $50 million, give or take $50 million, this particular bill is not necessarily bad in and of itself, but it is symbolic of the problem that we have, that we do not have a large-scale picture of what this Nation should control, should own, should do, and we are moving in a pell-mell process to try and add more and more acreage to the heavy hand of the Federal Government. And at some time, we should stand up and say enough is enough.

One-third of this country owned by the Federal Government is enough. For that reason, we should at least wait until the Department of the Interior has finished their study and the process and they sign off and we actually know how much land and how much cost we are talking.

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

I rise today in support of House Resolution 583, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Lester Flatt has made an invaluable contribution to the American art as both a songwriter and a performer, and has left an indelible legacy on bluegrass music.

Born in Overton County, Tennessee, in 1914, by age seven he had learned to play the guitar and sang in his church choir. He began entertaining locally and began to pursue a music career when rheumatoid arthritis forced him to quit his job in a local silk mill. As has been stated, he started in 1945 with the Blue Grass Boys, then later with the Foggy Mountain Boys and then finally with the Nashville Grass.

He passed away, but his voice and unique bluegrass style will always be remembered. Lester Flatt and the Bluegrass Boys are credited with the introduction of bluegrass music to this Nation. Bluegrass music is a unique form of American roots music and is considered a sub-genre of the country music scene.

Bluegrass was especially popular in the rural areas of this country, and it's often referred to as the Kentucky bluegrass after Bill Monroe, who was from Kentucky and a member of the Bluegrass Boys. Bluegrass music is a uniquely American art form and Lester Flatt helped to introduce this music to the Nation. Lester Flatt left an indelible legacy in bluegrass music and in the American art, and I ask my colleagues to support this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

After hearing the eloquence of the gentleman from Tennessee, I'm embarrassed to admit that the only thing I think of, when I hear Lester Flatt's name, I have to think of ``The Beverly Hillbillies.''

But with that, I'd like to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

We have no more speakers, so I urge my colleagues to vote favorably on this particular resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in support of House Resolution 990, expressing support for the designation of January 2010 as National Mentoring Month, and I am glad we are doing it before it's over.

National Mentoring Month celebrates mentors who are positively impacting the lives of people and highlights the need for additional mentors to make themselves available for America's youth.

Mentoring is a structured and trusting relationship that brings young people together with caring individuals who offer guidance, support, and encouragement, all aimed at developing the confidence and character of the mentee.

A mentor is an adult who, along with parents, provides a young person with support, counsel, friendship, and positive reinforcement.

By all estimates, almost 18 million young people--nearly half of the population of young people between the ages of 10 and 18--live in situations that put them at risk of not living up to their potential. Without immediate intervention by caring adults, they can make choices that not only undermine their futures but, ultimately, the economic and social well-being of our Nation.

Research shows that formal, high-quality mentoring focused on developing the competence and character of the mentee promotes positive outcomes such as improved academic achievement, self-esteem, career development, and social skills. By honoring mentors and mentoring programs, we recognize the importance of mentoring programs implemented in our local schools and communities. We also draw attention to the components of a quality program, including appropriate screening of potential mentors and careful matching of youth with adults who have a genuine interest in providing guidance and being exemplary role models.

Today, thanks to the commitment and dedication of mentoring advocates, 3 million young people are now enjoying mentoring's many benefits through school-based, faith-based, and community organizations. It's a six-fold increase in formal mentoring relationships since the early 1990s.

Today we recognize the contribution mentors make to the lives of the Nation's youth. The time adults take to serve as a mentor provides children and young adults with a positive adult example and support system. Adult mentors should be recognized for their contributions and efforts, and, therefore, I urge Members to support this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1030 congratulating Messiah College men's and women's soccer teams on winning the 2009 NCAA Division III national championships.

Messiah College is a private Christian college that was founded in 1909 and is located in Grantham, Pennsylvania. Messiah's mission is ``to educate men and women toward maturity of intellect, character, and Christian faith in preparation for lives of service, leadership, and reconciliation in church and society.'' The college's mission reflects its dedication to developing students' character, as well as their intellect.

Messiah College offers 60 majors in five different schools and has been ranked as one of the top 10 best colleges for comprehensive bachelor's degrees in the north by U.S. News and World Report. Messiah College obviously boasts an excellent athletic program. Of the 22 intercollegiate athletic teams at Messiah, the men's and women's soccer teams are the college's two most winning teams. The Messiah College Falcons, both their men's and women's soccer teams, won the 2009 NCAA Division III national championship on December 5. This victory was the seventh national championship since 2000 for the men and the third since 2000 for the women. Messiah claimed the third and only men's and women's dual national championships in NCAA history.

In the championship games, head coaches Brad McCarty and Scott Frey led the men's and women's soccer teams to a 2-0 victory against Calvin College and a 1-0 victory against Washington University of St. Louis. Jared Clugston was voted the most valuable defense player, and Geoff Pezon won the most valuable offensive title at the tournament.

So I congratulate Messiah College, the men's and women's teams, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1029 that expresses support for the designation of the week of February 1 through February 5 2010 as National School Counseling Week, even though that is only 5 days. But I guess that is a school week.

School counselors serve as a valuable resource to students across the Nation. School counselors assist students with the transition from secondary education to higher education or the workforce. They help students cope with trauma and difficult family issues, assist students and teachers in dealing with behavioral problems, and they serve as a resource for students dealing with the challenges of becoming adults.

School counselors also serve as a resource for parents and educators. They assist parents in communicating with their kids, and provide parents with important information to help their kids transition to higher education or the workforce. They work with teachers and parents to help students explore their potential and set realistic education and career goals. They often serve as a third party to mediate between parent-teacher or student-teacher or parent-student relationships.

National School Counseling Week highlights the importance of school counselors and the valuable assistance that they provide students, parents, and teachers. This year's theme is ``Celebrate School Counseling.'' The theme aims to focus public attention on the unique contributions of professional school counselors.

I spent far many too years of my life teaching in the public school system. I have known many counselors, and I have appreciated their efforts and have respected their efforts and their goals even as I have harassed them on their particular jobs.

With that, I express my sincere gratitude to all school counselors. I recognize their contribution to our Nation's youth. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no other speakers. Is the gentlelady from California ready to yield back?

Then with that, I urge adoption of this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

We have concerns with H.R. 3726. As of today, the National Park Service has yet to complete the congressionally authorized study of this proposal. In fact, the agency has asked that we defer consideration until the study is completed.

These studies are not without cost in both personnel and funds, and they take several years to complete and can drain as much as $500,000 from the Park Service budget. What use are these feasibility studies if we simply choose to ignore them, or, in this case, rush to pass legislation before the study can be finalized? Typically, these studies contain information that could be useful in crafting better legislation.

For example, it would be nice to know what process the National Park Service went through to consult with all private property owners who may be harmed or impacted by this designation. The National Park Service testified that the cost to acquire the private property to establish this park could be as much as $50 million, in addition to nearly $1 million a year to operate the park.

Most of us are aware of the estimated $9 billion in maintenance backlog created currently with the National Park Service. Consequently, it becomes very difficult to justify why additional land acquisition is advisable at this particular time. How do we explain to taxpayers that, while unemployment soars, their government is conspiring to buy beach- front property in the Caribbean? Is adding these luxurious 2,900 acres to the Federal land inventory the priority of this particular Congress?

Nearly every acre of the dry land that is to be acquired is privately owned. It's our understanding the majority of this land is owned by one family. According to testimony heard by the Committee on Natural Resources, this family is supportive of the proposal and even initiated this process. We heard that it is their desire that this land not be developed, but be preserved in its current condition. It seems to me that they are in a perfect position to accomplish that goal as landowners. May I suggest that they also possess the power to determine the future of the property without any interference of Congress.

In addition, to complicate the issue further, sources within the Park Service have told us that there is discord within the family itself over whether this designation is indeed in the family's best interest. Apart from this family, we have heard nothing from the other property owners affected by this bill, both on land and in the water. Is it fair for us in Washington, D.C., to place them in a restrictive designation without their consent and also not knowing whether the consent exists or not?

It is not only these 2,900 acres of dry land that's affected by this legislation. In addition, this bill includes the park-associated submerged lands out to the 3-mile territorial limit of the Virgin Islands. This could mean that fishing in the area would be prohibited, just as it is at the Virgin Islands National Park that surrounds two- thirds of the island of St. John.

I hope that this will not impact struggling fishermen, but it is a possibility that deserves attention and has yet to be addressed, but would have, had the feasibility study been completed.

Again, these are questions that need to be answered, and I would hope that some of them will be answered in the final study when it is finally signed by Secretary Salazar. If this legislation does move forward today, I hope the current landowners and their descendents are aware that the National Park Service will now be their zoning board.

I would also like to note that there is no ``willing seller'' provision in this legislation. While ``willing seller'' provisions are minimum at best protections, at least with this language Congress is on record that landowners should not be hounded or harassed into selling their land to the National Park Service.

I cannot in good conscience support this legislation, yet that does not guarantee the right of private property owners. Our constituents deserve better than that. If the intent of this proposal is to preserve historic landscapes, certainly that can be done locally without Federal funds, interference, or bureaucratic red tape.

So I urge my colleagues to demonstrate some fiscal responsibility and demand respect for property rights that are not yet in this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

In closing, whether this cattle ranch becomes part of our national inventory or not may indeed be a good idea. But one of the things I think we are saying right now is the scope these processes have to go through--and the process does become important. Poor process produces poor policy. What we are arguing in this particular case is if we should allow the process to go through to its completion. There are questions that still have to be asked that yet have a quantified answer to them. Neighbors may be in support, but we want those things quantified, which should be part of the process that is there.

There should be private property rights in this particular document for the protection of private property owners, and that should be boilerplate language we add in all legislation--not just this, but the rest that comes through. The question that we should be asking, which is what the study should be asking as well, is not necessarily do we go forth in this particular one but should we look at this as the only way of preserving or moving forward on this cattle ranch in the future? Is this indeed the best way? Are there other concepts that could be used? And should this be the $50 million budget priority of this particular Congress? Those are the types of questions that should have been answered in the committee before this bill moved forward, and that's what we asked in committee and we're asking again on the floor.

This may indeed be the proper use of turning this former cattle ranch into a national asset, but there are still questions that should have been asked in a proper process to make sure that this is the right policy at this particular time. And that's why we have objections to this particular bill, not necessarily the substance of it, but the manner and mechanism of what we are doing, because there are still too many unanswered questions.

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

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This particular bill has been well explained by the distinguished gentlelady from Guam. Up front, I would like to say that I have basically favored this bill introduced by the distinguished gentleman from Oregon. In concept, it is a good bill, and I actually will be voting for it on the floor. However, I do want to state that there are two particular problems, once again, with the process, which are very perplexing and

concerning to me, and I think it's something we ought to discuss.

This bill has been changed--I think significantly--since it left the committee on November 18. An amendment was added at 12:58--that is the date on it, today. Admittedly, we knew about it maybe an hour before that, but an amendment that changes this bill significantly was added today. That is not the process you go through. Once again, poor process will equate to poor public policy.

The amendment that was added in here took out salvaged sales on BLM land. That is not what was in the bill when it went through committee, and I would suggest that I am not in favor of that change to a very good bill. We will be told, I'm assuming, that this change was made to conform what practices we do on BLM with national forest land. However, what we are doing is changing the law to conform to an agency regulation, which is, indeed, backwards.

Congress should be establishing what our requirements are and what our practices are, not forcing Congress to try to regulate ourselves and relate ourselves to what an agency of government, through its own internal regulations, does. So I am opposed to this amendment, which was added within the very last 2 hours. That should not be there and was not discussed in committee.

I am also opposed in one particular way to the concept that this was made from a ``shall'' to a ``may.'' I would like it very much more had it been with the original language that Representative DeFazio proposed in making this a ``shall'' issue as opposed to simply making this or any other bill that comes before us today into a ``may,'' to make it at the whim of the Secretary.

Now, with those two conclusions, I will say that this is still a good bill. This is still a bill that I think should go forward. This is a bill that should have gone forward in the way it came out of committee, in which it was a stronger and better bill, and I will still vote on it on the floor. But I am perplexed with these changes that have been made that weaken this bill and do not improve it and, more importantly, with the process we are going through to make these last-minute changes when they should have been done with full committee hearing, with full committee discussion, and full committee markup.

In closing, let me just apologize for making a misstatement in the first place. I am told now that there is a statute that since has been done by the National Forest Service, so the statutes are consistent. They are consistently wrong, but they are still consistent here. It is still the wrong thing to do, and those salvaged sales should have been approved on both BLM as well as national forest land, and I still resent the process that went through, even though what I said was technically wrong earlier.

With that, I intend to vote ``yes'' because I think the DeFazio bill is a good bill. It needs to go forward. It is the right thing to do, but we could have done a whole lot better if we had really put our minds to it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise to slowly yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans have no objections to H.R. 725, and indeed, we support appropriate law enforcement efforts to stop illegal counterfeiting of Indian arts and crafts. However, I would like to note a concern for the record, because this bill could have been written in a way to increase its effectiveness.

At the committee hearing on H.R. 725, it became clear that the Bureau of Indian Affairs' Office of Law Enforcement is contemplated to be the primary agency to investigate and enforce any violations of this new Indian Arts and Crafts Act. As written, this bill, H.R. 725, authorizes any Federal law enforcement officer to enforce the act. That is the issue. It authorizes any Federal law enforcement officer to authorize the act. This would include law enforcement officers who may or may not have expertise in dealing with tribes, with artists, counterfeit art or crafts.

So I certainly hope that the President takes appropriate steps to delegate this overly broad law enforcement authority only to the agency or the agencies that have the funding, manpower, time, and expertise to enforce this important but somewhat complex area of law. It would be nice if Congress were to actually take that responsibility to ourselves. Indeed, the very goal of stopping this illegally counterfeited Indian art should not be turned over to law enforcement agencies who are strained with other duties, other kinds of investigation of crime, acts of terrorism, fraud, or any other kind of scheme that takes place.

Finally, in addition to the fact that this has not been specified where it should be, I do want to note that there is a largely identical bill, sponsored by the Senator from Arizona, that is in the House. If we had taken up that bill today, it could probably be signed into law this particular week. I have no idea why we did not take up the Senate bill rather than pushing this bill forward, and for whatever reason it is. If, indeed, it is simply because it's a Senator's bill, that may be good enough for me. But if there are other concepts that may be there, there are still questions as to why we are not passing Senate Bill 151 rather than this one. However, by passing H.R. 725 today, we are simply delaying the enactment of this particular bill.

So once again, I think we missed the opportunity of trying to narrow in our particular focus on the enforcement powers, and there are still some questions on why this bill is taking precedence over others that may speed up the actual date of enactment of this, but with the substance of the bill, I am in support.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the very complete and thorough analysis that the gentlelady from Guam did on this particular bill. It was well done.

I will ask at this time if the gentlelady from Guam has any more speakers for this particular bill.

Sadly, neither do I. So at this time, I will simply go forward and say that we still support it. We still think this bill could have been done better. We are still very curious on why the Senate bill was not being pushed forward, but we support the purpose and the goals of this particular piece of legislation, and we will be very happy to support it here on the floor as well.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

This bill, as introduced by Mr. Simpson of Idaho, would require the Forest Service to issue special use permits to owners of small, existing water systems in two Idaho wilderness areas. And although these water diversions continue to operate, their owners currently lack the authority to maintain or repair these facilities. Failure to maintain or repair these facilities would harm not only the farms and ranches that need to be assured of having access to water that they own to be viable, but also will be important for the Forest Service to maintain the environmental needs and watersheds on these particular Forest Service lands.

This bill, H.R. 3538, will allow the owners of the existing water systems to do this necessary maintenance.

Let me just say this legislation has been very narrowly tailored to apply to

only a small number of sites that are within the wilderness areas and meet a very specific criteria. So to qualify for this bill, they would have to be a water diversion facility that was in existence before the wilderness area was designated. It has to be continuously used since the wilderness area was designated. The owners have to have a valid water right under Idaho law that predated the wilderness designation, and the sites only can be covered in this bill if there is no other alternative than to continue the use of these facilities within the wilderness designation. And so it is beneficial not only to the Forest Service but to these private property owners individually for the water rights that they have recognized that are valid.

Let me say that this bill illustrates one of the problems that we here in Congress have. Wilderness designation is the most inflexible and restrictive of any of the land use weapons that are at our disposal and in our arsenal. Too often we find after the fact of that designation that there are simple activities that are denied because of that designation that should not have been there in the first place. We ought to be wise enough to devise a conservation practice for our lands without creating unintended consequences to neighboring families that were poorly thought out when the designation was originally made. There is no reason we cannot be both good stewards and good neighbors. This shows one of the problems we have when we rush into designation of land without doing a thorough understanding of what the consequences of that designation of land will be.

I understand also there was another change in this particular bill. And although I stand, as I did on the other, to support it, I want to make public that we do not approve of the change that was made in that bill. Just as in the DeFazio bill, the word ``shall'' would have made it a better bill, and it should have remained, and that was the concept that the committee voted, so in this bill the word ``shall'' was changed to more permissive language after the committee voted on the bill. That ``shall'' should have been in here, which would have been the better language for this particular piece of legislation.

Even though I support the bill with the change, that change was done in a poor process. That change should have been done before the committee actually allowed this bill to leave their jurisdiction. And in all sincerity, the mandate would be the appropriate policy we as Congress should have insisted upon. So I am not happy with that particular change, but I still support the bill because overwhelmingly it does a great deal of good in areas where otherwise there would be a great deal of harm done by the unexpected consequences of some rash action many years before. So I support this bill as well.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for this. You know, we are talking about a potential health care bill which, whether it is the Senate or House version, is an enormous expansion of the government. Not only is it an enormous expansion of the government in the cost for it, but it's also an enormous expansion in the amount of power.

Now, both bills are based on the commerce clause of giving them their authority to implement this program. The commerce clause, as we know, over the last 70 years has been so expanded, its shape has basically been lost. But notwithstanding even when the courts have ruled on commerce clause issues, they have two thresholds that must be maintained before something has usually been declared constitutional for them.

One is the activity has to have a significant impact on interstate commerce. I think you can argue this bill will. But the second is the willing participant threshold that must be met, which means the commerce clause has said Congress can do that which will stop an activity; but never, never have they said the commerce clause can be used to forbid inactivity or force individuals to pay a fine not only for doing nothing, but for doing the wrong kind of thing according to the Federal Government.

Now that is the problem this piece of legislation has, because if you can force people to go through this to have a certain kind of health insurance, they can force Americans to do anything at any given time. The Constitution simply says commercial activity in which people choose to engage, but cannot require that they engage in those commercial activities. So it's one of those simple concepts. Let me give an example.

We passed a Cash for Clunkers bill, which gave incentives for people to go and get a certain kind of car. We still allow people that choice and option. If you use that same program with the principles within this health care monstrosity, we don't have a Cash for Clunkers program; we simply have a clunker program, which will then have the government establish a bureaucracy, an organization not only to tell you what to buy, but when to buy it and give you the opportunity to pay for it yourself or be fined by the Federal Government.

Now that is not the way it's supposed to be. In Mack v. The United States, the Supreme Court said, The Constitution protects us against our better instincts because it divides power to help us so that we do not succumb to the temptation of concentrating power in one location as an expedient solution for crisis of the day. And that is indeed what this particular bill would do.

That news, if I can get the time from the gentleman from New Jersey, is as amazing as the potential harm that this bill could do to all Americans that are there. We've spoken many times on the floor about the concept of the general welfare clause, which was not an expansion of opportunity for Congress. It was supposed to be a limitation. And I did at one time get a call--we spoke once on what was the interpretation of the general welfare clause--I got a call from a lady from Alabama after that, saying it was very eloquent, but these are all the things I like the government doing. And then she gave me a list of stuff.

I said, Ma'am, you basically missed our intent. It was not the government can do these things; it is which level of government should do these things. Not every issue has to rise to the importance that Congress needs to do it,

which would lead to another element of the Constitution that I think this Obama health care-Democrat-Reid-Pelosi, whatever you want to call it, is violating, which is Federalism.

But before I do that, I would yield back to the gentleman from New Jersey to allow him to at least give some comments upon this particular issue, and then if we want to go back into Federalism--you don't have a whole lot of time--I'd be more than happy to pick that up at some later date. But I'd like to yield back to the gentleman first and at least give you a shot at this thing.

I appreciate you yielding again on this.

Let me just say that there are several concepts that we have talked about here. One, does it meet the threshold of the commerce clause according to the courts? I do not think it does. You have also mentioned several other concepts, that just because Congress says this is a necessary and proper act doesn't necessarily mean it is a necessary and proper act.

It also bothers me that we forget the very essence of federalism upon which this country was founded, which means simply, it is not essential for the Federal Government to have to solve every problem. In fact, sometimes it is better if the Federal Government does not. I have used that example many times before about records. When I was younger, if I wanted a song, I had to buy the entire record. Now there is an iPod that my kid can download the song that I want, too. If I want vanilla, Ben and Jerry's still has 34 flavors from which I can choose.

Every part of our lives is now based on the concept of choice and options for American people, except the government. The Federal Government is still the last bastion of one-size-fits-allism, where we tell people what they ought to be doing rather than allowing them to have choices and options. I say this because some people said, Well, if we don't do this, we have nothing. That is not true. States are moving forward. My State already has implemented a process that gives people 66 options based on the demographics of my State, and everything we are doing in Utah is stopped dead. If this Federal bill passes, they succeed, they now dictate everything that will happen.

States are different. Massachusetts has a program they seem to like. It would not work in Utah. The demographics of Utah would not allow our program to be successful in Massachusetts. But that is why there is the brilliance of federalism, so there can be 50 different innovative ideas and people have the chance to experiment and try and prove and find something that works for their particular area. In a nutshell, that is a very brief problem. This destroys the concept of federalism.

I will yield back to the gentleman from New Jersey.

``Laboratory of democracy.''

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2996, the Interior-Environment Appropriations Act, 2010.

Requesting Member: Rob Bishop

Bill number: H.R. 2996

Account: Forest Service Land Acquisition

Legal name and address of requesting entity: The Trust for Public Land, 660 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 401, Washington, DC 20003

Description of project: The Bonneville Shoreline Trail was initiated in 1990 to complete a trail corridor along the prehistoric shoreline of Lake Bonneville and along the foothills of the Wasatch mountains from Ogden to Provo. This partnership has been so successful that the communities in Cache and Box Elder counties have worked to extend the trail north. The 150-acre North Ogden property is a priority for protection by the U.S. Forest Service. The property serves as important habitat for deer and elk and as an important buffer for fire protection for the rapidly developing area along the Wasatch Front. The property also provides watershed protection for neighboring areas in addition to key recreational resources.

The North Ogden program is a partnership effort to fill in the boundaries of the national forest along the BST in North Ogden and Pleasant View. In 2005, a five-mile stretch of the BST along North Ogden and Pleasant View was secured through a trail easement along an existing utility corridor granted to the nonprofit Weber Pathways. The property available for protection this year is critical to the North Ogden program because it will bring Forest Service ownership to this stretch of the BST and add critical trail access to the citizens in this area of the state. Protection of this property will also protect beautiful views of the foothills of the Wasatch Front and Ben Lomond Peak, one of Weber County's most important landmarks, while conserving important wildlife habitat and winter range along this rapid growth area.

Mr. Speaker, individuals like Hazen Hillyard deserve to be remembered and honored, and that is why I'm happy to sponsor this legislation to name the Smithfield Post Office after him. His life was a hallmark of dedicated public service, at the level

closest to the people where it really matters and makes a difference.

That service included time as President of the Kiwanis Club, many years on the City Library Board, work as Chairman of the Smithfield Historical Heritage Society and multiple terms on the Smithfield City Council.

He was an active member of the Cache Valley Council of the Boy Scouts of America, and in 1961 received the Silver Beaver Award in recognition of his long time service in the scouting program.

The Smithfield Lion's Club honored Hazen in 1974 with its Outstanding Citizen of the Year award.

Hazen Hillyard was appointed Postmaster of Smithfield in 1934. At the time of his appointment, there was no house-to-house mail delivery in the city, so residents were required to go to the Post Office for their mail. Hazen enjoyed interacting with the people as they stopped at the general delivery window for their mail and for other mail services. He was very involved in the Utah chapter of the National Postmasters Association and was even elected President of the state chapter in 1952. He visited all of the post offices in Utah during that year of service.

As the population of Smithfield increased, Mr. Hillyard recognized the need for expanded and better postal facilities. He was successful in getting a new, larger building for the post office in 1957. In 1963 he completed arrangements for city delivery of the mail to houses in Smithfield.

A letter from the city manager of Smithfield says, ``The citizens of Smithfield City have long appreciated and admired the legacy of W. Hazen Hillyard. As a city we strongly encourage and support an effort to rename the Smithfield Post Office in recognition of his lifetime of service and achievement.''

When Hazen grew older he still was very interested in the improvement and advancement of Smithfield. His life and service clearly prove that he loved the people and the community, and I'm honored to help the United States House of Representatives acknowledge and recognize that.

Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the rule because an amendment that was under my name was not admitted in the rule by the Rules Committee. However, the issue at hand in both that amendment and the underlying bill is very small. It's 400 acres in Oregon. That is truly, in the scope of things, an insignificant number. What is significant, though, is the concept behind it, because it represents a larger, more pernicious issue that simply the leaders of this Congress are failing to address or even acknowledge.

Now, I have to admit that the fact that I am an old public schoolteacher is part of the problem. I spent 16 years in the Utah Legislature serving on the Public Education Subcommittee. I understand how difficult it is for those of us who are in the West, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from the other side, how difficult it is for us to fund our public education system. And part of it is from the example that I have before me.

This chart simply shows the amount of Federal land that is owned in each State. As you notice, there is a somewhat disproportionate amount in the West. The Speaker's State of Arizona has a great deal; my State does; the State of Oregon, a little bit less. But nonetheless, there is a significant amount of land that is controlled by the Federal Government.

Many of our friends in the East who don't have that same opportunity have a hard time understanding what it's like to be a public land State. However, the second one, perhaps the more difficult one, is this chart which simply shows the number of States in red are the ones that have the most difficult time funding their public education system. These are the States whose growth in public education funding is the slowest, the most difficult.

You will notice that there is a unique correlation to the amount of Federal land that is owned and the inability of States to fund their public education system. It's almost a one-to-one relationship that happens to be there. So the 400 acres that would be taken out, the potential timberland that would be taken out of potential production in this particular bill, actually is land that no longer produces timber today. That's part of the problem.

It's one of the reasons why we received a letter from California and Oregon county officials who have what's called O&C land. O&C land is land that is dedicated for timber production. This 400 acres is not considered O&C, but it is the same concept. It is land that could be used for timber production.

What this bill will do in taking this small amount of land is to finalize and put in statute the bad administrative decisions of the past which have taken it out of production so it no longer can produce the revenue that we desperately need in these States to try to fund public education. The sponsor of this piece of legislation understood that. He got it right. When he came before the committee in our hearing, he simply used this statement when he asked the ranking member and the chairman to find an offset so that they did not lose the value of this small amount, 400 acres.

Unfortunately, we did not find an offset, and that was the crux of my amendment, both in committee as well as before the Rules Committee. There needs to be some kind of offset.

It says something even more disgusting as well, that if the Interior Department--of all the vast acreage of land that the Federal Government owns, 1 out of every 3 acres in this Nation--cannot find 400 acres as an offset for the State of Oregon, there is something terribly wrong in the mindset of the Interior Department here in Washington.

The issue is schoolkids. Are we going to try to help States fund their education system or not? I recognize that my amendment was ruled nongermane. Our germaneness rule is used more in its absence than in its regulation. But the issue at hand is simply, the gentleman from Oregon was right in the hearing--he got it right when he wanted an offset. The leadership of this Congress was wrong when they decided not to heed his warning and not to give his request. Today it's 400 acres. Tomorrow it may be 16,000 acres in another bill or 9.8 million acres in another bill.

It simply says, our kids are props for political purposes around here, but we really don't care about trying to find a long-term funding solution. The Rules Committee made this amendment out of order. I recognize that they can justify that on the grounds of germaneness. They could have just as easily incorporated the amendment without that as well. We do it all the time.

We justify those kinds of decisions all the time. I recognize that the Rules Committee will take its orders from leadership. That has to happen. They cannot ignore those things. But at the same time, had the Rules Committee followed the wishes of the gentleman from Oregon, we could actually be setting a precedent to help kids. When the Rules Committee failed to heed the request of the gentleman from Oregon, the sponsor of this piece of legislation, when he was justified and correct in coming before our hearing, what it simply said was that we put kids at a lesser priority than other protected kinds of issues.

Once again, this is the problem. It is this amount of land that causes the difficulty of Western States--all of our Western States on a State level--to provide for their needs. And that's what our amendment could solve. That amendment was not made in order. That is simply wrong. Please vote down the rule so that we can put this amendment back in place.

I appreciate the comments made by the gentleman from California, and I think I tried to state those comments earlier on.

The letter we received from the Association of O&C Counties--that's Oregon and California--concerned about this particular issue does include and specifically mentions these 411 acres in this National Wild and Scenic Rivers bill. I also recognize that the gentleman from Oregon, who is the sponsor of this bill, has since sent a letter that says that it does not have an impact. It does not have an impact because of bad administrative decisions made earlier that have already taken this out of timber production.

What we are doing with this bill is now putting that in statute so that we cannot at some time reverse that with the ease with which we took them out in the first place. We have made bad decisions time after time after time, which has impacted the timber industry in these States and has impacted their ability to fund their local governments and especially their education system. That was the fundamental reason it was ruled out of order. It violated PAYGO because, if you actually did put that, those funds would have to be shared with the local States.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time.

I am sorry that the gentleman from Oregon came in late during the discussion and has left that side of the aisle. I want to make it very clear, when I was making my first statements, I did not say that these 400 acres were O&C lands--I made that very clear--but they are treated like O&C lands, which is why the local leaders from Oregon and California sent the letter and specifically asked any kind of lands taken out of the ability to be used for timber production be offset. They specifically requested in a number of other areas this particular area that will be made wild and scenic. This is the request that comes from the local leaders in California and Oregon which recognizes what happens when these lands are taken out of production, and they clearly, as I do, understand that there is economic development from tourism. There is also economic development from manufacturing and there is also economic development from timber harvest, and they each have a different role to play. And each have a different amount of money they do to help kids.

These local leaders recognize that fact which is why they supported what the sponsor of this bill originally wanted to do. Unfortunately, the House leadership has not recognized what his wishes were and has not done what the sponsor originally wanted to do. Though he has now changed his mind, he says these lands are not now producing timber, that is not the issue. The issue is will they ever be useful in that particular effort. That is what we are trying to do with the amendment which should have been made in order. It should have been part of the original bill that came out of the committee. There is no reason why it should not have been.

Now, I recognize there is a significant issue, Mr. Speaker, and let me do just one thing very quickly, because what these local leaders are talking about is specifically allowing them to have some kind of control over their own destiny. We see that played out in bill after bill and issue after issue on this floor.

The other week we passed a small bill, maybe some of you have read about it in the papers, about health care. One of the issues of that bill is it stops local, creative, alternative approaches.

The State of Utah started a local approach for health care reform. They got it right. It was based on empowerment of individuals by employers who would now have a common understanding of what they would have to spend on health care, to be able to give that to their employees, so the employers go to a State index where they have presently 66 options from which to choose. It was an effort to empower individuals. It is an effort of States to solve their own problems because States understand the unique demographic needs that they have in those particular States. Unfortunately, the bill that was passed, if it were to go all of the way through the system, stops the States dead in their tracks from actually implementing their own local reforms, just like this would stop the local areas from implementing their own local reforms.

Now, I hope we understand how significant it is that you can't get enough experts here in one particular room to solve all of the problems in the world, and we should look at the concept of States and local governments having their own ability to experiment and their own ability to meet their local demographic's needs and their own ability to come up with unique and clear ideas, and we should be empowering local governments to make those decisions, not restricting them with a one-size-fits-all mentality or telling them what they will and will not do on the local level.