Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, last summer, thousands of civilian defense workers were furloughed in violation of the law as the administration decided to spread the pain for political purposes.

In July, the House passed the Defense appropriations bill to fund the military, including those illegally furloughed employees, by 315 votes in an intensely bipartisan effort. And yet since July, the Majority Leader has yet to bring that bill to a vote in the Senate. This week, we passed a law to fund our military, although the administration attorneys are still arguing over what the word ``support'' means. And I commend the Department of Defense in their efforts to overcome this roadblock and get people back to work.

But because of these examples, it is imperative that all Federal employees are guaranteed they will receive the backpay that is due them. This will not cost the government extra. There is precedent. It is logical. Yes, our goal should be to start the government working. But as we are looking, within 2 weeks of this period of time, debt ceiling, the issue of sequestration, entitlement reform, a Senate that continues to demand that we spend an extra $60 billion we don't have and ObamaCare, it is clear that the strategies of the past don't work.

Senator Reid's position of ``it's my way or nothing'' has won. We have nothing. And we will continue to have nothing until something new breaks this logjam.

If the Senate were to engage in legitimate talks with real negotiations, that could break this logjam. So it is clear, the Senate's attitude is the key to ending the shutdown. But until that happens, it is significant that all Federal employees know that they will receive their funds, and they will not become innocent victims of the Senate's attitude of belligerence.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is the 20th anniversary of National Public Land Day. Whoopee.

I am also reading a book about the members of my church trying to live in post-World War II East Germany where all building was restricted. If they wished to have a house in which to worship and it was on government land, the government always owned the building and could possess it at any time. If they actually wished to possess the building, they had to find private land to trade to the government because the official policy of East Germany was ``no net loss of federal land.''

I mention that because communist East Germany has the same policy standard as the Department of the Interior and Forest Service have today.

Mr. Speaker, either we are wrong or East Germany was right, and I sincerely doubt the latter is accurate.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 347 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 761, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act. It provides one hour of general debate, equally divided between both sides. It provides for five amendments, four of which are Democrat amendments and one is a Republican amendment. So this rule is fair to a fault and it is totally generous, and it will provide a balanced and open debate as long as we, as Members, structure our remarks to the merits of this particular bill and don't go off on tangents.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to stand before the House and support this rule. It's a good rule.

I also support the underlying bill, H.R. 761, and I want to congratulate the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei), as sponsor of this particular piece of legislation, as well as the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), for his leadership in this particular effort.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation is blessed with an abundance of resources, which has made us a leading world economy and industrial power, and we have only scratched the surface, literally, of what we can potentially develop.

We have energy potential such as coal, oil shale, and natural gas deposits, as well as various critical minerals that we, as a Nation, need and should be developing.

But unfortunately, much of this development of our domestic mineral resources has actually been stymied by a combination of special interest politics, as well as bureaucratic red tape, particularly under this administration. It is a pain we have all seen coming.

Twenty-five years ago, 20 percent of all money that was spent for development and production of critical minerals was spent here in the United States. Today that's down to only 8 percent, as other nations have replaced our efforts, unfortunately.

This has meant an increase in our trade imbalance, dollars going overseas, escalating prices here at home for both energy and commodities. It means job losses here in the United States. And ironically, these jobs that we are losing are some of the highest- paying middle class jobs that are available. Bureaucratic delays are causing this, and they are causing us to see a change, both for manufacturing and defense.

Twenty-five years ago, there were 30 minerals that we actually had to import to this Nation that were considered critical minerals. Today that number has gone from 30 to 61.

Twenty-five years ago, there were 16 minerals that we imported a great majority of. Today that number that has gone to 24.

It affects manufacturing, such as electronics and metal alloys, ceramics, glass, magnets, catalysts, everything. It affects our defense as well, as our Defense Logistics Agency tries to

stockpile these minerals so the demands are there when we actually need them.

Unfortunately, as we've illustrated, more and more of these are being purchased from overseas. They are critical to our weapons development system, including such things as night vision equipment, advanced lasers, avionics, fighter jet components, missile guidance systems, and it goes on and on.

Look, the Constitution tells us that our first responsibility is to provide for a common defense. This bill steps us into the right direction so we actually can provide for a common defense and do it intelligently and avoid unnecessary and frivolous delays.

There are some that will criticize us for the kinds of minerals that we are placing in this restriction area. There was a study in 2009 that was done called the Great California ShakeOut, which was a mock of what could happen if the big earthquake actually hit that area, and it found out that, in an effort to try and rebuild the infrastructure that would be necessary, there's a whole list of things we normally don't consider as critical that would, in that situation, be critical, including sand and gravel, that we simply would have a frightful deficiency of if we were trying to rebuild under those types of critical situations.

This bill anticipates that, and makes sure that we will not be found lacking, either in defense, or in manufacturing, or in critical civilian needs in case of disaster.

This bill doesn't predetermine anything. It simply says, make a decision, yes or no, on whether this project should go forward; simply make a decision, and do it in a timely fashion.

We still, today, average between 7 and 10 years in which those decisions are made. This bill says that that is unrealistic, and it simply says, you've got 30 months--2\1/2\ years--to make a decision, yes or no. If you have to have an extension, it provides for that on common agreement, which is only rational to do. But for heaven's sakes, finally make a decision.

It is based on not only what we are talking about here, but it's based on what we are doing in our transportation area. It's based on a Presidential concept; when the President established an Executive Order No. 13604, which talked about the importance of trying to streamline reform and reference our process.

This is the basis of what we are attempting to do in this particular bill as well. This implies that whenever there are agencies, multiple agencies involved in a project, that there must be a lead agency which must take the responsibility of actually getting the job done, so that any kind of environmental statement should be being done currently, not sequentially, that we can make sure that any kind of lawsuit does not stop the process of making a decision.

Once again, this is one of those things that simply is logical. Just make a decision. You have plenty of time to do it. Make a decision. There is no reason we cannot make a decision on whether to go forward on a project in 2\1/2\ years, none, none whatsoever.

The fact that we are dragging our feet is simply done from bureaucratic excess that is illogical and irrational. We have done this in other areas. This is the time to do this in this area as well.

If, indeed, we could do this process, it would be very clear that this Nation would prosper. We could have good-paying jobs, and we could make the desert blossom.

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

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

I just want to make a couple of comments before we go on with the discussion of this particular rule, which, once again, is a fair rule and is a good rule.

This bill is one of those bills that has no significant cost to the budget. At no time does this stop any of the NEPA requirements. All it says is, do your job and do it on time. Nothing big about that, simply what those regulations are.

And it is obviously one of those things that takes place that we desperately need, both for the manufacturing sector, as well as for defense.

Look, I'm old. I still use legal pads. I trust those. They never crash on me. But if you have an iPhone or an iPad or any of that other kind of new stuff that my kids like to have, you're going to

have these critical minerals. And if we are not proposing and developing them here in the United States, we are paying more to develop them out of country, and we're putting ourselves, manufacturing-wise, in a significant deficit situation. And obviously, with the defense, what is happening is even more critical.

This is simply taking the executive order and saying, yeah, it's good for infrastructure; it's also good for our critical mineral development system, and saying, do the job. Do it well, do it quickly, get it done in a reasonable period of time, and don't drag this stuff out by sequencing the issues and the actions one after the other. You have a period of time. Do your job.

It's an amazing concept of asking the bureaucracy of this Nation to actually do their job, but it's important.

Yes, it was passed in the last session by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. It's a bipartisan bill. The fact that the Senate did not take it up is another indictment to Senate leadership, admittedly, an oxymoron, but it's another indictment for the Senate leadership for ignoring the significant issues that we have to face in this Nation. It's another indictment that they should actually do their job.

Just because the Senate leadership decides to sit on these type of issues does not mean we have to sit on them as well. This is something we have to have, and it needs to go over to the Senate. If it has to go over every week to the Senate until the Senate finally decides to actually do something, then that is our responsibility, and we should do it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Obviously, I am prepared to close. It depends on how long your closing goes.

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

I appreciate the opportunity we have of presenting this particular rule to the body. I've always appreciated the opportunity of sharing this time with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), who is a good friend and a very colorful orator. And I always like to hear his orations here on the floor.

You'll forgive me if I want to try and refocus on the matter that it is hand, for, indeed, I recognize the statements that have been made by the last two speakers that deal with the significance of jobs. What we simply have to have is a policy in this country that promotes private sector jobs, not just government sector jobs.

By promoting private sector jobs, we actually expand the economy and build upon that concept. That is one of the reasons why this particular bill is here. But all of a sudden you go from 30 minerals that we had to import from other areas to 61 minerals that we now have to import from abroad. That means there are a bunch of minerals that we used to be producing in good, high-paying jobs that no longer are there.

So this is one of the areas that we can move our country in the proper direction and not just simply say, Okay, let's create some kind of make-work program that actually adds particular jobs. It needs to be the right kind of jobs to move our country forward.

One person once told me the people sitting here is the entire universe with which we talk. We will not make ourselves rich by paying each other to take vacations. At some time, someone has to add real wealth into the equation. That's what this bill is trying to do. We have critical mineral wealth in this country. It needs to be added to the equation so that we can create those good-paying mining jobs that will spin off into good-paying manufacturing jobs in the private sector. That's everything we are attempting to do.

I would like to take one issue and try to put it to rest as to the idea that these companies who would be receiving benefit from this are somehow getting off and not paying taxes or royalties. They are not paying Federal taxes, but sometimes we forget that we're not the only equation out there. Every one of these pays significant royalties and severance taxes to State and local governments.

The Federal tax that is proposed by some of the amendments to this bill would be on top of that. It would be a form of double taxation. Its goal would be to raise money, which is a nice goal, but simply because you found a potential effort for the Federal Government to try and raise more money doesn't mean you need to rush into that, especially when it has a negative aspect somewhere else. It would have a negative aspect on State and local governments. It would also have a negative aspect on those companies that some people don't want to have any empathy for the situation they're in.

If you actually put an additional Federal royalty on top of the State and local royalty which they are paying and the severance tax that you are paying, in a traditional company you could pass that tax burden on to the consumer. In a world market, you cannot. That just doesn't happen. It has to come out from the company itself.

The companies who are involved in here have clearly said that they are not opposed if we could put some kind of net proceeds up. But these kinds of proposals that we will be hearing in the debate today are not net proceeds tax; they are an unparalleled, unprecedented gross tax. Nothing has ever gone to that level in which the amendments would try to put on this program.

So once again, what we're trying to ask you to do is look at this in the overall view of what we are trying to do to develop real and good private sector jobs.

The underlying element still goes back to the fact that, look, what we need is to go through the permitting process but to do it in a way that is legitimate. It should not have to wait 7 to 10 years to actually permit something. That is just unrealistic.

I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I am an old schoolteacher. As a schoolteacher, we had 9 months to do something. If you couldn't get it done in 9 months, you didn't get it done. There was no idea of just postponing it to a future date. If a principal came to me and said we're going to have to have our testing done on Tuesday for the standardized test, I couldn't say no, I can't do that; let's wait for 2 weeks and maybe--maybe--I will be ready to help you with the testing data. In any education system, when the time is up, the time is up. You have to do the work, and you back-schedule to make sure that you actually do the work. That happens in

almost every element of society except for here in government.

When I was in the State legislature, we had a constitutional end of that State legislative date. We had 45 days to make a decision. Often those decisions are not easy and you make the better of the bad choices that you have, but we had to make a decision.

I contrast that with what is happening here in the United States Government in which the Forest Service was asked to do a study on a potential bridge that we could transfer from Federal ownership over to State ownership. They said yes, in about 4 years we would be able to do that study. Four years to do a simple study? We give ourselves these unreasonable and inexcusable time references, and we do it all the time.

I had a bill that we passed a couple of years ago and which mandated that a certain agency of government had to give a piece of property over to the local entity of government. Congress passed it. They mandated it. Now here, 2\1/2\ years later, the agency still has not transferred that land. They are going through their surveys. They are taking their time. Even the local government had to pay for all these time-consuming surveys. What Congress mandated, 2 years later, still has not happened. That is unrealistic. In the private sector, no one would tolerate that. In our State government, no one would actually tolerate that. In the education community, no one would tolerate that. Yet we look at that as the norm, 7 to 10 years, as an average, to actually permit these things?

That is why what this bill is trying to do is say, look, go through the process, use the NEPA process, but do it in a fair and rational way and make a decision. You don't drag things out just for the fun of dragging things out. If the decision is yes, fine; if the decision is no, fine; but for heaven's sake, make a decision.

Some elements of government, whom I will not make caricatures about even if it's true, some elements seem to like to drag out decisions. This is an area that should not be. So this simply says, if you're going to deal with this area, you've got 30 months to make a decision. You can do that in 2\1/2\ years. There is no reason why it cannot be.

We are doing this in other areas of the government. The President, in his executive order, said this has to be the way we move forward. This bill moves us forward.

This bill does a good thing. It was right that it passed in the last session by a huge bipartisan vote because it's the right thing to do. It's the right message. It's the right program. It moves us forward. It's the right thing to do this year. And we will continue to push this until at some point we have succeeded in making sure that we are moving forward with hard deadlines so that decisions are made and we're not just piddling and piddling and waiting and delaying time after time.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very good bill. It was a good bill last time we passed it. It's still a good bill. We need to pass this bill again. It's also a very good rule. It's a fair rule. It's a rule for which we can be proud.

I would urge my colleagues to make sure that we vote for this rule so we can move forward on a bill that should have been passed by both bodies a long time ago. But we need to, once again, start this process and continue going forward because it is the right thing to do. It will provide us with resources; it will provide us with jobs; it will provide us, more importantly, with decisions. Finally, we can actually have an agency that makes a decision in a timely manner.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 347 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

851) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to encourage

domestic insourcing and discourage foreign outsourcing. The

first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points

of order against consideration of the bill are waived.

General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not

exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair

and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and

Means. After general debate the bill shall be considered for

amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order

against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion

of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee

shall rise and report the bill to the House with such

amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question

shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments

thereto to final passage without intervening motion except

one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the

Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to

no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day

the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of

business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the

Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.

Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 851 as specified in section 2 of this

resolution.

the vote on the previous question: what it really means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous

question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.

A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote

against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow

the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a

vote about what the House should be debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of

Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the

previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or

control the consideration of the subject before the House

being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous

question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the

subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling

of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the

House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes

the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to

offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the

majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated

the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to

a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to

recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:

``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman

from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to

yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first

recognition.''

The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous

question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an

immediate vote on adopting the resolution. . . [and] has no

substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''

But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the

Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in

the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,

page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous

question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally

not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member

controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of

offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by

voting down the previous question on the rule. . . When the

motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the

time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering

the previous question. That Member, because he then controls

the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for

the purpose of amendment.''

In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of

Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special

Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on

such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on

Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further

debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:

``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a

resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control

shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous

question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who

controls the time for debate thereon.''

Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does

have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only

available tools for those who oppose the Republican

majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the

opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to control this next 48 minutes as we explain how significant this Secure Rural Schools fix is and how important it is that we do something on a program that, quite frankly, is not sustainable.

So at this time I would like to recognize, if not the father, the godfather of Secure Rural Schools, the gentleman from Oregon. His State is impacted significantly by this program. It is a significant issue to the school kids of Oregon. Mr. Walden of Oregon is someone who has talked about this for many years and knows the significance and the importance of this particular issue. So I gladly yield to the gentleman from Oregon to explain his take on the Secure Rural Schools issue.

I thank the gentleman for his comments here.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard now from three Members from the west coast--one from California, one from Oregon and one from Washington-- who have explained the situation and how this particular act is, indeed, a solution to the problems that those west coast States are finding in their forestry efforts.

But this also impacts the interior of this country, so I would like to yield a few minutes to the representative from the State of Montana, who represents the entire State of Montana, to explain how this has an impact on interior State forests, as well as the coastal State forests.

I yield to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Daines) to explain what's happening in his State.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from Montana.

Very few people realize the Federal Government actually owns 1 out of every 3 acres in this country, but it is disproportionate. So, of the 13 Western States, 54 percent of the land mass is actually owned by the Federal Government. The 33 States east of the Western States only have 4 percent of their land. Which simply means no one actually east of Denver quite understands how this relationship necessarily works. It also means that the unfortunate truth is, as we've already heard, that private and State forests are today healthier than the Federal forest system. But those of us in the West realize this firsthand because those are our neighbors, those are the areas that surround our communities.

I'm glad to hear from the next two speakers who will be talking--they are from Colorado. The first one is the gentleman from Colorado Springs, who is on the Natural Resources Committee, and he's going to explain the significant situation that they find in Colorado with our forest health situation.

I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. Speaker, since Mr. Lamborn has already introduced the concept of what's taking place in Colorado and the bill for Mr. Tipton, let's turn now to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton) to also explain the significance of why he actually did that particular bill.

I thank the last two speakers from Colorado for explaining the situation they are facing within their State on Federal forest land.

Before we turn to somebody from the East who gets what we're talking about here, let's continue with the backbone of the Rocky Mountains by turning some time over to the Representative from the State of Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis) in order for her to explain how this impacts her State.

I appreciate the gentlelady from Wyoming for being with us and talking about the concepts that are going on and what we can do for our future.

If I could, Mr. Speaker, at the turn of the 20th century, the so- called ``progressive era,'' there was a paradigm shift that took place in the United States in which the government decided to basically keep all of the land. It was based on three premises:

The first is that the West had to be protected from itself. The second is that only somebody in Washington, D.C., would have the vision to make decisions that could impact the rest of the Nation, and if there were ever a conflict between what local leaders or local officials wanted and what D.C. wanted, D.C. obviously had the better advantage.

The result of that is, as you have heard from the people here today, that our forest system is not as healthy as it used to be or ought to be. The communities that relied upon the timber industry to survive and the school systems in those areas that relied upon the timber industry to survive have been decimated, and our solution as a Congress and as an administration is simply to find a temporary payment to these solutions with actually no revenue source to make them permanent.

What we have now done since 2000, when the Secure Rural School Program started, is spend $6 billion, which has come from the pockets of those who live in the East, to fund a temporary program when what we actually need is a long-term solution that works--that puts people to work, that finds a real source of funding for education services and provides a real solution for what we need, a solution that will provide for healthy forests, a solution that will provide for vibrant communities and for the support of our public school system. That is, indeed, what this proposal for the Secure Rural School Program attempts to do.

Mr. Speaker, about 20 years ago, a former Democrat Member of this House, who is now part of the Senate leadership--I realize that's an oxymoron, ``Senate leadership''--but he was here, and he gave an impassioned speech upon this floor that dealt with the controversial decision of Major League Baseball's potentially switching to aluminum bats. As that Representative from Illinois, who is now a Senator, rose, he said:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to condemn the desecration of a great

American symbol. No, I am not referring to flag burning; I am

referring to the baseball bat.

Several experts tell us that the wooden baseball bat is

doomed to extinction . . . Please, do not tell me that wooden

bats are too expensive . . . Please, do not try to sell me on

the notion that these metal clubs will make better hitters .

. . If we forsake the great Americana of broken-bat singles

and pine tar, we will have certainly lost our way as a

Nation.

His conclusion was simply this:

I do not want to hear about saving trees. Any tree in

America would gladly give its life for the glory of a day at

home plate.

As much as I agree with his statements, I'd like to take his comment one step further and say that, not only would any tree in America gladly give its life for the glory of a day at bat at home plate, but any tree in America would gladly be overjoyed to give its life to help fund the education of our kids.

The solution is that we don't need all trees to provide the bats or the education funding--just some of the trees. In fact, by not cutting them all, you actually save and improve the health of the forests; but if you don't do it, we lose these trees to fire, and every burned tree is a burned baseball bat,

and that is not good for the psyche of this particular country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time in order to turn the management time of this Special Order over to Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania so that he may speak and also introduce a couple of more speakers whom we have still to talk about this vital issue of Secure Rural Schools and how this House has finally come up with a solution--a long-term, lasting solution--to this particular problem.

I thank the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of serving on both the Armed Services Committee, as well as the House Depot Caucus. Our U.S. military has its own defense, repair, and sustainment capabilities, precisely because the government needs to guarantee that soldiers in the field will be sustained and supported in times of war. They will guarantee that needed equipment will be there in working order when and where it is needed because their lives and our freedom depend on it.

That is why I object to the current furlough policy of some of our DOD civilian workers. I have great sympathy for the Department of Defense. Unlike every other budget of the Federal Government, they did not receive an increase of appropriations before sequestration. In fact, the military is the only area where in this administration they received two cuts in their funding before sequestration hit, which was the third cut. Our defense has been hit disproportionately because of sequestration.

The Department of Defense's approach is to have everyone sharing in the burden or the pain of it. That is actually a political decision, and I don't use that in a pejorative sense. But Congresses have understood the work of our sustainment sector for decades, passing title I, sections 129 and 2472, which deal with working capital funds, and we have five such working capital funds.

These are revolving funds that are self-sustaining, which means by law if you have a workload and you have the funds, then these employees should not be thrown under the bus with a furlough. It is silly to think that the workload would be there. The funds are actually there, but the workload will be sitting in depots and the technicians and mechanics working on those will be forced to take off days without pay. It will increase our delay; it will increase our cost. The furlough working fund that funds employees does not save the government any kind of money, but it hurts delay.

The gentleman from Oklahoma will have an amendment, which I hope the House will take seriously, which will look at these working capital funds, and realize the unique situation they have within our system and will hopefully solve this problem going forward in the future.

It has been said that we have a foreign policy which we will fund. Actually, the book I read said, ``The foreign policy for which we will pay for.'' I just didn't want to end in a preposition.

Our foreign policy is funded here in the Defense Department appropriations. This is what gives us the flexibility diplomatically to do things not now, but 5 years from now and 10 years from now and 15 years from now.

We are truly looking at our future with this particular fund, and it must be taken seriously. We are living since the Cold War ended in a much less secure world than we were while we were in the Cold War, not just because of what is being done by our traditional adversaries in Russia and China, but in the Rim countries, Third World counties, which have used new technology to create what is called ``technological claustrophobia,'' as their efforts are now compressed together and we are having to respond to that.

There are many issues in this particular bill which help us move forward, not only in defense of our military, but in our foreign policy opportunities. There are a few amendments out there that actually do harm to that. I hope we look at it very carefully. It is a well-crafted rule with a whole lot of amendments--perhaps far too many amendments made in order--and it will provide for a logical debate. I hope when we come out of it, we realize the significance of this, not just funding our military, but also funding our diplomatic future.

Mr. Chairman, I know my friend from Florida shares my concerns regarding our Nation's nuclear deterrents and specifically in preserving the sea-based leg of the Nuclear Triad in the Trident II D5 submarine launched ballistic missiles, which are carried on the Ohio-class submarine.

The current fleet of ballistic missile submarines is planned for service through the year 2042, and the D5 missile they carry is expected to remain viable much longer and will see service on the replacement platform. I hope the chairman agrees.

I yield to the gentleman.

In reclaiming my time, the original design life of the D5 missile rocket motors was 25 years. Some of the currently deployed motors are reaching that age, and the missiles require a life extension to maintain viability.

Does the chairman agree that the life extension program for the D5 missile is critical to ensure the missile will remain the highest level of reliability for as long as our Nation requires it?

I yield to the gentleman.

In reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman and compliment him on his great work on this issue.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as stated, this workload is a self- sustaining process, which means, if the workload is there, and it is, then the money is there, and it is. To furlough the employees in this area saves no money, it completes no work, but it does raise the cost of overhead for all of the depots.

I have empathy for the Pentagon. They made a decision that everyone should share the pain in an effort to be fair. Unfortunately, title 10, section 2472, tells us how this fund should be managed. Sharing the pain isn't one of the options.

I appreciate what is going on here, but the Defense Department cannot simply pick and choose. This amendment does not start a new program. It simply requires that the existing law be followed.

Mr. Chairman, my home State has been one of the leaders in the area of equitable funding for kids, so that whether you come from a wealthy mountain resort or the inner city of Salt Lake City or a west desert rural ranching family, the same amount of money follows the kid to their schools in any situation. And we did that simply because we care about kids, and we established a fair system of disbursing the money.

When we did a GI bill, the money followed the GI.

Only in Washington, here, with these particular funds, where the Department of Education does not have an equitable disposal mechanism, do we find this situation in which we treat kids differently.

It appears to me that some of the outside groups that may be opposed to this are simply saying they like this antiquated disposal system, which means that some title I schools get a whole lot of money, and other title I schools don't get very much money, if any at all, because we don't have an equitable system for disbursing our funds.

We need to do what many States are doing right now and make sure that we have an equitable distribution system. This amendment moves us in that direction.

Mr. Chairman, the speaker on the other side on one of the other amendments said that this is not the level at which we should be making these decisions. There are some efforts, no matter how noble the goal may be, where this is not the level at which these decisions ought to be made.

I taught for 28 years and had multiple evaluations. They were all positive, but if I'd had any input that I'd wished to give, I could have easily accessed my school district, and I could have accessed the State, but if it were on the Federal level, I could fly and stand in front of the Johnson Building for weeks on end, and nobody in the Department of Education would care. The best evaluations come from parents, but parents have the same limitations of which I spoke. Their access on the Federal level is almost nonexistent.

The Scalise amendment does not eliminate evaluations. It says you do them in the proper way. You do them, and you clarify that States sometimes can have a better idea than we do. If that happens, States should have every opportunity to implement their better ideas. This eliminates the mandate. It provides flexibility. It promotes a better outcome.

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

Mr. Chairman, in the Constitution, it established a specific relationship between the Federal Government and the States. It's called a duel sovereignty, and it asked people to be loyal not only to their State, but also to the Federal Government, as well. James Wilson, in talking about what they had done as a balance-of-power experiment, said that this system would work well as long as the two entities maintained a relationship like the solar system, like the planets, always traveling in their sphere and path, complementing each other, but never interfering with one another. His concern was that one of those entities might actually act like a comet and go off on its own path, actually running into any material or object in its way, and chaos and destruction would result from that.

The amendment I am wishing to propose here would eliminate a section that would allow a local school district

to circumvent their State, a school district which is a creation of the State. They would circumvent the State and make a deal with the Federal Government for any kind of grant or loan that they wish to accomplish and actually be required to report not to the State, but to the Federal Government and circumvent the State totally.

If a State, for example, were to want to have some limited involvement in a program, under the provision that is in this particular bill, it would be possible for a rogue district to violate that proposal or that policy of the State, make their own deal with the Federal Government, and enter into that agreement and report directly to them, causing not only to void the policy, but a great deal of confusion in the process, as well.

We have a deal that we can work easily with the States. The local districts, that is not in the purview of what it should be. It is definitely an extra-constitutional approach to it.

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

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

I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from California, but I have to take issue with them.

There is no State in which a local district or a State or a city or a county is autonomous to the State itself. States create those entities. They can add to them. They can eliminate them. They are responsible for them.

This is not an esoteric philosophical debate. There is a real situation in which this has happened, and in large part the base bill eliminates this from actually happening again in the future.

If I can quote from Education Week, there was a policy in which this Department of Education tried to circumvent the States.

The Department of Education has responded with the

announcement it will begin to offer separate policy terms to

individual school districts--circumventing not just Congress,

but also the authority of States to direct education.

In response to that, the superintendent from Virginia said that this move undermines the States.

The Commissioner from Colorado said that this would ``bypass'' State authority and result in ``unintended consequences.''

From the Secretary of Education in Pennsylvania:

To allow districts to go directly to the Feds to get

waivers, it would be difficult to see who is exactly

responsible for accountability and reforms in their States.

Districts are creatures of State government.

From Jennifer Marshall, she said this would create a ``client mentality.''

In fact, one of the publications said that this is a massive overreach by Washington into local school policy and a blatant disregard for State's education decisionmaking authority.

Here is the bottom line: the Federal Government can't change States; States can change local entities. It is an improper relationship for the local entities to be able to bypass a State. We should not have that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

The State reined them in, but it still should not be a part of the policy in this bill.

I ask for a favorable vote in removing this section that is extra- constitutional from the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, a great deal has been said about the border surge over in the Senate. In typical Senate-think, they have seen a problem and decided to throw money at the problem, even if a lack of funding is not the problem they are facing.

This map divides the country up into the Border Patrol sectors. The numbers are from 2010. The numbers are different today but, obviously, the ratios are about the same. In this year, one has to ask the question of why were 56 illegal entries apprehended in the main sector and 200,000 apprehended in the Arizona sector. What was the difference between those two?

If you were trying to sneak into a baseball game, something I'm not advocating, but if you were trying to do that, you don't jump over the turnstile where a cop is standing. You go around the corner and find the hole in the fence so no one will actually see what you are doing. The drug cartels are not stupid. They are looking for that hole in the fence. Obviously, this sector is where the majority of the illegals and

the illegal drugs and the illegal human trafficking and potential terrorism exists.

So the question has to be: Why is that the entrance level of choice? It's actually very simple. Everything that is red is land that's owned by the Federal Government on this map. In Arizona, 80 percent of the border is owned by the Federal Government. Over half of that is in the ``Wilderness'' category, ``Endangered Species,'' or ``Conservation Habitat'' category, where, by special law, the legislation provides this land a special status which prohibits the Border Patrol from entering that area. They can't enter in a motorized vehicle. They can't even pedal a bicycle. They can go into that area on foot, on specially fed horses, and that is it. The drug cartels recognize this. They're not stupid. And they realize that this is the problem.

When this Congress insisted a fence be built along the California border, we passed legislation that waived 40 environmental laws that were prohibiting the fence from being built. Those same 40 laws are the laws that prohibit the Border Patrol from going along the red areas of that border and doing their job, which simply means, as ironic as it sounds, Federal law is stopping the Federal Border Patrol from going on Federal land to do a Federal purpose, which is federally stupid. But this is, indeed, what we're doing.

The Border Patrol actually cares about the environment. Drug cartels don't at all. This cacti, cut down by the drug cartel, is an endangered species. It was cut down there to stop east-west access on the only road that allows the Border Patrol to follow in that particular area.

This truck is a temporary sensor device in a wilderness area. The Border Patrol wanted to move it from point A to point B. It took them 6 months to get approval by the land manager in that area before they could back the truck up and move the truck over to another stop because the land manager was not happy with the Border Patrol being in his Wilderness territory. And the law was on the side of the land manager, not on the side of the Border Patrol.

The Senate has tried to say that they're coming up with a compromise solution to increase border security. In actuality, they have done just the opposite. They have put language in there that says that the Homeland Security Secretary can, notwithstanding any other law, require certain elements to be built in this particular area. But that allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to have the political discretion of whether to do it or not. It allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to have immediate access into these border areas, but only in Arizona. If they go anywhere else along this border, they have to have the written approval of the Secretary of the Interior as well as the Secretary of Agriculture. And most importantly, it says in there that the manner in which the Homeland Security Secretary shall make these decisions must be in the manner that best protects the natural and cultural resources on Federal land.

I'm sorry, but as soon as they put that language in there, it requires some bureaucrat to establish what the standard is, and it opens it up to someone else initiating litigation that that is not the best standard possible. In essence, we're back in a worse situation.

They wish to have another 25,000 Border Patrol agents. This is what our fence looks like in Arizona today. This is a fence, this is Mexico, that's Arizona, and the open area is the animal habitat to allow animals to go back and forth from Mexico and Arizona. The one road on here is the only road in which the Border Patrol is allowed to go. You can have another 100,000 agents in that area, and you'll simply find out that it won't help unless you let them go outside of that one road.

We don't need money. What we need is access. What the Senate is proposing is actually worse than the status quo.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules I call up House Resolution 274 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to our good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), who I certainly hope is feeling better than the way he's walking today, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

This resolution provides for a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 2231, the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act of 2013, as well as H.R. 1613, the Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act, and makes several specific amendments in order to each bill which are germane and compliant with the rules of the House. This proposed rule also provides for an open rule for consideration of H.R. 2410, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies bill.

These energy bills, if enacted, will help foster responsible development of our abundant offshore domestic energy resources and will do so in an environmentally responsible manner. H.R. 2231 would help reverse some of the current administration's energy policies, which are stalling responsible offshore lease development on the Outer Continental Shelf. This legislation would require that the administration implement a new 5-year leasing plan, including 50 percent of the areas that have been previously identified as the most promising in oil reserves and natural gas.

The average American consumer has seen their energy bill double since this

administration started. A gallon of gas was under $2 when the President was first sworn in. It's now routinely more than $4 a gallon--and continues to climb. And yet the administration deliberately stalls and blocks job-creating, energy-producing projects like the Keystone pipeline for the responsible development of coal and tar sands reserves we have on our public lands, including in my own State. This actually hits the middle class and the poor class the worst.

H.R. 2231 will streamline the current bureaucracy handling these leases and will also implement a fair and equitable revenue-sharing plan for coastal States. The Congressional Budget Office has indicated that passage of this bill will reduce net direct spending of the Federal Government by $1.5 billion over the next 10 years. So, in essence, you have a bill that makes us more energy independent, drives down the cost of fuel for U.S. families, helps reduce the cost of the Federal Government, and produces an estimated 1.2 million jobs. I think, by most standards, that would be considered a fairly good bill.

Likewise, the other bill in the rule, H.R. 1613, the Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act, will provide for improved Federal management and oversight of energy resources which straddle international boundaries. Passage of this act will implement an agreement we already have with the Government of Mexico on how to handle development of these resources, including revenue-sharing concepts, as well as ensuring that the United States companies that are investing will develop their resources but not be imperiled by actions that may be taken later on by the Government.

Finally, the resolution also provides for a modified open rule for consideration of H.R. 2410, the fiscal year 2014 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations bill, which continues what was common when I first arrived here and then stopped but was then reinstated and continues to be reinstated by Chairman Pete Sessions--having open rules on our appropriations bills.

I'm appreciative of the Rules Committee chairman's leadership in this regard. I'm also appreciative of the hard work and dedication of the bill's sponsors. First, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), the gentleman from Washington, also chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee (Mr. Hastings), as well as the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), for his leadership on the Agriculture appropriation bill. In short, this is a fair and good rule dealing with good pieces of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, these are good bills. I urge their adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the author of one of the bills in here, as well as the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

I appreciate the comments that were just made by the gentleman from Massachusetts about a program which does fund $6.7 billion in the WIC program and was passed unanimously by voice vote from both parties in the Appropriations Committee.

With that, I yield 3 minutes to the sponsor of one of the bills that is part of this rule, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

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

Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to realize how the GAO's and the OMB's facts are not inaccurate and also how rules that were waived for this bill have been waived for the same reason in prior pieces of legislation.

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

I yield myself 1 minute.

I appreciate what has been said even though it has very little to do with the bills that we will be discussing in these next couple of weeks.

Especially as a former teacher, I understand significantly what it does to student loans and situations. I understand significantly how now 5 years ago Congress passed legislation that cut out the FFEL Program, which actually helped kids in their being able to afford their college workability. We consolidated all of our efforts with a program, an idea, from the 1980s, which was a bad idea then and is a bad idea now.

Unfortunately, this House has dealt with this issue. On May 23 of this year, we passed a bill that solves this problem, and we sent it over to the Senate. For some reason, I feel uncomfortable or at least tired of being held accountable for the Senate's inability to actually deal with legislation sent to them that solves problems and then have to take the responsibility back here. The House has dealt with this issue, and we did it in a responsible, reasonable way. The Senate has refused to.

So often what we have found as gridlock here is not necessarily between Republicans and Democrats as we pass a whole lot of bipartisan bills on this floor. It's between the Senate and the House. I wish it were different and that we could compel the Senate to act responsibly, but the Senate has not and the House has.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Other than brilliant verbiage from myself, you've got it.

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

I appreciate the opportunity of being part of a debate that covered a smorgasbord of ideas. Let me just respond to several of those that have been presented in the last lead-up to the vote on this particular amendment.

As I said before, I'm a teacher. I care greatly about education. I'm especially frustrated with the way Congress has passed or handled the student loan provision.

Several years ago, while the Democrats were in control--I'm trying not to be too partisan, but they were in control--we changed the law that dealt with student loans to consolidate that authority within the Federal Government. By doing so, we crushed private-State partnership plans that were an excellent avenue for loans that students could use. They could get breaks depending on their repayment habits. It was a marvelous program, but it was stopped in an effort to try to consolidate everything here within Congress. Since that time, we have played silly games of brinksmanship that deal with what the rate should be and what the rate might be.

We have a bill that this body passed on May 23 in plenty of time to extinguish this issue, plenty of time for the Senate to debate it, amend it, send it back to us, appoint the conference, go through regular process, if the Senate wished to do that. Instead, the result is the Senate has basically turned their back on the issue and said, We'll let it go over the cliff one more time.

You see, it shouldn't have been that way. If we had not changed the policy back when we passed a bill in the previous leadership of this House, we wouldn't have had this problem in the first place. What this House tried to do is say this is a silly approach going into the future. Let's come up with a policy towards student loans. If we have to consolidate them, if the Federal Government has to have their control and grasp over the entire thing, we should do it in a way that provides some kind of flexibility and some kind of rationalization so it can ebb and flow in the future as the market requires it to do.

We passed a bill not just that allowed them not to double, but we passed a bill here on this floor which solved the problem. The fact that the Senate does not wish to solve the problem is something that I find sad. But we solved the problem, and we did it in a timely fashion.

The great speeches that I heard today--and they were very good and their verbiage was better than mine--should be given over in the Senate where it can do some good.

I also want to talk about a couple of other issues that I've heard, that these particular bills in this rule would violate states rights' agreements, even though the issue at hand is only those waters and coastal waters that are a part of the Federal preserve and does not talk about State waters whatsoever.

We talked about in H.R. 1613 a poison pill being inserted into that provision that exempts Dodd-Frank. Somehow I wish we could actually go back to the person who actually inserted that provision in there because it was Secretary Hillary Clinton. That's part of the negotiations we did as a country with the Mexican Government; and it's logical that it is in there because it gives some protection to U.S. companies that, if that language was not in there, could be forced either to violate Federal laws or violate foreign laws and face civil penalties or cease to operate in foreign countries.

I can understand why the Secretary of State at the time did negotiate that portion that is in there. That's not the poison pill. That's simply what is in the negotiated settlement. All we're doing with this bill is enacting it, putting it into place, and allowing us to move forward with what has been simply negotiated on resource areas that straddle international lines.

I'm also somewhat frustrated with the statement that we might as well use the leases that we currently have. I'm also frustrated because we have had a great deal of increase in production of oil and gas, and it's all happened on private and State lands.

I happen to represent a State that has almost 70 percent of it controlled by the Federal Government. I have enormous amounts of resource potential in my State, but it is controlled by the Federal Government. So even though areas where private property and States have been able to increase the revenue to their States and increase the total amount of petroleum productions that we have, my State has seen the exact opposite.

If you go onshore to the areas that are controlled by this administration, the Federal lands, the amount of parcels that have been offered since 2005 are down 88 percent. The amount of acres that are offered for development of resources are down 85 percent. And what is most sad is the amount of revenue that is produced both to the State and to the Federal Government from onshore development since 2005, which is down 99 percent.

A lease is simply not, as has been stated, the green light to start drilling. A release simply says you start the process. And part of the problem with the releases both onshore and offshore has been the inability of the Federal Government to do so in a reasonable fashion. On onshore lease development there is regulation that says it must be done in a 6-month period of time to move forward from the initial sale and to which the lease is then offered so the company can start its drilling process. Yet in a survey done by GAO, 91 percent of the time, that 6-month standard has not been met onshore.

Part of H.R. 2231 is a reorganization of the administrative function that deals with how these leases are developed and how they proceed going forward. By taking one agency, which has had a very poor record and dividing it into three with specific responsibilities, we think we can streamline this process and make sure that what we are doing on the Outer Continental Shelf is far more effective than what we are doing on Federal lands onshore, where all we are having is stalling delays and a lack of production and a lack of revenue coming from them.

It was once said to the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee that if he had a better idea, do it. In all due respect, he has a better idea. That better idea is the two bills before us right now, H.R. 2231, and the other bill, which is H.R. 1613. Those are good ideas. They will move us forward. They're the things we ought to do to prepare.

I think it's a great rule that is allowing that and allowing the appropriation bill to come through in an open rule, allowing anyone who has an idea that he or she wishes to bring to the floor the opportunity to do so.

With that, this is a fair rule. It deals with an appropriations process, as well as two bills that are good bills that

will help people. Especially after yesterday's speech, we should have an energy policy in this country aimed at helping middle class Americans, not one that simply says, freeze in the dark, especially if you're poor. That's the best thing we are going to be able to do.

These bills move us forward. We should vote for them. With that, having failed at my effort to give you good verbiage, in which case I'm sorry you're holding the cane there, I hope you're using that only to navigate around this floor and it will not become a weapon in the future.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 274 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 8. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

1595) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to extend the

reduced interest rate for Federal Direct Stafford Loans. The

first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points

of order against consideration of the bill are waived.

General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not

exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair

and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and

the Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be

considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All

points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At

the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the

Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with

such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening

motion except one motion to recommit with or without

instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports

that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the

next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the

third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,

resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill.

Sec. 9. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 595 as specified in section 8 of this

resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of Utah's most heroic sons and one of my constituents from Ogden, Utah, Spc. Seth Pack of the United States Army, 10th Mountain Division.

While out on patrol on July 1, 2011, Seth was almost mortally wounded when he stepped on an improvised explosive device. Losing his leg and close to death, he has since led the way to recovery. Next week, Seth is leaving Walter Reed Military Medical Center to start the next phase of his young life. The man who entered this hospital on the edge of death has now regained his strength, and has returned to his former self. I submit this poem, penned in his honor by Albert Caswell, and let us all take time to remember and thank the men and women of the Armed Forces, and their families, who volunteer to keep freedom alive and sacrifice for us every day.

Ahead of the Pack

(By Albert Carey Caswell)

Out in front . . .

All on that hunt!

In times of war . . .

There are but all of those for sure!

Who are out ahead of The Pack . . .

Who lock and load!

Who so live by such a code!

A Rat! A Rat . . . A Rat Tat . . . Tat . . . Tat!

Taking the lead,

As so for sure all to speed!

10th Mountain Men,

upon which our Nation now so depends!

Who after the enemy will so run into caves,

and kick doors in so very brave!

Out . . . ahead of The Pack!

As from where you have so led Seth,

a fact!

For you are a grunt!

Ever out on the hunt!

To our freedoms to so bring!

Of thee I sing!

To so live by a code!

To lock and load!

A Rat! A Rat! A Rat Tat . . . Tat . . . Tat!

The United States Army,

Who with his band of Brothers are but ready to bare the load!

And 10th Mountain Men,

who into the face evil do so go!

The ones who so live by a code!

Where you go!

I go!

Who so lock and load!

A Rat! A Rat! A Rat Tat . . . Tat . . . Tat!

Lock and load!

For Seth, U . . . R . . . Tall!

Because,

you have so answered that most noble of calls!

That Call To Arms!

That Call to War!

That Call to Death,

as so for sure!

To so march off so bravely with clenched fists!

To lock and load!

A Rat! A Rat! A Rat Tat . . . Tat . . . Tat!

As all around you such death and gore appears!

As has your fine young life,

been so all so here!

For such men of honor!

For such men of might!

Surely they will one day so see Heaven's light!

Where you Go!

I Go!

All in that blood that binds you so!

As it was while out on patrol!

That you so almost lost your young life,

but not your soul!

Standing so close to death,

right on that very edge . . .

To a place where courage crests!

As when Seth,

you so reached so deep down inside . . .

To a place where only courage so lies!

As you so began your climb!

To lock and load!

A Rat! A Rat! A Rat Tat . . . Tat . . . Tat!

As you got up out of that bed!

With such Strength In Honor,

with no regrets!

All in your actions what was so said!

All at speed,

as somehow you became even Army Stronger so indeed!

Because 10th Mountain do not follow,

they lead!

They lead!

For you are Army Strong!

As your fine heart beats loud and long!

That's right,

For only The Few,

have so led such a most

courageous life as have all of you!

Who so Lock and Load,

who all in the face of death so come shining through!

Who so live by a code!

A code of honor!

A code of war!

All for your Brothers In Arms,

So Ready All So To Die For!

A Rat! A Rat! A Rat Tat . . . Tat. . . Tat!

As I remember on those first early days,

as you were but a shell of what you are today!

As you got up and told pity to get out of your way!

For you had mountains to so climb!

Because 10th Mountain do it all the time!

And Seth,

you have so many hearts to so heal!

Yea, Seth,

you are Ahead of The Pack we can feel . . .

For that's where we will so find you out on attack!

Leading us all so in time!

And where would our Nation all so be,

if it were but not for such men and families as all of these?

Who, where you go!

I go with speed!

Who so live by a code!

Who so lock and load!

Who so look into the face so we can all be free!

A Rat! A Rat! A Rat Tat . . . Tat . . . Tat!

Way out in front,

ahead of the Pack!

To so teach us!

To so beseech us!

To so reach us!

As one of Utah's brightest of all sons

Who so shines this one!

And if ever I had a son,

I'd wish that he could walk as tall,

as this one!

Ahead of The Pack!

A Rat! A Rat! A Rat . . . Tat . . . Tat . . . Tat!

Who so shines as one of America's most heroic sons!

Who to all of our hearts so run!

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 876) to authorize the continued use of certain water diversions located on National Forest System land in the Frank Church- River of No Return Wilderness and the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness in the State of Idaho, and for other purposes.

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

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

This bill was a great bill the first time we passed it, the second time we passed it, and it is still a great bill, and it's necessary for the good people of Idaho.

So I would yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).

Mr. Speaker, in closing, when you have diversions that predate a ``wilderness'' designation, you need to give them the ability to maintain those diversions. This is a good bill.

I urge my colleagues to vote for it, and more importantly, I urge the Senate to finally do something and pass it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 264) providing for the concurrence by the House in the Senate amendment to H.R. 588, with an amendment.

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

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

There comes a point in time when we are always asking the Senate to do something, and when they finally get around to doing something, they decide to mess it up by making it questionable by trying to expand it. This is a similar case in which we gave them a simple and good bill. They have sent us back something that is questionable and expanded, and we are going to give it back to them so that they just do it right the second time around.

With that, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the sponsor of the original bill, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

At this time, I reserve the balance of my time as I will be the last speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I appreciate the comments that were given by the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands (Mr. Sablan), and I especially respect and appreciate the comments by the gentleman from American Samoa, who has done so much, and I appreciate all of those. In everything that we are doing, in fact, their comments were right on; that what we are trying to do is ensure that what we do here is to return to the cliche of the House, which is regular order, which means we go through a legitimate process of trying to look at something instead of just flying by the seat of our pants.

Therefore, because this was changed significantly in the Senate without much input at all, we are simply doing two things. First of all, we'll be removing the provisions effected by the Senate changes so that the Vietnam Visitors Center can move forward under this bill without any delay, and it will enhance the ability to raise their private funds, but also we want to give careful and due consideration to the Senate-added provisions.

So the text of the Senate language affecting future memorials is being introduced today as a standalone bill in the House. We will have a public hearing. We will go through the process, to be held very soon on this particular bill, and then further action by the committee will follow. Once again, this is our process to re-ensure regular order.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this particular resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 253) to provide for the conveyance of a small parcel of National Forest System land in the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest in Utah to Brigham Young University, and for other purposes.

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

With that, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am very proud of this particular bill, and I am happy to yield as much time as he may consume to the author of this bill, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), with the understanding that he will explain to you that Y Mountain is not the same thing as Yucca Mountain.

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

Despite being a graduate of the University of Utah and finding myself surrounded by BYU people here--it makes me terribly uncomfortable--this is still a good bill. It is a win-win situation and will provide the experience of those at BYU and the

area a much safer and pleasant experience on Y Mountain, and so I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.