Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his work on the Prayer Caucus. I would also acknowledge my good friend, Mike McIntyre, for his work. This idea of religious freedom and liberty is indeed a bipartisan issue.

Our Founding Fathers came here from countries that had monarchs-- kings--kings that could tell a person who they were to marry, what job they could have, what level of education they might attain. They could tell you what church you must be a member of. It was those state- ordained religions that many came to this country to get away from. They came here with an idea of a government that could only declare what your freedoms were, not limit those freedoms. It was that freedom of religion that caused many of the colonies to be organized differently, by different faiths--and some by no faith at all. It was in that backdrop that the Constitution was written which caused our Founding Fathers great pause.

The initial Constitution was written and could not be ratified. It could not be ratified by enough States until more freedoms were added, more freedoms that began with the First Amendment to the Constitution, the amendment that declared that we would have religious freedoms, that the government could make no laws concerning those freedoms.

Our Founding Fathers well understood the value of free and open expression of religious faith, one that was

free from the tentacles of government, one that was free for each person to choose, to exercise or to not exercise. Our Founding Fathers were not hesitant to declare their reliance on divine guidance.

Shortly after our Revolution--that revolution of ideas that started this grand experiment of self-governance--it was amazing that France decided they would try the same thing. But they were oh so uncertain about this divine guidance, this relationship with a higher power; and so they wanted something more tangible.

Their revolution became about reason. The problem with reason was that it was a human-ordained institution. We ourselves, we as people would not acknowledge that we were to comply with a higher power. That reliance on reason among men resulted in the chaos that became the French Revolution. It never found the success that the American Revolution had. I believe that much of that failure--and much of our success--was the difference in reliance, that difference of internal commitment to values and rules outside oneself.

Our Founding Fathers well understood that we, in order to have a Republic, must be a moral Nation. They declared that a Republic or democracy--whichever you would call it--can't impose through tremendous tyrannical restraints. It depends on us having a voluntary compliance with laws.

They feared a Federal Government that was too strong. The Constitution repeatedly limits the power of the Federal Government because they knew what strong centralized governments would do. They had to escape from Europe to get away from those exact things.

Today, we find a central government that is willing to compromise our freedom of religion and the freedom of expression of religion. Whether a person has a religious belief or not, it should cause you concern that this government is willing to take away the conscience protections. To make people buy products that offend their basic core beliefs should be alarming to any single member of this country, any single citizen. To find a government that will declare doctors have to perform acts that offend their very conscience is something that should give us all pause. But, instead, we see a Federal Government charging more heartily into the fray, even to diminishing and dismissing the belief in a higher power.

I think that that's the reason that the Congressional Prayer Caucus is so necessary and so needed at this time, because a Nation that forgets the real values is at risk of much greater catastrophe than what we've seen thus far, much greater catastrophe than an economy sagging brings, the loss of jobs brings. Because right now, we in America are struggling to find out what's in our heart.

We see many who are declaring that people are essentially good. The problem is not the person; the problem is in the guns, for example. I would say that the greater problem in America is not guns. The problem in America is the heart of America. Until we acknowledge and begin to reflect on that, until we begin to teach the new generations the importance of our heart in aligning with the heart of God, I think this Nation is going to go through more turmoil, more questions.

Our recommendation is that this Congress would stay away from limiting religious freedoms. I would request that every single citizen of this country contemplate those limitations that are currently being considered, those attempts to silence those in the faith community. A secular government is far different from a secular society, and yet that appears to be the discussion that we're having.

So, again, I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia for his leadership in this issue. I would like to thank all of the members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus. But I would especially like to thank the members and the citizens of this country for the unflagging belief that there is something more important than the human ideas. There's something more powerful, more stable, and more permanent than our current viewpoints on policies. Those are the laws of God that are inherent and knowledgeable to each one of us.

Again, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue.

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for leading this discussion one more time.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those were the values described by our Founding Fathers. And against that backdrop, we must understand that a Nation is judged the same way that people are judged. We're judged by how we speak for those least able to speak for themselves.

The most fragile in any circumstance are those with no voice at all, the unborn. And on this day, 40 years after a Supreme Court decision, 50 million voices with no representation, no opportunity to speak, how will this Nation be judged? I think the answer is clear. Our Supreme Court at that time expressed conflict on when life began, but today's science leaves no conflict. DNA is established on day one. The heartbeat is visible soon thereafter.

What Nation would put mothers at odds with their unborn children and declare it to be a matter of choice? This is no matter of choice; it's a constitutional question of protection of life. It's a value that--our Founding Fathers would blanch at our definition today. They would have no concept that we would have these discussions.

But the hope lies ahead of us because the younger generations are seeing the technological replays of the unborn and know that it's more than a mass of tissue. Their standing in greater numbers on behalf of life, as is every one of us who are speaking here today.

May God bless this Nation as we seek to protect the unborn.

Amendment VIII:

``Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.''

Amendment IX:

``The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.''

Amendment X:

``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.''

I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) for his leadership on this.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 6014. Today, Katie Sepich, pictured here, tells us a lot. She is fun, loving, vibrant, outgoing. She was leader in her age group. She made things happen. Katie, beginning in January of 2002, was in her last year of grad school. During that year, in one of the last conversations with her daughter, Jayann Sepich--her mom--asked her the same question that many of us receive from our parents: What are you going to do when you graduate with your master's degree in business? The reply was the same one that many of us have given: I'm not sure, but I want to change the world.

That's what each one of us as parents aspires to develop in our children--it's what each one of us tries to train them for--and Katie was at the point of decision. She was on her way until her journey of life was brutally interrupted by someone who raped her and strangled her. Then he burned her body and left her body abandoned at a dumpsite.

Now, there was a full DNA sample under Katie's fingernails, attesting to Katie's character, but the uploaded DNA did not match anything in the government database. Meanwhile, Gabriel Avila was arrested 6 weeks after the murder; but because New Mexico and the Federal Government had no laws, no DNA sample was taken, and so no match was made. For 3 years, Mr. Avila walked free on the streets of America and on the streets of New Mexico after having committed this horrendous crime, but there was nothing to link them until New Mexico passed a statute very similar to this one that we are passing today.

It simply said that we are going to collect DNA samples when we have people who are under the suspicion of violent crimes. It is no different than my fingerprints, which are available to anyone who wants to look. They were taken by the U.S. Government when I entered into the United States Air Force. I understand the constitutional concerns, but I also understand the pain of families who have no answers. After New Mexico passed this law, Mr. Avila committed another violent crime. This time, by New Mexico law, they had to take his DNA sample, and immediately they matched that now-3-year-old crime that took Katie's life.

All this bill does is simply help provide funds to States to take these DNA samples. The U.S. Government will put them in the database and compare them. They're the 21st-century version of fingerprints.

One in six American women is a victim of rape or attempted rape, and 90 percent of the people who commit the crimes are repeat offenders like Mr. Avila; yet they walk free because we care more for the rights of perpetrators than of victims. This bill will not prevent violent crimes, but it will help stem the tide of the repeat offenders.

Dave and Jayann Sepich, Katie's parents, have worked tirelessly, first to get the bill through New Mexico and then to get it to the attention of the Federal Government. The bill stands poised here on the floor of the House of Representatives today, asking that we as Americans and we as legislators take a stand on behalf of the families who have young daughters and young sons who want to change the world; and maybe, just maybe, we will do something right here.

Katie's legacy will live on no matter what we do here today, because of her parents and because of her sacrifice. I humbly suggest that we would want to pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, New Mexico is celebrating its centennial this year, 100 years as a State. It's not one of the oldest States, but it's one of the richest in diversity, history, and cooperation, home to 19 individual pueblos, two Apache Indian tribes, numerous Navajo chapters.

The Spanish came north out of Mexico in the 16th century looking for the seven cities of gold. We're still looking for those today. We did find black gold under the east side of the State and in the northwest corner.

New Mexico is home to an agriculture industry that is second to none. It shows the earliest existence of humans there. Clovis Man is named for a town in the east side of New Mexico where they were discovered.

Santa Fe is the oldest capital in America, formed in 1610.

But that's not where the richness of New Mexico is. It is in our traditions, traditions of hard work, traditions of faith, family, freedom, and service to others. Those are the values I learned when my parents came to New Mexico. They went broke in Texas, came to New Mexico, and built a family there. That's the richness of New Mexico.

Mr. Speaker, I commend New Mexico on its 100 years.

This bill is straightforward and simple. It allows the Mescalero Apache Indian Tribe to permit or lease or transfer their water rights for a term up to 99 years. The courts decided that they would have these rights back in 1993, but we need the legislation that would permit it. This effort is bipartisan. It's even pursued in both the House and the Senate--Senator Bingaman has a bill--so it's noncontroversial. It simply does the right thing. It's important. It allows the tribe self-determination and it also gives them economic opportunities. The leasing of the water rights will provide them with revenues that they desperately need.

It's for the best interest of all New Mexicans. During this current drought, water is of scarce supply in New Mexico, and this would allow the tribe to lease water to communities that are desperately needing water at this point. It's important to the tribes. It's important to New Mexico.

I recommend that all vote for H.R. 1461, and urge its passage.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking Subcommittee Chairman Denham and Ranking Member Holmes Norton, Committee Chairman Mica and Ranking Member Rahall for moving H.R. 3742.

I rise today in strong support of this bill.

This bill is very simple. It would name the United States courthouse located in Las Cruces, New Mexico, as the Edwin L. Mechem United States Courthouse.

Governor Mechem was a community leader who dedicated his life to public service. He was a four-term Governor of New Mexico and the first Governor born in New Mexico post-statehood. Governor Mechem also served New Mexico as a member of the New Mexico House of Representatives, in the United States Senate, and as a United States district judge for the district of New Mexico. He presided as United States district judge from 1970 until his death in 2002.

Governor Mechem was born in Alamogordo, New Mexico, shortly after New Mexico gained statehood. He attended what later became New Mexico State University in Las Cruces, New Mexico. And following graduation from the University of Arkansas School of Law, he returned to New Mexico to practice law.

Despite having a successful law practice, Governor Mechem answered America's call and joined the FBI during World War II. After the Allied victory, Governor Mechem returned to his practice, but then ran for a seat in the house of representatives, for which he was elected. He served two terms in the State house, then made a successful bid for Governor of the State of New Mexico. He went on to become the only four-term Governor of New Mexico. Governor Mechem then served 2 years as a United States Senator.

On October 8, 1970, Governor Mechem took the next step of his life in service when he was confirmed by the United States Senate as United States district judge for the district of New Mexico. He dutifully served in that position until his death in 2002.

In a letter to my office, his wife Josephine Mechem wrote:

He loved this State from one end to the other, and

vacations were rarely taken outside of New Mexico. All his

life, the thing he loved most was to spend his free time

driving the back roads, checking the water situation, and

seeing that all was well with our crops, our businesses, and

our communities.

This year marks the 100th anniversary of New Mexico's statehood, and July 2, 2012, was Governor Mechem's 100th birthday. Naming this courthouse the Edwin L. Mechem United States Courthouse during 2012 is an honor befitting his life of service; and, as such, I ask my colleagues in the House to vote in favor of H.R. 3742. I would also strongly encourage quick action and passage by our friends in the Senate.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 4402, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act.

It's nice to hear on the floor who it is that's speaking for the trees in New Mexico. We've just burned down 300,000 acres of those trees in New Mexico because of the voices coming from Washington saying don't cut a single one of them. Let the fuels build up in those forests until they burn down.

All this bill is doing is saying, let's hold our government accountable to some standard of performance. We want our government servants to do the same work they would do in 10 years in maybe 30 months. That is not an unreasonable assumption for us in America, who are looking for the jobs.

New Mexico used to be the home to 11 rare Earth mineral mines. Those are the ones that create cell phone batteries, the minerals that create technological things. And we now have pushed those out of New Mexico and the rest of the West, and we've pushed them over to China so that they have the jobs and we no longer have them in this country.

We have people here who are willing to scream foul on every single thing when we ask the government to simply do its job in a little bit more efficient manner.

We actually did that in the 2005 Energy Policy Act. An amendment placed in the Resources Committee actually improved the permitting process. It had categorical exclusions. It created pilot offices.

I just had a chance to visit with the State director of BLM last week. He said that our processes are so much better today because of that bill. That's all we're trying to do in this bill here today.

H.R. 4402 simply listens to the President. We were talking about, from the other side of the aisle, we should rename it. Well, why don't we rename it, We're Listening to You, Mr. President? You asked on March 22 that our Federal permitting and review processes must provide a transparent, consistent, and predictable path. The President is asking for it, and this bill simply gives it.

The reason that we don't have jobs in this country is because we're sending them to other countries. Companies cannot wait for 10, 12, 15 years. They can't invest in that permitting process to get to the point of where their process is finished.

They can't invest 10 to 12 years in a permitting process to be told at the end of it, we're sorry; we're not going to do it.

We could call this the Let's Reinvest in American Green Jobs. Green jobs require aluminum; 100 percent of that is imported. Green jobs require nickel; 100 percent of that is imported. Green jobs require platinum; 91 percent of that is imported.

Our friends on the other side of the aisle speak from both sides of their mouth. We want green jobs, but we don't want to have any of the productive assets here. We want to import them from other countries. Let's reinvest in America.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

I rise today in support of the rule for H.R. 4402, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act. The gentleman from Utah has stated it right: It's a fair rule, it's a good bill. All it does is simply defines a critical mineral as any related to national security or the Nation's energy infrastructure. That clarity is needed. But additionally, it affects one thing that the people are constantly clamoring about in my particular district: Where are the jobs?

This bill understands what the President began to hint at in his March 22, 2012, executive order. The President in that executive order said:

Our Federal permitting and reviews processes must provide a

transparent, consistent, and predictable path for both

project sponsors and affected communities. They must ensure

that agencies set and adhere to timelines and schedules for

completion of reviews, set clear permitting performance

goals, and track progress against these goals.

The President has moved toward the problem that we see in this country--that many of our mines are moving outside this Nation. New Mexico used to be the home for 11 rare Earth mineral mines. Today, it's the home of zero. Those mines have relocated over in China.

As we look at the rare Earth minerals, those are strategically important. That's one thing that this bill attempts to get at--the definitions that will really give teeth to the President's executive order from March 22.

People in New Mexico constantly ask: Why don't the two parties work together? I think there are many opportunities for the parties to work together. The President has begun the process, and we're simply adding the reverse piece to it that would make it a completed argument. The President has said in the past, for instance, that we're not working together, and he has stated in both the last two States of the Union that we must reform corporate taxes.

I requested the President work with us to affect those taxes. Let's lower those corporate taxes. Let's get companies back here. But the President has at this point kept those discussions at arm's length. This bill is simply another attempt to reach out to the President and say we all want to create jobs. We want commonsense solutions to the problems that we face. Work with us to define the strategic and critical minerals. And let's do it in this act.

So I think it's something that the President should be reaching out to this body and saying, ``Yes, good, go.'' I would thank the sponsor for bringing the bill. Let's work together to create jobs and get those mining industries back here in America.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to address the House on a matter of the West.

There are major fires burning across the western United States. There's tremendous property damage and tremendous damage to the environment. Habitat for endangered species is being burned up in the hundreds of thousands of acres. The species themselves are being destroyed and killed in these massive wildfires. And the Chief of the United States Forest Service says, We need to introduce fire back into our forests.

Just this week as the Chief visited in my Rayburn office with me, I said, Chief, this is what it looks like when you reintroduced fire into the forests in the West right now.

The forests are chock-full of fuel. Decades of mismanagement by our Forest Service has allowed the fuels to build up to where it's a dangerous, explosive environment. The drought which actually occurs regularly in the West has caused those buildup of fuels to be explosive in nature, and when fire gets loose, this is what it looks like.

This is the town of Ruidoso, New Mexico, in my district, and these are the flames that burn that makes it look like Hades has taken over all of New Mexico.

Is this what you intended, Mr. Tidwell? Is this what you describe as allowing fire to run its course and accomplish management objectives in your forests? You're the one responsible, sir.

Thank God for the firefighters who will come out and fight to save the community. Thank God for the men and women who will stand in harm's way to stop this. But this should not be occurring.

This is the Lincoln National Forest, and right next door, the Mescalero Apaches have about the same acreage of forests. With 14 people, they're able to clean their forests out. They're able to harvest the timber. When the fire gets to the Indian reservation, it simply drops down on the ground and becomes a grass fire, the way that fires typically ran in New Mexico and throughout the West.

History shows us that in our forests, we generally had somewhere between 50 and 100 trees per acre in the arid West on our forest lands. They are grassy savanna lands mostly with widely scattered trees. It never became more than a grass fire, but our tree rings show us that about every 8 years, a very hot fire would come through, burning all of the grass and the underbrush, the ladder fuels, burning the small diameter trees while they are still small. But decades of putting out fires and decades of not harvesting any timber at all have allowed our forests to become explosive caldrons which are breaking into fire.

The shame is that this fire in New Mexico started as one-quarter acre, and for about a day it stayed about a quarter of an acre. And then it spread to 4 acres for the next 3 days. Still, no call for tankers, no call for those aerial drops of water or the slurry which puts out the fire. None. Not until the fourth day, late in the fourth day.

The Forest Service says they can't ask questions like this about those decisions. I think that the decisions locally are made by people who are trying to follow the policy of reintroducing fire into the forests.

Regional Forester Corbin Newman recently stated: Fire will have to take its natural course. And we're just trying to put fire back into its natural processes, he said.

This rings the same tone as was stated by Mr. Tidwell in my office this week, that we want fire to get back into the forest. Well, fire in the forest had a natural process when the forest was in balance. The forest is desperately out of balance right now.

This is not the first brush with disaster that we've had. And keep in mind that the Forest Service personnel themselves said they're worried about losing the entire town of Ruidoso, that it was at high risk, not just at risk but at high risk was their statement as we were briefed about the fire. But we had warning signs last year.

This is what it looked like last year in Ruidoso. High winds and a small fire began to throw embers throughout the town, and you can see the little spots of fires over and through the mountains that are in and around Ruidoso. We began to sound the alarm at that point to our Forest Service: Please clean the fuels out. We can't stand for this to run wild. This year, it has run wild and destroyed 242 homes in this area, and more outbuildings, more structures, beyond just the loss of homes.

This is not necessary. All that is required is for us to manage the forests properly. It's a call that is going out from the people who live in the forests throughout the West. They're watching their wilderness areas, they're watching the forest lands burn to charred masses, and the Forest Service personnel themselves, the specialists, are telling me that trees will not grow here for another 100 to 150 years.

How is it managing our forests to burn the trees for 150 years? How is that good for the environment? How is that good for the species? And how is it good for the people who live in this area?

Shame on you, Forest Service. Shame on you for dictating policies to

local managers who know better. Shame on you, Mr. Newman and Mr. Tidwell, for saying that we're going to reintroduce fire into our forests and let it run its natural course.

The forest in and around Lincoln County, some has been cleared and harvested. We're not saying to clear-cut our forests. What we're saying is that a balanced thinning program will go through and leave widely spaced trees.

This is similar to how it looks on the Mescalero Reservation and also it's similar to how it looks out at Fort Apache in Arizona.

Last year, the Wallow fire burned 500,000 acres in the Wallow area, the Wallow fire, in Arizona and New Mexico, but when it got to Fort Apache, it simply fell down on the ground and stopped right there because they had thinned their forest.

This is what a forest should look like in the West. There's not enough rain and not enough nutrients to support 2,500 trees per acre. This is the way forests looked in the West when fire had its way, when fire ran its course. Instead, our forests today are densely packed, 2,500 trees per acre, and this is the outcome when you see that. That's what the U.S. Forest Service looks like in most places, a deep contrast to what it should look like. And it is into this forest that the head of the Forest Service, the Chief of the Forest Service, is saying that we're trying to reintroduce fire into the wilderness and into our forests. It's a misguided approach. That idea that we're going to reintroduce fire is playing Russian roulette with our national forests and our wilderness. It's a game that is not working out too well.

We have two major fires in southern New Mexico right now. We have the Little Bear fire in Ruidoso, but over in the Gila we've got 300,000 acres of land that has burned there, a strong mix or combination between the Gila wilderness and the Gila National Forest. Again, it started as a small fire. It started as a small fire, and the Forest Service releases say that they are monitoring it, that it's achieving its management objectives. I'm sorry, but management objectives of using fire in drought-stricken areas of the West, in forests that are chock-full of fuels, is misguided at the very least.

The people who live and have lost much have suffered deeply. The Forest Service needs to be responsible for those losses. But additionally, they should be responsible for the loss in tax base to the local communities. They should be responsible to local homeowners whose value of their homes is going to be depreciated for decades. Those people who have moved close to the national forests want to be there with that natural beauty. Instead, they're going to be faced with a brush pile that doesn't grow trees for the next 100 to 150 years, according to their specialists.

So what are we to do? Are we to stand by and allow our forests to burn because of policies that originate in Washington? Are we to put at risk the lives of local people? Are we to put at risk the property values of local people? Or are we to call on common sense, just a pragmatic understanding that you cannot use fire to achieve the balance when the forests are full of fuel?

We have deep disagreements with our Forest Service on their policies. We have deep love for the people who manage the forest out in the field and for the firefighters who risk their lives. We're thankful every day that they're there 24 hours a day around the clock, 7 days a week, away from their families to protect us. But they should not have to protect us in this fashion.

It's expensive. It's expensive in the loss of our forests. It's expensive in the dollar cost of the fire. This fire in Lincoln County was running about $2 million a day to try to put it out. The one on the other side of the State in the Gila was running about $1 million a day.

But that is not the only problem that we face. Now that the trees are gone, when it rains, the rainwater is going to rush off the hills into the valleys; and it's going to rush down the valleys, and we're going to see flooding.

If you go to the Web page that we have for our congressional office, you will be able to see a dramatic video called the Dixon Apple Orchard flood. That's up now to just above the Santa Clara pueblo in northern New Mexico. People from that pueblo were waiting for the water that they knew would come, and they videoed several different spots. So take a moment and look at that, if you would, to see now the next calamity that is going to face New Mexico. Because when you burn the trees, there's nothing now to stop the water from rushing off the hill. It is going to carry topsoil with it. It's going to carry rocks and boulders, and it's going to flood towns completely off the face of the Earth.

One of the people fighting the fire out west in the Gila said that that area would have some of the most dramatic flood potential that he had ever fought fires in; that is, the canyons are so steep and so deep, and they come together, nine canyons come together, at Glenwood. All of that water is going to be pouring through the small town.

Mogollon, New Mexico, sits at right at the mouth of one of those canyons. It has high, high, steep canyon walls on both sides of it. It's at the bottom of the V. And those communities that have existed for decades--Santa Clara, which has existed for hundreds of years, is going to face flooding, not because of anything they've done, but because of the way that the Forest Service has managed its lands, the way that the Forest Service has managed those resources that we asked for them to take care of so that we all might enjoy the benefits and the beauty of our Nation's landscape. Yet we're not going to be able to see that, and we are going to be exposed to floods for decades to come.

What kind of sense does that make from Washington? People across America are beginning to say that our government is broken. They're saying it's broken because of policies that result in fires, like the one that we just showed the picture of. People are saying that this is not responsible, that a government who would say that we're going to reintroduce fire into the forest with this kind of result, what kind of responsibility is that? That's the question that we're here tonight to ask.

It's not reasonable to expect people to just stand back and say nothing. So we are accepting an invitation to speak at a public rally where people are going to express their concerns, their fears, and express their losses in this fire, a fire that we've had decades to prepare for.

Several years ago, we had a fire on the backside of Capitan Mountain, just in this same area. And the local forest supervisor said, Well, it was a small fire, 15 acres, and it didn't justify bringing in air tankers and more resources. It blew out of control and became a 58,000- acre fire.

It's that mindset that we're not going to address the fire situation totally that is putting the West at risk right now. In Colorado, in that fire, we actually lost the life of a citizen who couldn't get out of her cabin.

When are we going to start managing properly? That is the question that lies before us all--us as a Nation, us as a Congress, and the U.S. Forest Service and the head of the Agriculture Department, who manages them.

It's a tragedy, what's going on in the most pristine parts of our country, wilderness areas where fields have been allowed to burn and where we're going to see the absolute destruction. It's not a matter of if our forests will burn; it's simply a question of when they're going to burn.

Now, we can manage differently and we can manage better, but we absolutely have to make the commitment that we're going to give up the policies that are failing and move into a new thought process.

In visiting with the head of the U.S. Forest Service this week, I asked about a policy that used to exist to put out fires. It was called the 10 a.m. policy. That is, if we see a fire running at any time today, we're going to put it out by 10 a.m. tomorrow; and if we don't get it out by 10 a.m. tomorrow, we're going to put it out by 10 a.m. the next day.

The head of the Forest Service, Mr. Tidwell, said, yes, it was very successful; in fact, he said it was too successful. Too successful? How can you be too successful in putting out these fires? Too successful? That was his statement. Yes, it worked too well. Well, Mr. Tidwell, I want it to work too well because I don't want the forest to look like this. I don't want our communities to be greatly at risk.

This is your standard operating practice. This is the outcome. I want you to

go back to the 10 a.m. policy that says, Put it out by tomorrow at 10 a.m. Then let's go in and let's start clearing our forest and cutting the fuels out. Let's start actually managing those forests, and then we'll stop burning them up. Then they'll be healthy forests, widely spaced trees. They will have enough nutrients. The bark beetles won't be able to get into them because they will be big, healthy trees.

Right now, the bark beetles are killing millions of trees across the West because they're starved for nutrients. They're like children that don't have enough nutrition. They're weak. They're spindly. They're susceptible to not only fire, but disease and insects. And all of our specialists tell us, but we don't make a change.

We've got many mountain communities in New Mexico. All of them face this same risk. We're not going to stand idly by while our chief U.S. forester says it's time to reintroduce fire back into our forests. I'm sorry. I disagree with the concept that our wildernesses will become charred stumps, that our national forests will not grow trees for 100 to 150 years because the heat of these fires calcify the soil sometimes as deep as 3 feet. It turns it almost into a glass, where the trees can't get root. Only the grass and small shrubs that are able to get some rain at the top of the surface will penetrate this.

We've got an area like that close to Cloudcroft, New Mexico. There was a very hot fire in the early fifties. It still is only shrubs. We haven't grown that forest back. So I believe when the specialists tell me it's going to be 100 to 150 years, I have seen at least 50 in that one forest myself. So I know that they're saying partial truths, and I think it to be complete truths.

Why are we accepting this management process on our Nation's forests? It doesn't make sense. It is extremely costly to people. It's extremely costly to the government. We can and should use the resources of this country better and more fairly. We should allow our species to have forests to live in, not to burn them out and not to burn the species up.

The spotted owl lives in this area, and you can see what's happening to his habitat. You can see what's happened to the spotted owls who were actually here. They don't exist anymore. The Fish and Wildlife Service in the past has said that this fire runs less risk to the spotted owl than logging. How can you say that this is less dangerous than doing this?

The logic is completely missing. Actually, the spotted owl thrives in these circumstances. The Mescalero tell us that they have numerous pairs that are coming back into the reservation because they have widely spaced trees. The spotted owl actually roosts in the tree, uses its altitude to glide off, catch its prey, and come back up. It cannot do that in this forest, and it can do it in this forest.

So every argument that we are being faced with right now does not make logical sense as we talk about the policy here in Washington, D.C. It's a discussion that has now started in earnest in the West. The Eastern States, number one, don't have a problem with the drought. And number two, they don't have as much public land as we have in the West. It is the West that is burning up. It is us in the West.

I'm the chairman of the Western Caucus, and we are taking the lead in voicing our complaint, our frustration, and our fears for the population because of the management of the forest in the West. Again, our highest compliments to the foresters who live and work in the West. It is not them. It is the policies coming from Washington, D.C. It's the culture, it's the thought process that somehow tries to justify the actions which are causing these monstrous, massive fires.

We need to stop it today. We need to stop it now. We need to manage properly for the future so that all might enjoy these precious resources.

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

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 5 o'clock and 32 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, June 25, 2012, at 2 p.m.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Burgess-Markey amendment.

With all due respect to my friend from Ohio who said that this is a national security issue, the Department of the Navy has said they have enough material to last them through 2050.

We have plenty of time to start from scratch to bid the project out.

If the contention of our friends is that we must have a U.S. company that produces this material, then start the bid process today. We have until 2050. USEC has attempted for over 30 years to develop a centrifuge--and has yet to do it. They've had over $5 billion given to them. If they get this bailout, then they're going to continue operations with the request for another $2 billion.

At which point are we, the designated representatives of the people, going to stand and say that other people can do that? Right now, the Department of Energy is saying the only scientists in the country that we can fund are at USEC. I sincerely disagree with them. I do not believe that we should have foreign-owned corporations providing this material, but we have plenty of time now if we start.

We're told that we do not have the intellectual property if we somehow take the funds away, if we don't give them. What intellectual property is available when the company has spent $5 billion to create 38 machines, six of which have had catastrophic failures? One split the case, which stops the whole program because that would cause a leak of radioactive material.

It is time for the Congress simply to say what they want to go to bid and allow the best bidder in the Nation, the best developer, the best minds in the Nation, to come together and develop what we want. Stop funding a failed corporation that was at risk a month ago of being pulled off of the New York Stock Exchange, that has been downgraded. USEC had 90 percent of the world market. They had 90 percent of the U.S. market when they were given the company and privatized. They were given a billion dollars worth of tails. A billion dollars worth of product and 90 percent of market share, and they have squandered that market share down to 10 percent.

Several years ago, they put those tails on the open market and collapsed the uranium market. What valuable company sells the raw materials out the backdoor that they are given and collapses the world market? That's the company that I'm saying in the Burgess-Markey amendment simply doesn't get bailed out. The head of that company last year paid himself $5 million.

Taxpayer bailout dollars are going to pay the executives of this company elaborate salaries when they're not producing anything. If the company were as good at producing centrifuges as it is getting government handouts, they would have long ago succeeded in developing the capacity to make centrifuges. Other countries, other companies, other nations have centrifuges by the hundreds of thousands operating-- and this Nation, after $5 billion, has 38 that don't operate.

Just stop the games. Stop the bailout.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, we have a discussion that needs to take place before we make a decision, and I see the gentlelady coming onto the floor. So if we can take just a moment to discuss, there is an amendment we would like to be made in order, and I need to visit with the gentlelady, if I can.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment today which transfers funds from the Office of the NNSA Administrator and into the Defense Environmental Management Fund, a program which funds the cleanup of radioactive waste. This program is important to our defensive mission, our environment, and public safety.

The Defense Environmental Management Program has demonstrated success in solid waste disposition, soil and groundwater remediation, and facility decontamination and decommissioning, and will continue to do so with sufficient funding.

I would like to thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Visclosky for their hard work on this bill and for prioritizing this issue particularly. Unfortunately, the budget request from the White House did not accurately reflect the monetary needs to fully fund the project contained in the EM program. My amendment would simply put back $40 million into the Environmental Management Program, which would provide much needed relief to the already constrained budgets for these projects.

As we accelerate the permanent disposal of radioactive waste, we decrease downstream the long-term cost for security, storage, and providing a better, safer environment into the future.

Many of the storage sites that currently exist for radioactive waste sit aboveground and are threatened by tornados, earthquakes, and wildfires. As I'm sure most of you have seen this week, New Mexico is susceptible to wildfires that can be started at any moment, get out of control extremely quickly, and rage out of control for days.

Los Alamos is located in a forest area and is highly vulnerable. In fact, just a little less than 1 year ago, the Las Conchas fire burned around 150,000 acres of thick pine woodlands in the Santa Fe National Forest, which surrounds the lab complex in the adjacent town of Los Alamos. At one point, the leading edge of the fire was as close as 50 feet from the grounds, which contain thousands of outdoor drums of plutonium-contaminated waste. Until this week, the Las Conchas fire was the largest in New Mexico's history.

There is a similar story from the year 2000, the Sierra Grande fire. As a result, just this January, DOE and the New Mexico Environment Department entered into a consent order framework agreement to expeditiously address the highest risk waste at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The waste amounts to 3,706 cubic meters of non-cemented aboveground waste, and the agreement calls for the removal of this waste by June 30, 2014. This amendment will allow LANL to meet groundwater and surface water requirements, as well as ensure the health and safety of the New Mexico residents who live closest to the lab.

While the overall bill dedicates funding to LANL for this project, it still falls short of what is needed. Without full funding, projects like removal of the highest risk waste at LANL are in jeopardy.

Finally, I am transferring this fund out of the Office of the Administrator for NNSA. These funds are needed more in the field and less in Washington, which, as we know, could go on a strict diet.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have no additional comments, and would yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I flew combat missions in Vietnam in 1971, '72, and '73. I was there when Members of this House voted to cut the funds to troops in combat.

I'm hearing the words ``safe'' and ``orderly'' withdrawal. Has anyone on the other side looked at the safe and orderly withdrawal that occurred in Vietnam? As we fell head over heels, we left 574 combat- ready aircraft there. That was the safe and orderly withdrawal we had when this body began to manage Vietnam. We lost the Vietnam War because we took the control of the war away from the generals and placed it into this body, people who had never been in combat, who had never been in harm's way.

I'm telling you, as someone who was there during a time when Congress choked off the funds to people that were in harm's way, I had a burning anger that burns today. And when I see this amendment and visualize the young men and women over there whom you're cutting funds off to and saying we're going to leave you with an orderly and quiet withdrawal-- it's not humanly possible. The other side doesn't play by your orderly rules.

Understand that this is war, and our troops' lives are at risk, and you're putting them more so.

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

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

This week we have been inundated with complicated facts and details about our Nation's uranium enrichment capabilities as well as its impact on our national security. All of these technical, confusing arguments revolve around one failed company, the United States Enrichment Corporation, USEC.

Regardless of the complex arguments, it's very simple: Are we going to do the job we were sent here to do and protect the taxpayer from wasteful government spending, or are we going to look the other way and allow a $150 million earmark to bail out a failed private company? My amendment ensures that we do what I believe we came here to do, to be stewards of our constituents' hard-earned tax dollars.

I ask you to remember one fact: USEC is a failed company with no technological innovation to show for the billions it has been given. Why are we propping up this company with more taxpayer money instead of asking the Department of Defense and Department of Energy to use a fair and open and competitive process like it does for every other national security need?

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), a cosponsor of the amendment.

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

We continue to hear different arguments. We hear that USEC is necessary for national security purposes. It is absolutely not. The U.S. Navy confirms that it has enough highly enriched uranium fuel to last until 2050. DOE itself declared that at no time in the foreseeable future would more highly enriched weapons-grade uranium be needed for defense. In March of 2012, the head of NSA testified to the Senate that tridium production would not be affected if USEC failed. We're hearing arguments that don't stand up to the facts.

My colleagues claim that USEC funding will protect U.S. intellectual property. It will not. USEC has had decades and billions of dollars of taxpayer money to create this technology--and has failed. They have created 38 machines. Six of those have failed, one catastrophically. There is nothing to be gained.

Our friends are complaining that this amendment does nothing. In fact, in January of 2012, Secretary Chu wrote a letter that DOE does not have the authority to shift funds around without the consent of Congress. With this amendment we're striking that authority.

Guess what USEC is? USEC is Solyndra on steroids. It is a taxpayer bailout of a failed company. USEC is a company that lost $540 million in 2011, and paid their chief executive officer $45 million while doing it. It's a company that has been downgraded three times in the last 5 years.

Mr. Chairman, I request that we vote for the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The Secretary of Energy,

Washington, DC, January 13, 2012.

Hon. Ed Whitfield,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Whitfield: Thank you for your letter

regarding the proposed Research, Development, and

Demonstration (RD&D) plan for the American Centrifuge Project

(ACP) in Piketon, Ohio. I continue to believe ACP offers an

innovative technology approach to uranium enrichment that

offers both national security and economic benefits. The

Department's proposed RD&D work is the best way to help ACP

achieve commercial viability by reducing technical and

financial risks associated with the project.

As you know, in October the Department of Energy and USEC

asked Congress to allow the Department to use $150 million in

fiscal year 2012 from our existing funds and the transfer

authority to re-allocate funds within our existing budget to

support the ACP research partnership that would enable the

project to reduce its technical and financial risks by

finalizing machine designs and demonstrating the technology

and key systems on a larger scale. Unfortunately, Congress

did not give the Department authority to proceed in this

manner.

Because the project has strong commercial potential and

because its success would strengthen and protect America's

national security interests, we want to continue working with

Congress to secure approval for this research effort. To make

a down payment on the research effort while giving Congress

the additional time it needs to act, the Department has

decided to use its administrative authority to provide near

term assistance. Specifically, the Department will assume $44

million in liability for uranium tails while taking

precautions to protect taxpayers. Transfer authority will

still be necessary to complete the full research effort.

With additional time, and strong backing from leaders in

Congress, we hope that Congress will approve transfer

authority to allow DOE to use its own funds to conduct RD&D

on advanced enrichment technology.

In the absence of Congressional action to provide DOE the

necessary transfer authority, the company asserts that the

project and the jobs it supports are in jeopardy;

demobilization of the project could entail significant risk

that the project could not successfully be restarted. I urge

Congress to act as swiftly as possible to provide the needed

transfer authority so that we can use funds from our existing

budget to fund the full RD&D program.

I thank you for your efforts to support a domestic uranium

enrichment capacity in order to advance our energy, economic,

and national security interests. I remain hopeful that by

working together, and with prompt action by Congress, we can

succeed in making the full RD&D program a reality. Please do

not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Steven Chu.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for bringing this issue before the House.

It is rare that a person can impact your life in a very strong way. It is almost never that a person can impact your life in a very strong way on different ends of the spectrum.

In 1970, I graduated from college. I had drawn a very low draft number earlier in my college career. I had joined the Air Force ROTC in order to avoid going to Vietnam in the middle of my college career; but, as an ROTC graduate, I then had an obligation to go to pilot training. I attended pilot training and then went overseas. I was assigned to the C 130s. We were stationed at Clark Air Base in the Philippines, but most of our missions were in Vietnam. For the next year and a half, that's where I was.

On one particular mission there in that time of 1971 and 1972, I was a copilot who was flying into Cambodia. Now, at that time, we were supposedly not going into Cambodia, and we were supposedly not going into Laos, but we were in and out on several trips that day. That evening, when I got back to the BOQ, to the quarters there at Korat Air Force Base, which I think is where we were stationed at that time for 2 weeks, I was interested to see that President Nixon was on TV. The camera zoomed in very close to him, and he described that American soldiers were not in or around Cambodia, that that mission was not one that we as soldiers were fulfilling.

Now, having just been in and out around Cambodia the entire day, that struck me as unusual that a President would say things that were completely untrue, that I knew to be untrue. In my heart, I began to believe that he could have said, I don't think the American people have a right to know. He could have said, It's secret, and that's classified information. But he came out with the camera looking him square in the face, and he said that we were not there. Now, maybe he did not know. I'll give him that.

Yet, when I got back to the U.S. and had found out about Watergate-- that was beginning to unravel--the idea of who to vote for in those 1972 elections was ever present on my mind. His opponent, there was no chance I would vote for him. His opponent was Eugene McCarthy. I would not vote for him, but I ended up filling my ballot out that neither man was qualified or deserved this office. I did not vote for a President that year simply because of my personal experience. Then in watching this whole problem with Watergate, Chuck Colson, Haldeman, those guys who were inside--the Plumbers--it began to give me a sense that this was a very bad point in my life and that Mr. Colson was a part of that group that was willing to mislead a Nation, that was willing to say things that weren't true. At the end of the day, President Nixon, as you know, stepped down. He gave up his office because of misdeeds that a small group of them pulled together.

Now, it was with that background that I knew Chuck Colson for most of my life. Then in 2003, when I arrived here at the Capitol when being first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, I started going to just a very small lecture series, and it was hosted by a gentleman named Chuck Colson. It didn't take long to make the association; but he was bringing in some of the best Christian worldview thinkers in the entire country, and I was able to experience Mr. Colson in a far different way than that remote acquaintance I had made in the early seventies.

In this way, he was one of the most compelling thinkers in the country. It was he who said that he lived in the dark until he saw the light. It was he who committed himself to a different view of the world, one that said that we must have redemption, that we must have a savior, that there is no hope for us as human beings if we are not to deal with those problems that each one of us faces in our lives. As he began to develop his insights and began to be one of the premier organizers of the Christian worldview, bringing in literally people from around him, he established his pillars for glorifying God through the works that we do.

Those pillars are: One, prepare well; two, keep an eye on the horizon rather than up close to you; three, engage and enlist others; four, run assessments; five, seek the abiding fruit, not just that that is temporary; and, finally, have guidelines that you have applied.

It is in those principles of glorifying God that Mr. Colson really developed a presence that affected the world and affected my life significantly. He began to compel those of us attending this lecture series in this House of Representatives, in one of the rooms beneath us, to enlist those around us, to be a light that shines out to others, to let our lives be different, to let our lives be the equivalent of salt and light, which are rubbed, so to speak, into the fabric of the American mind-set so that those around us will know that they have embraced a lie.

It was Mr. Colson who told me the most dramatic thing. His perception was--and I believe it is still--``The greatest problem facing America,'' he said, ``is truth.'' We don't know the truth in this country anymore. It's not revered. As we don't know the truth, then we see the fragments of society beginning to come loose around us.

I hear my own daughter and grandchildren say: Which side is right? They're all saying different things. When we as a Nation walk away from the concept of truth, when we as elected officials fail to honor our obligations to speak the truth as we know it, when our courts declare that there is no truth, then the Nation truly does suffer.

He made that extraordinarily clear and lived it in his life. It's at that point that I began to be compelled that I should be more honest and transparent in my own faith. Not that I would go out and be interrupting people and thrusting myself into their consciousness, but that they would look and see there's something different. They would say: Maybe we can trust that viewpoint.

So it is with sincere appreciation to my friend who is honoring Chuck Colson with this time tonight--because I believe that the Nation has lost one of the premier thinkers, one of the premier people who would guide us along a path, who would give us a wake-up call saying that we must find that salvation, we must find that way back when things have gone wrong. He was speaking from his experience of having gone so desperately wrong at a young age, being upheld and lifted into the very White House in this country, and having stumbled so badly.

He could speak with experience saying we all have to come back. There are things that every single one of us slip into that eventually we're going to want to change course. It's through his example, through his words, through his values, through his ideas that I know there are many here in this Congress who have lived a different life because of those ideas.

He came to New Mexico a couple of years ago. They had a large conference on the weekend. Again, I remember the same clarity, the same professionalism, the same looking toward the horizon there at that conference in New Mexico as we heard in this building here. He was a constant. He was refreshing to speak so openly about his problems. He was never able to let them loose, never get them away from him, never get that stain off of him. But he embraced that, yes. That's who he was and now he was different, that he had lived in the dark until he had seen the light.

Each one of us, if we were to make those same understandings and give those same acknowledgements, I believe, would live better and more transparent lives with truth being a greater part of that life. And I think the Nation would be better off for us living, as it is for him having lived.

We mourn his passing, but we also glorify God that he was placed into our midst that he might truly shine the light of truth into the darkness that he found around him.

My friend, I will stay around to hear what else we have. Thank you very much.