Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, in the dying days of the Obama administration, and over vigorous protests by many wildlife and user groups, not to mention the State of Alaska itself, the National Fish and Wildlife Service imposed the rule that Congressman Young's resolution overturns. In violation of the Alaska Statehood Act, the

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service removed Alaska's authority to manage the fish and wildlife populations within its own borders on 76 million acres. That is a land area larger than 45 States.

As part of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, the State agreed to several national wildlife refuges within its borders. In exchange for the Federal Government assuming control of these lands, Alaska was given explicit authority to manage its wildlife populations. This new agency rule breaks this promise. It begins a dangerous process of seizing control of fish and game management decisions which have by right, by law, and by custom belonged to the States.

The North American model of wildlife conservation has been a huge success and has sustained healthy wildlife populations for many generations. Not only is the Fish and Wildlife Service rule illegal, it threatens to reverse these successful land management relationships; it places severe restrictions on the public's right to hunt and fish on these public lands; it interferes with the State's success in managing wildlife populations to assure that they don't overrun the ability of the land to support them; and it shreds the cooperative relationship that Alaska and the Federal Government have enjoyed over these lands since Alaskan statehood.

We have three overarching objectives in the Federal Lands Subcommittee: to restore public access to the public lands, to restore sound management to the public lands, and to restore the Federal Government as a good neighbor to those communities and States impacted by the public lands. In adopting this rule, the agency violated all of these principles.

The Federal Lands Subcommittee will spend this Congress working on legislation to restore our public lands from the policy of benign neglect that has plagued our land management to the point where we are losing entire forests in the West and that has strained the relationships between our communities and our Federal agencies. The resolution sponsored by Congressman Young is an excellent start. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most troubling aspects of California's lurch to the left are the rise of two doctrines unknown in this country since the last gasp of the Southern Confederacy.

The first is the doctrine of nullification, the notion that States may defy Federal laws that their leaders simply don't like. The most outspoken advocate of this doctrine was John C. Calhoun, who, in referencing our Nation's most-revered document, the Declaration of Independence, observed that our Nation had been founded on--his words-- ``self-evident lies.''

The doctrine of nullification has been revived in the sanctuary cities movement, and has now reared its head as State legislation. Our Constitution clearly gives Congress the sole prerogative to make immigration law, and it commands the President to faithfully execute these laws. Our President is now doing so. Yet, California's legislature is actively considering a bill that would assert an independent power to defy them. And this is not just happening in California.

Mr. Speaker, States ought to be jealous guardians of their organic powers and the prerogatives against unwanted encroachments by the Federal Government. But the Supremacy Clause binds the States to our Federal laws. This is the very essence of Constitutional Federalism in Article VI:

``This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and of all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.''

If a State, in rightfully guarding its powers, believes that a Federal law unconstitutionally infringes on those powers, the Constitution provides that the courts shall resolve such disputes. But asserting the power to nullify a Federal law, a law that is clearly within the enumerated powers of the Congress and clearly under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, that crosses a very bright line that no State has breached since the first State seceded in 1861.

Which brings us to the second, even more disturbing development in California's march to the extreme left. There is no single act which more ultimately and categorically rejects our Constitution, our country, and all that they stand for, than a proposal to secede from the Union that has preserved our liberties for nearly two and a half centuries. It is logically impossible to support secession and, yet, maintain loyalty to the Union from which you propose to secede.

Secession is the ultimate act of disloyalty today, no less than during the days of Confederacy. Yet, in California, a formal secession movement is now circulating petitions for signature to place exactly such a proposal on the ballot.

It should come as no surprise that one of its leading proponents is an American expatriate now living in Russia who declared he ``could no longer live under an American flag.'' It should not even come as a surprise that the movement is cheered on by California's increasingly radical left.

But what came as a stunning surprise is that 32 percent of Californians support this measure, according to a recent poll. Let me repeat that. One in three Californians, according to this poll, want to repudiate our Federal Union and its Constitution.

We can only hope that the polling is wrong, or that the disaffected Californians who answered the poll in this fashion did so with reckless abandon that calm reflection will cure. But it is impossible to avoid the implication that so many people in my afflicted State hold so little loyalty to our country that they would support a measure that willfully rends it asunder.

These movements, nullification and secession, cross from lawful dissent into lawless rebellion. In these turbulent times, our greatest strengths are our rule of law, our constitutional institutions, and the loyalty of Americans to their priceless legacy of freedom and justice and the Union that preserves them.

Every person who takes the oath of office under our Constitution swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution. These modern resurrections of the long-buried doctrines of nullification and secession strike at the heart of our Constitution. These movements of the left would undermine the very foundation of our American civilization. They ought to be condemned in the strongest possible terms and opposed by every American of goodwill who remains loyal to our free government.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Thornberry for working through three congressional sessions to do justice to the property owners along the Red River.

The injustice that this bill corrects is galling. In 1923, the U.S. Supreme Court established rules for determining the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma, which established property rights over this land.

For nearly a century, the Federal Government recognized and respected the property lines established by this ruling. Property owners purchased and sold this land and, in some cases, passed it down from generation to generation. These property owners, in good faith, dutifully paid taxes on their lands year after year, invested in these lands, maintained them, cultivated them, and improved them.

Nearly 100 years later, in 2013, the Bureau of Land Management announced that it was arbitrarily changing these long-established and settled boundaries and claiming ownership of 90,000 acres of land. This outrageous claim clouds property rights along this vast territory.

It is based on the flimsiest of pretexts: a 2009 survey of some 6,000 acres out of the total 90,000 in dispute. This survey ignored the 1923 Supreme Court decree that originally established the boundary lines, and it then extrapolated the results of this limited survey to justify this land grab over the entire region. In other words, BLM laid claim to these lands with a guess based upon a fraud.

The BLM has since scaled back its claim to 30,000 acres, a testament to the flimsy process with which it has upended the lives of every property owner in the region.

The Red River Private Property Protection Act tells the BLM to back off. It authorizes a comprehensive survey of all of the disputed acreage to be conducted jointly by the two States directly affected and in consultation with the tribal governments involved. It requires that the survey be conducted on the longstanding criteria established by the Supreme Court, rather than the recent and illegal invention of the BLM.

Upon the completion of the survey, the States of Texas and Oklahoma, in coordination with federally recognized Indian tribes, will review and approve the survey to ensure its accuracy and impartiality.

Without this act, title to the farms and homes will be clouded for decades while the matter drags on through the courts. That is the course that the gentlewoman suggests we should follow: drag this on for years, if not decades, while these property owners languish in uncertainty.

Meanwhile, the BLM's assertion of regulatory jurisdiction would have devastating impacts on local homeowners and businesses and make it much more difficult to encourage economic development in the region.

This measure is a scaled-down version of the bill passed by this House in 2015, in order to address concerns expressed by the American Indian Nations involved.

Mr. Speaker, government exists to protect our natural rights, including our property rights, and this bill realigns our government with its stated purpose and its stated promise.

I urge its speedy adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Plymouth, California, for the celebration of its centennial anniversary as a city. Plymouth is the site of the Amador County Fair and the gateway to the beautiful Shenandoah Valley vineyards.

When we think of the California Gold Country, the image of the lone miner packing up a hillside with his mule, pick, and shovel come to mind. In reality, the Gold Rush, while a defining moment in our region's history, lasted just a few years.

According to the Amador County Historical Society, ``there was not a single discovery of gold or a defining site that became the center of activity'' in Plymouth. ``The town was established in 1873, long after other mining camps had already become ghost towns.''

With the easy gold taken from the streams, Green Alden and the Hooper family began to consolidate a number of hard rock mining camps in the region. They constructed a simple trading post, described by the California Office of Historic Preservation as ``all windows and doors of cast iron, with gun ports still in some of the windows. Walls at the base are 30" thick, with beams in the basement that are 12" x 12." The basement was dynamited out of shale rock and the entire foundation is visible.''

While the gold was hard to get, the Plymouth mine produced more than $13.5 million in gold and continued to be worked until 1947, an ample source of wealth for the area.

While some gold seekers left, either enriched or disillusioned by their experience in the rivers, creeks and mountains, many others were determined to stay here and find other ways to make a living.

Plymouth became a hub trading center, and grew during periods of prosperity, wars, depressions and local tragedies including several catastrophic fires. Each time the town rebuilt with the gritty pioneer spirit of determination which marks our region's culture.

Today, that heritage is celebrated at the Amador County Fair, which has gained a statewide reputation as one of the most authentic fairs in California. Filled with rolling green lawns, heritage oak trees, and spotless grounds, the Amador County Fairgrounds is simply a must see for anyone who wants to have a true Gold Country experience.

Today, Plymouth has over 1,000 residents contributing to the local economy by accessing small businesses, farms, and orchards.

Mr. Speaker, the City of Plymouth continues to work with state and federal partners to improve its infrastructure for its citizens and provide a wonderful quality of life. Plymouth has enjoyed a century of progress and prosperity and is poised for a lucrative future.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation has come to a crossroads between two competing visions for the future that don't easily reconcile. At such times as these, emotions run very high.

The good news is that our institutions are the best ever designed to resolve such political disputes. And it comes down to this: In other countries, the government is the sovereign and rights flow from it to the people; here in America, the people are sovereign.

In America, the sovereign does not govern; it hires help to govern during an election. In between elections, the sovereign people debate how the hired help is doing. That is the real debate, the one that goes on every day over backyard fences and family dinner tables wherever Americans gather. After that family discussion, we decide whether to fire the hired help or keep it for another cycle. As long as we are with each other and not shouting at each other, our system works very well.

Once in our history, we stopped talking with each other. That was the election of 1860. That election was marked not by reconciliation, but by rioting in those regions where the opposition dominated. The opposition party refused to accept the legitimacy of the election itself. Political leaders pledged resistance to the new administration by any means necessary. They asserted the doctrine of nullification, the notion that any dissenting State or city that opposed Federal laws could simply refuse to obey them. Finally came the secession movement, the ultimate rejection of our Constitution and our rule of law.

Have we not started down that road once again?

Even before the election, we saw violent mobs carrying foreign flags physically attack Americans for the sole reason that they wanted to attend a political rally for the candidate of their choice. The violence in Berkeley last week warns us that this behavior is rising.

Some prominent elected officials are again asserting the doctrine of nullification by declaring that their jurisdictions are sanctuaries where Federal immigration laws will simply be ignored. In California, the formal cessation movement is supported by nearly a third of the population of my own suffering State.

Now, I held more than a hundred townhall meetings in my district throughout the last 8 years, spanning the entire life of the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street movements. Through all of these heated debates, the police have never had to intervene, until this weekend in Roseville, when the Roseville Police Department determined that the size and temper of the crowd required a police escort to protect me as I left the venue.

Now, the vast majority of the people attempting to attend this meeting were peaceful, decent, law-abiding folks who sincerely opposed Donald Trump, and they wanted to make their views known to their elected representative. But, there was also a well-organized element that came to disrupt, and disrupt they did.

Now, in the last four elections, our country has turned dramatically away from the left. The Democrats have lost 67 House seats, 12 Senate seats, 10 Governors, more than 900 State legislative seats, and now the Presidency. That happened, in large part, because those who opposed their policies talked with their neighbors about the future of our country.

Instead of pursuing that successful example, the radical left seeks not to persuade their fellow citizens by reason but rather to impose its views by bullying, insulting, intimidating, and, as in Berkeley, by physically attacking their fellow citizens. This is not a tactic likely to change minds, but, if it persists, it could tear down the very institutions of democracy that have served us so well for so long.

I would ask the many sincere citizens who have been caught up with this disruptive element: Do you object because the President is breaking his promises, or do you object because he is keeping them?

If your objection is because the President is keeping the promises he made to the American people, is that not because the sovereign people, your neighbors and fellow countrymen, directed these changes over the last four elections?

If you love our country, and that love for our country is greater than your hatred of our President, I implore you to engage in a civil discussion with your fellow citizens. That is what true democracy looks like.

Mr. Speaker, of all of the stifling, bureaucratic, pettifogging regulations that Congress is now repealing from the previous administration, none is more deserving of repeal than the BLM's Planning 2.0 rule.

This rule governs the process for creating resource management plans. If they are done wrong, they can devastate the economies of the communities that are impacted by those lands. A new RMP can crush an industry, and it can destroy a community, which is why States and counties across the West have been anxiously watching this process unfold.

Despite serious concerns being raised by State and local governments--by farming, livestock, and energy production groups, and even by Congress during the rulemaking process--the Bureau of Land Management charged full steam ahead and finalized this rule. The BLM assured stakeholders that the final rule governing this process would not undercut State and local voices. But, when the BLM realized that the election of President Trump endangered the environmental left's stranglehold on this agency, the Planning 2.0 rule was hastily finalized in contradiction of almost all of the promises that the BLM made.

The Planning 2.0 rule is a gross expansion of BLM's power, and the power of well-funded political groups that use the veneer of environmentalism at the expense of local communities. Under BLM's current RMP procedures, our Western counties already complain of having their voices ignored and their interests disregarded.

Last year, the Federal Lands Subcommittee held a field hearing in St. George, Utah. We heard how the city of St. George was experiencing economic growth, pushing the limits of its infrastructure, and how the city had tried over and over to engage the BLM in the development of a new RMP to address the needs of the local community. The city was desperate for the new RMP to include a transportation corridor for a new road to meet the needs of their growing economy. In their testimony before the subcommittee, the city relayed that they were unable to secure regular meetings with their local BLM office, despite the BLM office holding frequent meetings with local environmental groups.

In the end, the RMP was released and there was nothing to account for the transportation needs of the people of St. George. In a State that is two-thirds owned by the Federal Government, I find it hard to believe that the BLM could not have worked with the city of St. George to accommodate a simple road.

With these kind of results under BLM's current planning regime, it is no wonder that counties across the West are weary of a new planning rule.

BLM should be focused on improving their collaboration and coordination with counties and local governments. Instead, this rule enshrines that disregard into formal Federal regulation.

I urge adoption of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 381) to designate a mountain in the John Muir Wilderness of the Sierra National Forest as ``Sky Point''.

Mr. Speaker, 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill would name a peak in the Sierra Nevada Mountains after Marine Staff Sergeant Sky Mote as a small token of the gratitude of our Nation, and as a permanent reminder that, as Shakespeare put it: ``This story should the good man teach his son.''

On August 12, 2012, Sergeant Mote was at his post in the tactical operations center of the 1st Marine Special Operations Battalion in Helmand province. On that day, a so-called Afghan police officer opened fire on the Marines who had come there to help that country.

When the attack broke out, Sergeant Mote was in an adjoining room. He could have easily escaped to safety. According to the Navy citation: ``He instead grabbed his M4 rifle and entered the operations room, courageously exposing himself to a hail of gunfire in order to protect his fellow Marines. In his final act of bravery, he boldly engaged the gunman, now less than 5 meters in front of him, until falling mortally wounded.''

According to the citation, it was Mote's actions that stopped the attack, and it was his heroism for which he received the Navy's second highest decoration: the Navy Cross.

The irony is that Sky Mote was indifferent to the medals he was awarded during his life: the Navy and Marine

Corps Commendation Medal, the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal, two Combat Action Ribbons, and three Good Conduct Medals that he earned during his 9 years of exemplary service to his Nation.

His father, Russell, recalled that ``He never cared about medals. He never showed them to us.'' He said: ``Once, I found one in his laundry.'' But his father also said that although his son was indifferent to medals, he was intentionally and intensely proud of his EOD badge, designating his service as an explosive ordnance disposal technician.

To the EOD technicians, bombs are not something to be avoided but something to be sought out and disarmed. On one such day, Mote diffused two IEDs, crawled through a heavily seeded minefield to save the life of his team member who had been severely wounded by a third, and then directed the evacuation of his unit. On that day, Sergeant Mote had earned a Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal with a V for valor.

We come today to the Hall of the House of Representatives to try to honor a hero who didn't care much about medals.

We do so not for him. Lincoln was right long ago that it is far beyond our poor powers to add or detract from the honor of his deeds and the example of his life.

I think we do so in part to acknowledge an irredeemable debt that our country owes to an eternally grieving family. We need to remember there are Gold Star families among us who spend their Memorial Days not at barbecues and beach parties but in solemn ceremonies and quiet vigils around honored graves. We honor their loved ones in hopes that in some small way we can fortify them against the loss that they bear every day of their lives.

But, mainly, I think we do it for ourselves, that we might draw inspiration from his courage and instruction from his willingness to sacrifice all to protect the vision of liberty enshrined in the founding of our Nation.

In consultation with his family, we have identified a mountain in the John Muir Wilderness of the Sierra National Forest overlooking where Sky Mote and his family often camped and hiked. This bill proposes that it forever more be known as Sky Point as a token of our Nation's respect of his heroism, its appreciation of his sacrifice, its sympathy for his family, and of its solemn pledge that succeeding generations of his countrymen will never forget him.

This legislation first passed the House by voice vote in the 114th Congress, and I urge the passage of this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kind and good words and urge adoption of the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 339) to amend Public Law 94-241 with respect to the Northern Mariana Islands.

Mr. Speaker, 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, the House has before it H.R. 339, sponsored by Congressman Sablan of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

The House passed an identical bill this past December just before the conclusion of the 114th Congress. However, that bill was unable to pass the Senate and make it to the President's desk for signature before the end of that Congress, and so I am here today to once again urge the bill's passage through the House and on to the Senate.

The Northern Mariana Islands are benefiting by new investment and growth of consumer spending, particularly in tourism. Their economic growth rate is almost twice that of the rest of our country.

To meet this growth, the Commonwealth has to maintain a workforce to match it. Currently, the Northern Marianas is phasing out the use of foreign workers by slowly reducing the total number of CW-1 permits issued by the Department of Homeland Security. Economic growth is dynamic, but bureaucracy is not. If the CW-1 permits are phased out too quickly, the islands may suffer a growth-stopping shortage of labor. This bill would provide flexibility to the Commonwealth in order to protect its newfound economic prosperity in three critical ways:

First, it would fund ongoing vocational education curricula and program development to assure a skilled domestic workforce funded from an increase in CW-1 fees from $150 to $200.

Second, it would limit the CW-1 permits for construction occupation to those issued prior to October 1 of 2015.

And third, it would temporarily increase the number of CW-1 permits during this transition period.

Mr. Speaker, these changes will continue to accommodate the economic growth in the Northern Marianas, while assuring a trained domestic workforce for the future.

I would urge adoption of the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge the House to finish the work that it began in December by passing this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 46) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of Fort Ontario in the State of New York.

Mr. Speaker, 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.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, Congressman John Katko of New York brings us H.R. 46, which authorizes the National Park Service to conduct a special resource study of Fort Ontario in Oswego, New York, to evaluate the site's national significance and determine the suitability of its designation as a unit of the National Park system.

Fort Ontario was first established in 1755 to defend Americans during the French and Indian Wars. You might say it was the first time our Nation has dealt with organized terrorism. It played a role in the American Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 and served our country as a hospital, training facility, and a refugee center in the First and Second World Wars.

In 1946, after nearly 200 years of active military use, Fort Ontario was transferred to the State of New York, which has operated and maintained it ever since. The House passed a nearly identical version of this legislation in the 114th Congress.

I urge adoption of the measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko), the author of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important part of American history. It belongs in the National Park System. I urge adoption of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 374) to remove the sunset provision of section 203 of Public Law 105-384, 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 include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, the House has before it H.R. 374, sponsored by our colleague, Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington.

This bipartisan, consensus-based legislation would permanently reauthorize the successful management of the Dungeness crab fisheries of Washington, Oregon, and California by these respective States. They have been doing so since 1980, and doing it well.

This permanent reauthorization is broadly supported by commercial and recreational fishing organizations. It is an example of the maxim: ``If it ain't broke, don't try and fix it.''

I might add that these three States manage these fisheries in both Federal and State waters, and the management is funded by the participating States--a relief to the Federal Treasury.

In the last Congress, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that an identical bill would save up to $1 million in discretionary Federal spending since State management would continue under this act. This bill is a win for the American taxpayer, a win for the seafood consumer, and a win for the three States involved.

I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Beutler), the author of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

Mr. Speaker, 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 pass the bill (H.R. 538) to redesignate Ocmulgee National Monument in the State of Georgia and revise its boundary, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, 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.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Ocmulgee Mounds are among the oldest archaeological sites in our country. The earthworks date back before 1000 A.D., and the site has evidence of human habitation dating back to the ice age, some 17,000 years ago. Between the 10th and 12th centuries A.D., the site was occupied by a sophisticated society that we know as the Macon Plateau culture, which built earthen mounds up to 55 feet in height, representing a distinct political and cultural society.

It is believed that Hernando de Soto recorded the site as the chiefdom of Ichisi in 1540. Just before the American Revolution, naturalist William Bartram marveled at ``the wonderful remains of the power and grandeur of the ancients in this part of America.''

H.R. 538, introduced by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), would redesignate the Ocmulgee National Monument in Georgia as the Ocmulgee Mounds National Historical Park and adjust the boundary of the historical park to include approximately 2,100 new acres to be acquired by donation or exchange only.

Additionally, the bill directs the Department of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to determine the feasibility of adding the Ocmulgee River corridor to the National Park System. The study will also examine the national significance of the site as well as the best methods and means for ensuring protection and interpretation of this area.

The bill was passed by voice vote in the House in the 114th Congress. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of its passage today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott), the cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill.

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 pass the bill (H.R. 558) to adjust the boundary of the Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park to include the Wallis House and Harriston Hill, 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 include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 558, introduced by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), expands the boundary of the Kennesaw National Battlefield Park by authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to acquire approximately 8 acres of land by donation or exchange only. The expanded area includes the historic Wallis House and Harriston Hill.

The Wallis House is one of the few remaining structures associated with the Kennesaw Mountain Civil War battle, while Harriston Hill was strategically significant as the Union signal station.

The Battle of Kennesaw Mountain in June of 1864 was critical to the Union campaign to split the Confederacy, and although it was a tactical victory for the Confederates, it opened the way for the Union's strategic victory of taking Atlanta. The sacrifices of more than 3,000 Union troops on Kennesaw Mountain made possible Sherman's famous telegram to Lincoln 3 months later that ``Atlanta is ours and fairly won.''

These battlefields remind succeeding generations of Americans of the price paid by so many for the preservation of our Constitution and the liberty it protects and the enormous responsibility that each of us has to maintain and defend that same Constitution today. Nearly identical legislation passed the House by voice vote in the 114th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the sponsor of this bill, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk).

Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 560) to amend the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area Improvement Act to provide access to certain vehicles serving residents of municipalities adjacent to the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, 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 include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 560, introduced by Congressman Tom Marino, amends the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area Improvement Act to allow a highway through the national recreation area to continue to be used by small commercial vehicles that serve the local communities adjoining this federally designated land. It is entirely in keeping with one of our principal objectives for Federal land use policy: to restore the Federal Government as a good neighbor to the communities impacted by the Federal lands.

In 1981, a portion of highway 209 was transferred from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to the National Park Service. Two years later, Congress closed the National Park Service segment of highway 209 to commercial traffic except for commercial vehicular operations serving businesses or persons located in or contiguous to the boundaries of the recreation area. Congress also authorized the Park Service to collect and retain fees from commercial use of the road. A 10-year transition period was established to accommodate impacts on the surrounding communities until alternative trucking routes could be built. Congress later passed two additional extensions of the commercial vehicle permitting authority through September 30, 2015.

As the third extension permitting commercial vehicle use of highway 209 neared expiration, local elected officials requested that Congress enact legislation to permit access for smaller class commercial vehicles for businesses physically located in towns adjacent to highway 209. H.R. 560 provides for such an extension, establishes up a fee structure, and exempts certain vehicles from the fee, thus protecting residents of these communities from additional disruption and inconvenience.

Congressman Marino should be commended for his efforts to resolve this vexing issue for his constituents.

A nearly identical version of this legislation passed the House by voice vote in the 114th Congress. I urge adoption of this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino), the author of the measure.

I would just add that this and all the bills we heard today authored by both Republicans and Democrats, which passed this House in the last session, unanimously, were all stalled in the Senate. I would only express the hope that the Senate, this year, will act on these measures and do its duty as the coequal branch of the legislative department of this government.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in the last 8 years, our Nation's debt has doubled. That means that the Obama administration has borrowed as much in just 8 years as our government borrowed in the 220 years between the first day of the George Washington administration and the last day of the George W. Bush administration.

Our interest costs are now eating us alive. Last year the Congressional Budget Office warned that within 6 years on our current trajectory, interest payments on the debt will exceed what we now spend for our entire defense budget.

Before we can provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare, we have to be able to pay for it, and our massive debt directly threatens our ability to do so. History warns us that nations that bankrupt themselves aren't around very long.

I am confident that the new administration clearly understands the peril this poses to our country. The nomination of Mick Mulvaney to head the Office of Management and Budget is a powerful signal that this danger will soon be addressed aggressively and effectively.

This debt is our generation's doing. It is our generation's responsibility to set right. When we do so, we will need to leave behind the mechanisms to assure that reckless borrowing never threatens our government again. For this reason, last week I introduced a proposal for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, H.J. Res. 12.

The beauty of the American Constitution is in its simplicity and its humility. The American Founders recognized Cicero's wisdom that the best laws are the simplest ones, and they humbly realized they couldn't possibly foresee the circumstances and conditions that might confront future generations. They resisted the temptation to micromanage every decision that might be made in the centuries to come. Instead, they set forth general principles of governance and erected a structure in which human nature itself would naturally guide future decisions to comport with these principles.

In crafting a balanced budget amendment, we need to maintain these qualities. We should not attempt to tell future generations specifically how they should manage their revenues and expenditures in times that we cannot foresee or comprehend. The experience of many States that operate under their own balanced budget amendments tells us that the more complicated and convoluted such strictures become, the more they are circumvented and manipulated.

In 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote this observation to John Taylor: ``I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution; I mean an additional article taking from the federal government the power of borrowing.''

What is a balanced budget? It is simply a budget that doesn't require us to borrow. So why don't we just say so, as Jefferson did?

Instead of trying to define fiscal years, outlays, expenditures, revenues, emergencies, contingencies, triggers, sequestrations, and on and on, I would hope we would consider 27 simple words: ``The United States Government may not increase its debt except for a specific purpose by law adopted by three-fourths of the membership of both Houses of Congress.'' That is it.

Such an amendment, taking effect 10 years from ratification, would give the government time to put its affairs in order and thereafter, naturally, require future Congresses to maintain both a balanced budget and a prudent reserve to accommodate fluctuations of revenues and routine contingencies.

It trusts that three-fourths of Congress will be able to recognize a genuine emergency when it sees one and that one-fourth of Congress will be strong enough to resist borrowing for trivial reasons. The States' experience warns us that a two-thirds vote is insufficient to protect against profligacy.

Some advocate going much farther and establishing limitations on spending and taxation as well, but prohibiting borrowing sets a natural limit to the limits of the people to tolerate taxation and, therefore, spending. The real danger is when runaway spending is accommodated by borrowing--a hidden future tax. The best and most effective way to invoke that natural limit is a simple prohibition.

In drafting an amendment to guide not only this generation but all those to follow, I would hope that we would do as the Constitutional Convention would have done if it had the benefit of Jefferson's wise counsel: set down the general principle only and allow future generations, with their own insight into their own challenges, to put it to practical effect.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I support the REINS Act and the rule that brings it to us, but I want to underscore the point made earlier by Mr. Barr.

The REINS Act says that any regulation--that is, an act with the force of law--adopted by the executive branch and costs more than $100 million must then be approved by Congress to take effect.

As necessary as this bill is in the current environment, I am afraid it has got it completely backwards. Under the Constitution read on this floor today, it is not the role of the executive branch to make law and for the legislative branch then to approve or veto it. Quite the contrary, making law is the singular prerogative of the legislative branch; the executive then approves or vetoes that law.

The REINS Act is necessary solely because for years Congress has improperly ceded its lawmaking powers to the executive, and it is time we restored the proper role of the legislative branch to make law and for the executive branch to faithfully execute it.