Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the debt limit exists for a simple reason: to assure that public debt isn't recklessly piled up without Congress periodically acknowledging it and addressing the spending patterns that are causing it. If a debt limit increase is supposed to be automatic, as the President suggests, then there is really no purpose to it.

A new dimension has now appeared in this discussion. Unlike every one of his predecessors, this President has vowed that unless Congress unconditionally raises the debt limit, the United States will default on its sovereign debt.

But a failure to raise the debt limit would not, by itself, cause the Nation to default. The Government Accountability Office has consistently held that the Treasury Secretary has ``the authority to choose the order in which to pay obligations of the United States'' to protect the Nation's credit. Such authority is inherent in the 1789 act that established the Treasury Department and entrusted it with ``the management of the revenue'' and the ``support of the public credit.'' The affirmative duty of the Treasury Department to do so is underscored by the 14th Amendment.

Our revenues are more than 10 times our debt payments, so paying the debt first to prevent a sovereign default is well within the financial ability of the Federal Government--and indeed, it is a fiscal imperative.

Now, earlier this year, the House passed H.R. 807, which not only explicitly requires the payment of the national debt in the case of an impasse over the debt limit, but even allows the President to exceed the debt limit, itself, in order to protect the Nation's credit. That measure languishes in the Senate under the threat of a Presidential veto.

Protecting the sovereign credit by prioritizing payments would mean delaying paying other bills. That is also untenable, unthinkable, and something much to be avoided, but it would not imperil the Nation's sovereign credit. Only the President can do that.

The House leadership met with the President last week and offered to extend the debt limit until November 22 with no strings attached. The President refused. Senate Republicans offered a 6-month extension, but the Senate Democratic leader refused.

What the President threatens to do would be catastrophic and unprecedented. The full faith and credit of the United States is what gives markets the confidence to loan money to the Federal Government. Even a threat of default--exactly the kind the President is now making--could have dire consequences to a Nation that now owes more than its entire economy produces in a year.

So where do we go from here?

Republicans have miscalculated on two key assumptions: first, that the Democrats would negotiate the issues that divide our country--they have not; and second, that Democrats would seek to minimize the suffering caused by the impasse--they have not.

Given the ruthless and vindictive way the shutdown has been handled, I now believe that this President would willfully act to destroy the full faith and credit of the United States unless the Congress acquiesces to all of his demands--at least as long as he sees political advantage in doing so.

If the Republicans acquiesce, the immediate crisis will quickly vanish, credit markets will calm, and public life will return to other matters. But a fundamental element of our Constitution will have been destroyed: the power of the purse will have shifted from the representatives of the people to the Executive. The executive bureaucracies will be freed to churn out ever more outlandish regulations with no effective congressional review or check through the purse. A perilous era will have begun in which the President sets spending levels and vetoes any bill falling short of his demands. Whenever a deadline approaches, one House can simply refuse to negotiate with the other until Congress is faced with a Hobson's choice of a shutdown or a default. The Nation's spending will again dangerously accelerate, the deficit will rapidly widen, and the economic prosperity of the Nation will continue to slowly bleed away.

This impasse may have started as a dispute over a collapsing health program, but it has now taken on the dimensions of a constitutional crisis. Yesterday, in Washington, a group of America's veterans rose up to take a stand against these unconstitutional usurpations. I believe the salvation of our Nation now ultimately depends on the American people joining them.

Mr. Speaker, on September 30, after two previous attempts to keep the government fully funded, House Republicans adopted a measure that fully funded the government, fully funded ObamaCare, but simply delayed the individual mandate for a year. Now, this proposal was summarily rejected by House and Senate Democrats, and the government shut down.

Now, I can understand why they might take that position. They actually thought the exchanges would work, but they haven't worked. They have been a complete and unmitigated disaster. And after more than 3 years and $600 million of development costs, they are far, far from being ready.

So, with this new experience, what is so unreasonable about delaying the mandate for a year while these problems are addressed?

This should be a win-win for everyone--reopen the government and give the Democrats' signature program 1 year's reprieve from complete collapse. That is what Republicans offered on September 30, and that offer still stands.

Mr. Speaker, this October fiscal crisis is punctuated by three developments that are becoming increasingly obvious and disturbing. The first is the refusal of the Senate and the President to resolve their differences with the House through negotiation and compromise on the bill that would actually fund the government and end this shutdown. In recent days, senior administration officials have said they don't care how long the shutdown lasts because they are winning politically and the President would rather the Nation default than negotiate with the House.

Our form of government cannot operate in such a manner. Congress is a bicameral legislature. That means two Houses that are specifically designed to have a different perspective on issues. The two Houses of Congress were designed to disagree. The only way a bicameral legislature can possibly function is through each House exercising its own best judgment on a given issue and then coming together and meeting to isolate their differences and resolve them through negotiation and compromise.

The conference process of Congress has evolved over centuries. It is very effective at resolving the differences between the two Houses; but it takes two Houses to operate it, and the Senate is refusing to do so. This malfunction is at the very heart of our stalemate.

The second development is the deliberate decision by the administration to amplify the public's suffering and inconvenience during this stalemate. This government has gone through 18 shutdowns now in the past 37 years, but never has a President barricaded open-air venues like national memorials. In fact, he has gone so far as to forbid the use of turnouts on public roads that offer passersby distant views of Mt. Rushmore and Yosemite. He has ordered people out of their own homes and ordered businesses to close just because they lease land from the Federal Government. He has even tried to close the Atlantic Ocean to Florida fishermen.

In the past, Presidents have done everything they could to minimize the impacts of shutdowns. This President is going to ridiculous extremes to maximize the suffering that people must endure. One park ranger told a reporter, ``We've been told to make life as difficult for people as we can.'' And then he added, ``It's disgusting.'' And when this House has passed stopgap measures to minimize these impacts, the President and the Senate have summarily rejected them.

The third development is the rapid unraveling of ObamaCare. As it has rolled out, millions of Americans have discovered that their health insurance rates have skyrocketed or they are losing their health plans entirely or that they are having their hours cut back at work. It is very clear that the public isn't buying these new government-brokered policies. One hundred and seventy thousand people visited the Maryland exchange looking for affordable insurance since it opened more than a week ago, but only 326 have actually bought these plans, less than 0.2 percent.

Now, imagine, you have got the biggest store in town. People are required by law to purchase your product. You

open for business, and 99.8 percent of the customers who walk into your store walk out again without buying your product. Do you think you have a problem? We can't pretend this isn't happening. Millions of Americans right now are losing their health plans and not finding affordable replacements. This matter must be resolved, and it must be resolved now.

This government only exists with the consent of the governed. When it deliberately goes out of its way to maximize the pain and suffering of the American people in this crisis, it jeopardizes that consent. This matter must be resolved, and it must be resolved now. And this government is simply not designed to function with one party refusing to talk to the other, with one House refusing to resolve the differences that divide it from the other. This simple failure is at the heart of our Nation's distress, and it, too, must be resolved, and it must be resolved now.

We are now 5 years into this administration. They have not been happy ones for our Nation. But now we have arrived at a crisis--or more precisely, at three crises: one that is costing millions of Americans the health plans they liked and were told they could keep, a second in the relationship of this government to the people, and a third in the basic function of our fundamental institutions.

Happily, the Constitution's Framers gave us all of the tools that are necessary to resolve these crises except for one, and that one is what Lincoln called the better angels of our nature. Only we can appeal to those angels, and we must do so before more harm befalls our country.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President charged that the government shutdown is the result of an ``ideological crusade to deny affordable health insurance to millions of Americans.'' I would beg the President to read his correspondence and listen to the millions of Americans who are losing their affordable health insurance as a result of ObamaCare, who are seeing their health care premiums skyrocket or their hours cut back at work or who are losing their jobs or the health plans they liked and that he promised they could keep.

Here's a sampling of the emails and letters I've received last week from people who have come face to face with the ugly reality of ObamaCare. A woman from El Dorado County, California, writes:

Last month, I received a letter from the human resources

manager at my place of employment that states I am going to

receive a 23 percent pay cut as a result of ObamaCare. They

say they are required by the employer mandate to provide

insurance for every employee or face a fine. My 23 percent

pay cut is equal to $22,000 and will financially devastate my

family, as I am the primary income of our family. I tried to

explain that I already have insurance through my husband's

employer and Blue Cross/Blue Shield and I do not need another

policy. However, they said ObamaCare does not have an option

for married employees who are paying for coverage through

their spouse's employer. I even offered to pay the $2,000

employer fine instead of being subject to the $22,000 pay

cut, but they said that is not an option.

A man from the town of Pioneer, California, writes:

I received a letter from my insurance carrier that, as of

the end of this year, they will drop all individual plans in

our State because of ObamaCare.

A woman from Markleeville writes:

ObamaCare is already affecting me in my ability to obtain

diabetic testing supplies. Please at least defund it; better

yet, repeal it. And then go to work on real reforms that are

necessary.

A man from Sonora writes:

I have just received my projected health care cost for this

coming year through Kaiser. The premium will be increasing by

43.8 percent. Health care is becoming increasingly

unaffordable. The current health care, fuel, and power cost

is destroying our economy. Wages are going down, and the cost

of living is rising. If the current trend is not reversed,

our country and all in it are looking at financial and

economic ruin.

A man from Amador County, who is in the durable medical equipment business, writes:

Obama has already killed our industry, and soon your

telephone is going to be ringing off the hook with

disgruntled patients that cannot get product.

A woman from Nevada City writes:

Please repeal ObamaCare. The health insurance for our

family this year went up more than $450 each month. It's not

possible for middle class citizens to pay that.

From Farmington, California, a woman writes:

I have worked in the health care industry as a registered

nurse for over 25 years and have already seen its negative

impact in the hospital just in preparing to begin working

with it. Also, my husband and I have noticed the increasing

of prices in our own private health care charges.

A woman from Granite Bay writes:

As a result of ObamaCare, our health insurance costs have

tripled . . . our copay has doubled, and the deductible has

also gone up. Also, my primary doctor retired, the next one

closed his practice, and my present doctor will close her

practice if ObamaCare is not repealed.

A man from Rocklin writes:

As a result of this legislation, my health insurance cost

through my employer has nearly tripled. Combined with anemic

economic growth--resulting in 1 percent pay raise per year

since 2009 and bonus cut by two-thirds--increased taxes, et

al, I have effectively had severe pay cuts. And most of my

coworkers as well. The ACA is a burden on me, my family, my

community, and our future.

From Auburn, California, a woman writes:

I did some shopping at Save Mart in Auburn today and talked

to a woman who works there. She said the store is cutting

back everyone's hours to 20 hours per week. I asked if it was

because of ObamaCare, and she said yes. This is happening all

over the country, and it's outrageous.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that the President and our Democratic colleagues are hearing these same complaints. I wonder: Why aren't they listening?

Mr. Speaker, at the center of our government is a bicameral legislative branch, two separate houses specifically designed to have a different perspective on issues.

Those two houses are supposed to disagree, and yet, ultimately, they have to pass the same legislation to the President to get anything done.

Well, how does that happen?

It is because, once the House and the Senate individually exercise their best judgment, they are supposed to meet to then resolve any differences. That is the only possible way that our bicameral system can function. Without this mechanism, it's doomed to gridlock.

And yet, the current leader of the Senate, and those in his thrall, have refused to do precisely that, to sit down and resolve the differences between the two houses through negotiation and compromise. Their refusal to do so is at the heart of this impasse that's now shut down the government.

It is time for Harry Reid to meet his constitutional responsibility, or for the Senate to find somebody who will.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Last night, Mr. Speaker, the House attempted to reopen our National Parks, and 22 Democrats defied their party leaders and joined with the majority to provide for this vital relief.

The little towns around Yosemite National Park depend on tourism for their economy. They're still reeling from the Yosemite Rim fire that brought tourism to a near standstill last month.

When tourists are needlessly barred from our national parks, all of the vendors, all of the concessionaires, the lodgekeepers and shopkeepers in all of the surrounding communities are devastated. They have to lay off employees and often have to close. And unlike government employees, these taxpaying, job-generating private sector working people never get paid back when it's all over.

Having already agreed to spare our military from the effect of this impasse, why would anybody object to funding other critical functions while we wait for the larger issues to be resolved?

Mr. Speaker, this shutdown should not have happened. The Framers of our Constitution designed our system to have tension and differences between the two houses of Congress--that's a given. But after the House and Senate have exercised their best judgment, they are then supposed to sit down and negotiate out their differences. This is the way our bicameral system has worked for 225 years. It is the only way that it can work.

That hasn't happened this time. This time the House proposed a compromise nearly 2 weeks ago to keep the government open and to defund ObamaCare in order to address the epidemic of dropped health care policies, massive rate increases, and job cutbacks that we're now seeing as a result of its implementation. The Senate rejected that compromise by insisting on full funding with no reform. That is their prerogative. It represents the best judgment of that body.

At that point, the differences were supposed to have been negotiated. They weren't. The Senate's leaders refused even to discuss a compromise. So the House offered the second compromise of funding the entire government, including ObamaCare, but at least delaying its implementation for a year to address the rapidly growing complaints that we are all receiving. Instead of taking up the measure, the Senate instead chose to take the weekend off, come in at the leisurely hour of 2:00 in the afternoon on the day of the fiscal deadline, and then summarily reject the House offer, again refusing even to discuss a compromise.

With the clock running out, the House offered a third compromise: fund the entire government, fund ObamaCare, including the malfunctioning exchanges, but at least delay the mandate for individuals to obtain coverage for a year while these problems are addressed and rescind the illegal action of the President that shields Members of Congress from the costs of this law. It's a simple principle: equality under law.

Since the President has already exempted Big Business from the mandate to provide health care for employees, then those employees should also be relieved from the mandate to purchase it. And if Members of Congress can't afford the new costs of ObamaCare, how do we expect the average American to do so? Once again, the Senate summarily rejected the third compromise by the House and once again refused even to discuss our differences. The clock ran out, and the government is now in a partial shutdown.

Ironically, House Republicans have been accused of a ``my way or the highway'' approach, yet the record is quite the opposite. House Republicans compromised and compromised and compromised, only to be met by absolute intransigence at the door of the Senate.

The House has now asked for a formal conference committee. This is the mechanism that has evolved over centuries to resolve even the most intractable differences between the two Houses. Yet once again, Senate leaders summarily rejected the offer even before it was formally made.

The only explanation for this conduct is that Senate leaders believe that a government shutdown inures to their political benefit because they can blame Republicans. If Mr. Reid and his followers didn't want a shutdown, they would have been feverishly working through this weekend to avoid one as the House was doing. The fact is they didn't, and that speaks volumes.

Our system of governance was not designed to operate in this manner. It cannot operate in this manner. The essence of a bicameral legislature is for each House to act according to its best judgment, isolate the differences, and then work them out. This is the critical link in our deliberative process, and it is not happening. It's not because of any failure of design, but rather because of designing men.

In his 1862 address to the Congress, Abraham Lincoln set the only course that is open to us. He said, ``We can succeed only by concert.'' It is not ``Can any of us imagine better?'' but ``Can we all do better?'' The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to this stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the Senate to set aside its dogmas, rise with the occasion, and accept the invitation of the House to sit down in conference. Let us reason together, and then let us save our country.

Mr. Speaker, the little towns around Yosemite National Park depend on tourism for their economies. They're still reeling from the Yosemite Rim fire that brought

tourism to a near standstill last month.

This morning, the National Park Service ordered all visitors out of the park due to the government shutdown, causing lodges and concessionaires to lay off employees and close. A local merchant tried to deliver $10,000 worth of perishable seafood to the park and was turned away. Unlike government employees, these folks don't get their backpay when the impasse is over.

The one-two punch of the Rim fire and now the closure of Yosemite National Park make this one of the most economically depressed summer seasons on record. While the Senate obviously prefers a government shutdown to negotiating with the House over ObamaCare, I hope they will at least take pity on the gateway communities of our national parks that depend on tourism for their livelihoods and expeditiously pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, a crisis is not a good time for inflammatory rhetoric or ad hominem attacks. I believe that my colleague from Connecticut just missed the mark a moment ago when he threw out terms such as ``dead-enders'' and ``extremists.'' I will simply say that, yesterday, the President missed an opportunity to bring both sides together. That responsibility now rests solely with us.

Nobody on the Republican side of the aisle wants to see a government shutdown or a credit default--let's make that clear--and I am confident that nobody on the Democratic side wants to see millions of Americans lose the health plans they were told they could keep or see their health care costs skyrocket or lose their jobs or work hours because of the unintended consequences of ObamaCare, but these events that nobody wants to see are now unfolding. They will do great damage to our Nation that nobody wants to see happen.

If we agree on these fundamental issues, our course should be clear, and it is only blocked by the kind of partisan division that we heard yesterday from the White House and a few moments ago. We can avert these calamities and redeem this institution if we can put aside the name-calling for a few days and get down to business.

The good news is we have a process of government that has evolved over centuries that is very good at resolving differences of opinion between the two Houses of Congress and within the two Houses of Congress. In this case, there shouldn't even be much to resolve. All of us want to see the government stay open. All of us want to see the government's credit preserved. All of us want to see Americans protected from losing health plans that they want to keep or from being socked with crushing premium increases or from losing their jobs or from having their hours cut back.

If we're all agreed on these objectives, isn't the appropriate course self-evident? Senator Manchin seems to have laid it out very clearly the other day: a temporary continuing resolution to keep the government open, a temporary increase in the debt limit while we complete the normal appropriations process, and a temporary delay in ObamaCare until the unintended consequences of its mandates can be corrected.

Is that so unreasonable?

After all, this administration has already exempted big corporations and more than 1,000 politically connected groups from ObamaCare mandates. More revealingly, the administration has protected Members of Congress from its crushing costs. That ought to be the ultimate wake-up call. If Members of Congress can't afford to meet ObamaCare's costs, how do we expect the average American to do so? Why not give everybody the same relief by delaying these mandates until the law can be replaced with provisions that actually fulfill the promises made to the American people when it was enacted.

I don't like continuing resolutions at all. The Congress has a responsibility to superintend the Nation's finances, and it's developed an appropriations process that requires painstaking review of every expenditure of this government. That review involves countless hours of committee work, scores of hours of floor debate, and hundreds of individual amendments. Continuing resolutions cast aside this work and abandon Congress' responsibility over the Nation's finances. They shift enormous authority to the executive branch that the Founders never intended. I had hoped to be done with continuing resolutions.

Those who enacted ObamaCare no doubt hoped it would lower health care costs and help the economy. Sadly, events in this imperfect world can often disappoint and transfigure our fondest hopes. We've not completed the appropriations process. We need additional time to do so, and we need to correct the damage being done to existing health plan holders and employees of ObamaCare. If we could all agree on these objectives, then our course should be clear to all of us. We should fund the government long enough to complete the normal appropriations process, and we should delay

ObamaCare long enough to preserve the jobs, working hours, and existing health care policies of the millions of Americans who are now losing them.

So let's cool the rhetoric and do what this institution is designed to do: come together in support of the objectives upon which we all agree for the good of the Nation and the people who have entrusted us with its care.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, the minority whip is dead wrong. This measure protects the full faith and credit of the United States by assuring that our sovereign debt will be paid in full and on time.

It is imperative that our creditors know that whatever battles rage in Congress their loans to this government are absolutely secure. Our ability to pay all of our bills depends on our credit, and this resolution guarantees it. It also addresses two crucial fiscal concerns.

I am getting frantic and heartbreaking calls from folks who have just received staggering increases in their health premiums, who have been notified their health plans are being dropped, or who are having their work hours cut back as a result of ObamaCare. This stops that train wreck.

Second, it's for limited duration. CRs abandon our fundamental responsibility to superintend the Nation's finances. They should only be used as stopgap measures, and this bill does that. This resolution keeps the government open while meeting these vital tests.

I thank the gentleman so much for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, listening to the debate on the other side, I think there's a misunderstanding on the nutrition bill. It doesn't cut people off from food stamps. What it does is simply ask that they either work, look for work, or train for work while they're receiving these benefits.

This is $80 billion a year. That's about $760 from the taxes of every average family in America. I think that they have a right as a condition of extending that aid to ask that those on it do everything they can to get off of it.

I am here today to rise particularly in strong support of H.R. 1526 that this rule also brings to the floor, the Healthy Forest Restoration Act.

I represent the communities of the Sierra Nevadas that have just been devastated by the Yosemite Rim fire that has incinerated some 400 square miles of forestland.

Federal environmental regulations have forced an 80 percent drop in timber harvests in this region over the past 30 years, despite urgent warnings from foresters that the excess timber would either be carried out or burned out. As the timber harvests have declined, the acreage burned has increased contemporaneously and proportionately. The great irony, of course, is that there is nothing more environmentally devastating to a forest than a forest fire.

In addition to reporting out H.R. 1526 that restores sound forest management practices in the future that will reduce or prevent such catastrophes in the future, the rule makes in order emergency amendments to deal with the aftermath of this fire.

An estimated 1 billion board feet of dead timber can be salvaged out of the forest if, and only if, we act soon. Within a year, the timber will become unsalvageable.

This measure sets aside the litigation that routinely delays these salvage sales until the timer simple becomes worthless. This will mean a surge of employment in the mountain communities that have been devastated by this fire and a new stream of revenue for the Federal Government that would otherwise be lost.

I want to thank the Rules Committee for acting on this imperative, and I look forward to the debate and passage of the underlying legislation.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the communities of the Sierra Nevada, I want to thank Chairman Hastings for this long overdue legislation. If anyone doubts the necessity of this bill, let them come to my district where the Yosemite Rim fire has just incinerated 400 square miles of our precious forests.

For years, foresters have been screaming this warning at us, that the excess timber is going to come out of the forest one way or another. It will either be carried out or it will be burned out, but it will come out. In the days when we carried it out, we had healthier forests and a thriving economy.

But Federal regulations have driven our timber harvests down 80 percent nationally--more like 90 percent in the Sierras--and now the timber that we once carried out is being burned out, and there's nothing subtle about the numbers. As the board feet harvested out of these forests has declined, the acreage incinerated by forest fires has increased proportionately and contemporaneously. The human cost has been devastating: dozens of mills closed, thousands of families out of work, local tax bases eviscerated.

Some of the mountain communities in my district now suffer Detroit- levels of unemployment, and the environmental cost has been just as devastating: overcrowded forests, overdrawn watersheds, and now catastrophic fires. There is nothing more environmentally devastating to a forest than a forest fire.

This measure restores the sound forest management practices that we foolishly abandoned to the detriment of our environment and our economy. This bill marks, at long last, a return to common sense for the management of our national forests.

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

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

An estimated 1 billion board feet of fire-killed timber can still be salvaged out of the forests devastated by the Yosemite Rim fire, but it requires immediate action. As time passes, the value of this dead timber declines until after a year or so, when it becomes unsalvageable.

It has been the practice of radical environmental groups to file lawsuits against such projects, with the objective of delaying salvage until the timber is worthless. This amendment waives judicial review of the salvage plans for the 2013 fires. This is exactly the same approach taken in legislation offered by Tom Daschle a few years ago to allow salvage of beetle-killed timber in the Black Hills National Forest.

Salvaging this timber would throw an economic lifeline to communities already devastated by this fire, as local mills can be brought to full employment for the first time in many years. It would provide a new stream of revenue for the Federal Government as this salvageable timber is auctioned.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), my neighbor to the north.

Mr. LaMALFA Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, Mr. McClintock, for bringing this measure forward.

The crazy thing about this is each year you have devastating wildfires in California, the West, and other areas of the country. We act like we're reinventing the wheel each time when we need to go out and do the basic salvage work.

You have a narrow window of time that you can get value out of it before the trees there that have value can be salvaged and turned into something useful. You could have participatory people in the industry helping bring that value up. If you lose that window of time, then you have higher costs maybe as areas don't get recovered because nobody can make a living out of this.

So this is a commonsense measure. It's really a no-brainer. It ought to be used to move forward for this 2013 season but to also establish a template long term so that we can have a sensible forest management policy and get in and do these strike teams. Let's get a template so we don't have to reinvent the wheel each time there's a fire, but instead move quickly, get the industry to do it, and have our forests start their restoration and recovery project as soon as possible with that value.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham), my neighbor to the south, also a coauthor of the measure.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I can't put it any plainer than this: without this amendment, 1 billion board feet of timber owned by the people of the United States will be lost forever. We do not have time for endless years of litigation.

Within a year, this timber which can now be salvaged for productive use and can provide jobs for the people of our region and provide a stream of revenues for our ailing U.S. Treasury will be rendered utterly worthless. This is precisely the same approach that was used when Democrat Tom Daschle faced the same problem in his district over beetle-killed timber. We are applying exactly the same policy to salvage this timber.

I would hope that the gentleman from Oregon, in the spirit of bipartisanship, will recognize that the same remedy used in a Democratic region ought now to be used for this district in California.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment guarantees that the public has the full opportunity to comment before a forest road is closed or destroyed.

These roads are vital to tourism, and tourism is vital to the economy of these communities. Yet the U.S. Forest Service has become very aggressive in recent years in shutting down these roads, restricting public access to the public lands, and replacing Gifford Pinchot's inclusionary vision for the Forest Service, which he once described as serving ``the greatest good for the greatest number in the long run,'' into an exclusionary vision that can best be described as: look, but don't touch.

The Forest Service has now bypassed Congress and has adopted a rule that effectively allows it to close any road that it deems to be unnecessary or undesirable without environmental review or public consultation or comment. My amendment simply reasserts Congress' authority to protect public access to the public lands and requires that road or trail closures follow the established process of public notification and input.

Under this provision, the Forest Service can still decommission trails or roads that it considers obsolete, but only after ``adequate and appropriate public involvement.'' That's it. Before you decommission or destroy an existing road or trail, you have to ask the public. It codifies one of Pinchot's maxims for what he called ``the behavior of foresters in public office.'' He said: It is more trouble to consult the public than to ignore them, but that is what you are hired for.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could assist the gentleman in his confusion by simply reading the amendment, which is simple, straightforward, and clear:

The Forest Service shall not remove or otherwise eliminate

or obliterate any legally created road or trail unless there

has been a specific decision, which included adequate and

appropriate public involvement, to decommission the specific

road or trail in question. The fact that any road or trail is

not a Forest System road or trail, or does not appear on a

Motor Vehicle Use Map, shall not constitute a decision.

That is it. That is the alpha and omega of this amendment in its entirety. If you're going to close a public road to the public, you need to ask them first.

I cannot emphasize enough how important this is to the mountain communities of the Sierra Nevada that depend on mountain tourism for their economies. Tourists don't go where they're not welcomed. Tourists don't visit where they can't get to. The public's use of mountain trails and roads is absolutely central to mountain tourism, and removing or closing these trails or roads is not something that should be done behind closed doors by administrative fiat.

I ask for your ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I was deeply saddened to see the President begin the sixth year of our Nation's economic malaise by renewing his partisan name-calling and finger-pointing on Monday.

Fortunately, we have a model for bipartisan economic cooperation. In 1995, when President Clinton realized that his policies weren't working, he reached across the aisle to work with the Republican House; and despite their political differences, they did some amazing things:

They reduced Federal spending by a miraculous 40 percent of GDP;

They produced the largest capital gains tax cut in American history;

They reformed entitlement spending by abolishing the open-ended welfare system we had at the time;

They delivered 4 years of budget surpluses.

These bipartisan policies produced a period of prolonged economic expansion and unprecedented prosperity for America's middle and working classes.

Republicans have been eager to repeat these successful bipartisan policies of the Clinton years. Why isn't the President?

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the courageous acts of Sergeant Major Jon R. Cavaiani. Sergeant Major Cavaiani earned his Medal of Honor during the war in Vietnam.

On the morning of June 4, 1971, Sergeant Major Cavaiani's camp came under intense enemy fire. Repeatedly exposing himself to that enemy fire in order to move about the perimeter, Cavaiani was able to direct the platoon's fire in a desperate fight for survival. When the platoon was called to be evacuated, Sergeant Major Cavaiani volunteered to remain on the ground and to direct the evacuation. The following morning, the enemy attack continued. Unable to slow down the assault, Sergeant Major Cavaiani ordered his platoon to escape while he stayed behind to provide cover fire, thus protecting the men of his platoon.

On behalf of a grateful Nation and a respectful and loving community, I'm proud to salute the heroism and recount the actions of Sergeant Major Jon R. Cavaiani of Columbia, California.

Mr. Speaker, amidst the international humiliation and farce that we've suffered with our abortive war with Syria, there are two good things the President has done, and they need to be noted. Last night, he stepped back from an international crisis that could have had catastrophic consequences by deferring to the Russian diplomatic initiative. Thank God. And last week, he stepped back from a constitutional crisis by deferring to Congress the decision over whether to go to war--as the Constitution requires.

I've been deeply troubled by suggestions from many otherwise responsible officials and commentators--from both parties--that the President has independent authority as Commander in Chief to order an attack on other countries when he deems it necessary. This cuts right to the core of our Constitution's design, and it evinces an alarming deterioration of the popular understanding of the separation of powers that keeps us free. There is nothing more clear in the American Constitution than that Congress has the sole authority to decide the question of war or peace. Only after Congress has made that decision does the President, as Commander in Chief, have the authority to execute that decision.

For centuries, European monarchs had plunged their nations into bloody and debilitating wars on whim, and the Constitution's Framers wanted to protect the American Republic from that fate. They understood that a President, for example, might someday paint himself into a rhetorical corner and feel compelled to save face by exercising force. That is precisely why they entrusted that fateful decision to the Congress.

James Madison, the Father of the American Constitution, said that its single most important feature was the provision that gave the Congress, and not the President, the authority to go to war.

Here's what he wrote in 1793:

In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found

than in the clause which confides the question of war or

peace to the legislature, and not to the executive

department. The trust and the temptation would be too great

for any one man.

War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement.

In war, a physical force is to be created and it is the

executive will which is to direct it. In war, the public

treasures are to be unlocked, and it is the executive hand

which is to dispense them. Those who are to conduct a war

cannot, in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges of

whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded.

In Federalist 69, Alexander Hamilton wrote that one of the most important differences between the British King and the American President is that the King can plunge his nation into war on his command, but that the American President has no such authority.

The Constitutional Convention gave careful consideration to the clause that provides that ``Congress shall declare war.'' They chose that word carefully to make sure that the only independent war-making power of the President is to repel an attack.

The War Powers Act makes this explicit, that absent congressional authority the President can only order our Armed Forces into hostility in response to ``a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its Armed Forces, or its territories or possessions.'' Anything else requires prior congressional action.

The United Nations Participation Act, by which we entered the U.N., requires Congress to act before American forces are ordered into hostilities in U.N. actions. The War Powers Act specifically forbids inferring from any treaty the power to order American forces into hostilities without specific congressional authorization.

Now, some have used the past violation of this constitutional stricture--for example, in Kosova or most recently in Libya--as justification for its

violation now. That is precisely the point. If any violation of this fundamental constitutional provision can be used as justification for its outright nullification, well then any such violation must be vigorously resisted lest we lose for all time the most important check on the most momentous decision that a government can make: to go to war.

War is destruction on a massive scale. To unlawfully initiate such a thing is the highest crime that a public official could possibly commit. Indeed, if the power of impeachment were not intended for such an act as that, I cannot imagine what it would be for. The President was absolutely right not to cross that line.