tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN June 19, 2012 1:00pm-5:00pm EDT
of the relevant protection laws and, again, for what -- for what purpose? we had a discussion in the rules committee yesterday and i had an opportunity -- i want to thank my colleague from utah -- it's very clear in statute that any wilderness, any land under federal protection that they are in hot pursuit of a suspect, they are allowed to continue that pursuit onto wilderness. wilderness areas are not a sanctuary where criminals can go and not be pursued, that has nothing to do for the purpose of wilderness and not to do with the reality of wilderness. much my district in colorado has wilderness areas. if there were these lawless areas, all the criminals would live in the wilderness and they would simply come out to commit crimes and go back in. it's simply not the case. law enforcement officials assure me that whenever they're engaged in hot pursuit they're able to, of course, continue to pursue immigrants into -- immigrants or other criminals,
criminal aliens, etc., into wilderness territories. now, this is a problem, the immigration issue, that cannot simply be enforced away. when we're talking about immigrants without papers, they're in our cities and towns, they're in our schools, the grandmother of the american grandkids, they are residents of our community, i people -- i meet with them on a regular basis. we help immigrants get on with their lives, contribute to our economy, make it stronger. yes, there's a problem here and thankfully -- i ask for an additional minute. ms. slaughter: i'd be glad to yield you an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. polis: president obama reduced the number of illegal immigrants in this country by 800,000 to one million with one stroke of his pen. but frankly the president said any illegal immigrants in this country is -- presence of any illegal immigrants in this country is an affront to our national law. we owe it to the american people to take up real immigration reform to make sure there aren't 10 million people here
illegally, that there are zero people here illegally. president obama took the bold step of ensuring that young americans have the commission to work. our undocumented population is not fleeing into the wilderness and problem with immigration is that we're not able to pursue them. it's not the facts on the ground. let's deal with the real issue and replace our broken immigration system with one that works and makes our country stronger. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, if we defeat the previous question, i'm going to offer an amendment to the rule. it will allow the house to consider the united states cost to worker and consumer protection act. they've been outsourced more than any other type of job from the united states. this bill will help keep call center jobs in america and to discuss his call center proposal, i'm pleased to yield
five minutes to my colleague from new york, mr. bishop. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. bishop: thank you, madam speaker, and i thank the gentlelady for yielding. the u.s. call center worker and consumer protection act, h.r. 3596, is a bipartisan bill, it has 128 democratic sponsors, it has seven republican sponsors and the bill is very straightforward. it would do four things. it would require companies that plan to move call centers overseas to notify the secretary of labor no less than 120 days before the relocation occurs. if a company does move a call center overseas, that company would be ineligible for a federal grant, contracts or loans during the time that the call center workers are overseas. it would require the secretary of labor to maintain a publicly available list of all employers that relocate a call center overseas and it would allow customer service -- customers who are calling customer service communicators at the beginning of the call to request that the call be transferred to a
u.s.-based call center if they so chose. there's two dimensions to this bill. one is about jobs and the other is about the security of consumer data. they're both very important but let me start with the more important which is jobs. we talk a great deal in this congress about how the number one priority has to be the creation of jobs. it does. and we have to move beyond the lip service that i think the republican majority has given to the creation of jobs and actually put policies in place that will create jobs. but we also have to protect the jobs that we have. and one of the surges of our economy right now is the -- scourges of our economy right now is the outsourcing of jobs. just in call centers alone, in the last five years we have lost over 500,000 call center jobs. these are good, solid, middle class jobs. to add insult to injury, the companies that are offshoring the jobs have taken millions of dollars of incentives from local taxpayers to open call centers
in the u.s., only to offshore those jobs a short time later and leave local communities devastated and still paying the bill. and the u.s. consumers are getting it. u.s. consumers have become more and more skeptical of the toll that outsourcing plays on the american economy. a paper by the council on foreign relations noted that over 2/3 of americans think companies sending jobs overseas is a major reason why the economy is ailing. in a paper done by a harvard economist, more recent polling data suggests that these ceilings have increased where over half of all americans are resentful of businesses that send jobs overseas and over 80% have concern for their family's future due to outsourcing. so this job creation and job protection dimension of the bill that i have filed, as i say, with bipartisan support, would address these issues at least in one piece of our economy and that is call centers. let me move to the issue of the protection and security of
consumer data. outsourcing call center work exposes the confidential and vulnerable personal information of american consumers to foreign workers. foreign call centers are not subject to the same rigorous oversight as american call centers. as american companies look to less developed countries for offshoring their jobs, call center companies are actually subsourcing call center work without their american customers' knowledge. it's expensive and difficult to conduct proper background checks on foreign call center workers and up to 1 fourts of all -- 1/4 of all applicants provide false or incorrect information. foreign call center workers have been caught offering to sell personal consumer data to undercover journalists, threatening to release americans' medical records and employment disputes, misleading american bank customers in scheming to bolster sales and attempting to sell trade secrets to their employers' competitors.
a march 18, 2012, article cited that undercover journalists were offered data such as credit card numbers, medical records and loan data for hundreds of clients for just pennies. so clearly from both dimensions here, from a job protection dimension and from a consumer data security dimension this bill addresses both of these issues and we simply must put in place these kinds of protections. states have already done this. state legislators in florida -- legislatures in florida and new jersey have passed bills that are very similar to the bill that we have before us. this is a commonsense proposal that enjoys bipartisan support. let's vote no on the previous question so that we may consider this job-saving bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you. i appreciate the efforts of my namesake from new york. i appreciate what he is doing. chairman hastings of the resource committee was extremely specific in which he said that after the democrat senate had sent over that atrocious omnibus
bill with over 100 bills cobbled together, 75 of which had never had a hearing over here, we would only put together this type of legislation if it had gone through regular order. unfortunately the gentleman's bill has not had a hearing, it's not been out of -- in any committee, it's not been reported yet. which is one of the reasons it has not been included in this particular list. although i'm not denigrating his efforts whatsoever. i'd like to yield a minute and half to the gentleman from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. bilbray: i introduced a bill to do the wilderness area along the border. originally those on the other side of the aisle in the clinton administration opposed the inclusion of roads in that wilderness area and they opposed it strongly, until the secretary of the interior came down to the border and saw the habitat destruction being caused by a lack of proper enforcement. this situation that's being proposed now is actually to try to get this issue drealsed appropriately because you have individuals who are using
environmental issues as a way of blocking the enforcement of law along the border. and let me say this to both sides of the aisle. if you really do care about the habitat destruction along the border, if you really do care about the preservation of the wildlife opportunities down there, will you ask yourself, why are you or the republican side not addressing the issue that the federal government today has not taken care of the problem at the border because it hasn't taken care of the real source of the problem of the out of control border and that's the employers who are hiring illegals. i challenge you, why does the federal government allow businesses to deduct the price of hiring illegals, why isn't every democrat and republican on the new idea bill, cut off the tax deduction and the ability for people to profit from the tax code by profiting from illegal immigration? your impact on the border will be addressed more by changing your enforcement at the work players and your tax code -- place -- workplace and the tax code. so i ask you, if you care about the environment, if you care
about eliminating the scourge of illegal immigration and all the problems, why aren't you stopping the subsidy of those who are creating the problem by employeing them? i yield back -- employing them? i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: thank you, madam speaker. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, rob andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: i thank my friends and it's so good to see her energy and enthusiasm back on this floor with us today. we welcome her. 286 days ago the president of the united states came to this chamber and addressed the number one problem that i hear about from my constituents, which is jobs for the american people. now, i know that this bill raises very serious and important issues and i applaud its authors and sponsors for bringing it to the house floor. but i think it's the wrong bill on the wrong day. the president said that we should cut taxes for small
businesses if they hire people. but we haven't take an vote on that proposal, we're not going to take one today -- taken a vote on that proposal and we're not going to take one today. the president said we should put construction workers back to work, building bridges and roads in our infrastructure, but we're not voting on that proposal today. the president said that firefighters and police officers and teachers who have been taken off the job should be put back on the job. so they can spend money in the stores and the restaurants. but we're not voting on that proposal today. we haven't voted on it on any of the 286 days since the president proposed it. instead we have the proposal in front of us that again is very serious, raises a lot of issues, but i suspect if most of us went back to our districts today and said, what would you rather have us do, vote on three simple, clear ideas, up or down, on whether to create jobs for the
american people or vote on this? i think they'd want us voting on the jobs bill. now, we have a version of that jobs bill that we have a chance to get on the floor and that is mr. bishop's proposal that says the following. if you do business in the united states of america, if you sell your products to the american consumer, then your call center ought to be in the united states of america. how many of our constituents, madam speaker, are tired of placing a call to a call center, you don't know where it is, the person at the other end of the phone doesn't know what you're saying and doesn't understand what you're asking about? should we be using american tax dollars to reward companies that outsource call center jobs? i think the answer is no. this would be one simple and clear idea that we ought to put on this floor so the members have a chance by voting no on the previous question to say, let's take a vote on the proposition that you can't use american taxpayers' dollars to
outsource american jobs in call nters. then maybe someday, after 286 days, we'll finally.net around to the president's idea -- finally get around to the president's ideas to create jobs in small businesses in this country. vote no on the previous question, no on the rule. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: reserve. reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i am pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. green. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. green: thank you, madam speaker. and i thank my colleague, ranking member on the rules committee, for allowing me to speak. i'm a strong supporter of the -- and original co-sponsor of the original call center worker and protection act. this would help us protect u.s. consumers and level the playing field for american workers who have seen thousands of call center jobs needlessly sent offshore in recent years. namely this bill would require call centers to notify the secretary of labor at least 120
days before relocating outside the united states. it would require the department of labor to publicly list the firms that have moved call center jobs overseas, then make those very firms ineligible for any direct or indirect fral federal loans for five years. to -- federal loans for five years. this would require call center employees to notify u.s. consumers where they are located and -- and will require that call center to transfer calls to an american call center if requested. the u.s. call center worker protection act is supported on both sides of the aisle and i ask all my colleagues in the chamber to stand with american consumers, particularly, but also of these american jobs and support this legislation and again, support the effort to make sure we can have a vote on the house floor for that and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. bishop: i appreciate many of the comments that have been made
here. in the memo of understanding, which controls what the border patrol does, border patrol is able to go area they want to on foot or horse back. they may go on a motorized vehicle on existing public road but there is nothing in the memo that extends to prevent them unless it is an existing exidgent emergency. and the problem that the border patrol actually has is no one really knows how to define that emergency. mr. polis: will the gentleman yield? mr. bishop: no, please. that's one of the reasons why they want to have something specific in the memo of understanding, the statute does not help them in those particular areas because land managers handle those circumstances differently. maybe if i have time at the end. i would like to say one other thing as well. there are some places in this nation in which the idea of section 14 in this bill, which is the bill that deals with border security, has been expanded with information that
is simply inaccurate. montana, for example, has a 545-mile border with canada. it has different issues than the southern border, but it's not -- but it's remote and who can cross that border illegally is significant. the junior senator from montana asked the g.a.o. to come up with a study on border security in the north and the report was, only 1% of the northern border is secure. that was his study that he want -- that was his study. despite the fact that there have been warnings of al qaeda plots in montana, that the chief of montana has begged some kind of action, indeed this month the border patrol has sent out a warning of the use of terrorists who are talking about chatter of using wildfires as an area to distract so they can come in and in one of the states they specifically mentioned was montana. even though that is taking place, there is a campaign going on where this particular issue,
border security, has been hijacked in the name of politics. and i find it somewhat unusual. it is an toferte say this effort to try to control our borders is related some way to the patriot act or deals with some other element of expansion of power. some people have gone saying it's a land grant. it is unusual to me that this concept of border security was presented in the senate on appropriations bill and was cast by a voice vote. then the bill which this amendment was placed was passed by the senate and the junior senator from montana, voted to it and now claims that the same idea is an expansion of government power. something does not work.
what i found somewhat kiss stressing in this campaign in montana -- i yield myself another minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: hundreds of anglers who are a partisan hick group that are taking out ads directly against this particular provision and saying that other members in the delegation from montana are supporting something that is wrong. unfortunately, the members of that hick group had ties to democrat organizations. the secretary part of the obama committee in the state of montana, the treasurer, this group, the montana hunters and anglers, are a foe group. the real people are the montana growers organization, montana stock growers association. these are real groups and all support this particular provision. they realize the border security that takes place.
they realize what secretary napolitano said, if you support border security in the area, by removing violators from public land, those are the people that destroy things, the land value is enhanced. it is better for the environment as well as the mission of the border patrol if border patrol has enhanced ability to control those particular borders. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. and the gentleman is advised he has 1 1/2 minutes remaining and the gentlelady from new york has 6 1/2 minutes remaining and the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: thank you, madam speaker. i'm delighted to yield to a mevet rules committee, mr. polis -- yield to a member of the rules committee, mr. polis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: i want to quote the m.o.u. nothing in this m.o.u. is preventing agents to use exigent authorities to access land including motorized off-road pursuit of suspected
people at some time. it calls wilderness and all areas. the committee had a hearing on this very topic. there was three instances cited by chairman bishop on this and it was determined that those were incorrect interpretations of the existing m.o.u. by local managers and would be addressed through the structure. so again a solution in search of a problem. we all want to address the problem of illegal immigration in this country. that problem cannot be characterized as illegal immigrants fleeing in the wilderness. it simply isn't the problem. if there are suspects of any type of criminal nature fleeing in the wilderness and there are law enforcement in hot pursuit they continue. they continue and they don't stop. if they stop they're going for in trouble with their superiors and we will work it out through the command chain. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: reserves. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: may inquine if my colleagues that any -- inquire if my colleague has any
further speakers? mr. bishop: i'm ready to close. i'm prepared to close. ms. slaughter: thank you very much. i'd be happy to do that, madam speaker. in closing, we have wasted yet another opportunity to pass through bipartisan legislation here. everybody knows this bill is not going to be taken up in the senate so it's some kind of procedure by the house of representatives. but by combining worthwhile proposals with extreme and partisan proposals, they've continued to move forward with an ineffective and unnecessary partisan agenda. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: and, madam speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question and i urge a no vote on the rule and yield
back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: in my last minute, madam speaker, a couple things i'd like to say. first off, i appreciate the words that are read. reality is different. one of the reasons why this particular provision is supported by the border patrol union as well as the association of retired border patrol agents, reality is sometimes different than what we think it should be. and i also have the list of three pages worth of groups who support, not only this provision, but the other 13 provisions. i must in closing, though, give the apology of the gentlelady from new york one thing. one of the former parliamentarians wrote a book and said when we put c-span cameras in here, debate became extremely dull. that is true. when you read something you don't make a misstatement. i did. i made a couple.
it does not reduce it from 26 to 1. it goes to 16. i used the word disingenuine. that's the wrong word. i apologize for saying that. that goes over the line of comity and i'm sorry. i want to say that i apologize for oopsing that should be done by governors and not by members of congress. madam speaker, in conclusion, each of these bills in here have been heard by the committee of jurisdiction. it's had a hearing. it's had a markup. the difference between this and other bills we have seen in the past is that everything had to go through regular order first. nothing was included in this rule that had not begun through regular order through this particular committee. it's a good bill. it's a good rule. it's a fair rule and i urge its adoption and i urge its adoption and with that i yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on
the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: all time having expired and the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for the electronic vote on the question of adoption. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
members will please take their seats. the chair lays before the house a commouncation. -- communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir, i have the honor to transmit here with a stamped copy of a letter received from ms. amy b. chan, state election director, office of the secretary of state, state of arizona, indicating that according to the unofficial return of the special election held june 12, 2012, the honorable ron barber was elected representative to congress for the eighth congressional district, state of arizona. with best wishes, i am signed sincerely, karen l. haas, clerk of the house. the speaker: the house will be in order.
members will please take their seats. the gentleman from connecticut. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from arizona, the honorable ron barber, be permitted to take the oath of office today. the certificate of election has not arrived but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to his election. the speaker: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from arizona. will representative-elect barber and members of the arizona delegation present themselves in the well of the house. and will members please rise.
and will representative-elect barber please raise his right hand. do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that you will bear truth faith and allegiance to the same and that you take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that you will well and faithfully discard the duties of the office on which you are about to enter, so help you god? mr. barber: i will. the speaker: congratulations. you are now a member of the 112th congress.
without objection, the gentleman from arizona, mr. pastor, is recognized for one minute. mr. pastor: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection. mr. pastor: mr. speaker, the world sometimes leads us down strange and troubling paths. and the fact that we are gathered today swearing in a new member of congress into the most deliberative body in the world is a tribute to our former colleague, gabby giffords. a tribute to the people of arizona. a tribute to our strong and fruitful democracy that has continually endured high,ard
and challenging times. and a tribute to our new colleague, ron barber. so it is with great pride and renewed zeal for the strength of the american people and our system of governing that i introduce our newest colleague, congressman ron barber. i have gotten to know ron over the last months and there is no one that will work harder to make sure that the people of the eighth district are treated fairly, with dignity and with honor. ron and his wife, nancy, have dedicated their lives to southern arizona.
they run a business -- they have run a business for more than 30 some-odd years. a business that helped young parents provide for their own children. they raised their two daughters, jenny and krisy, right at home in tucson. they're watching their four grandchildren in tucson. but ron also wanted to do more for his community, so he spent 30 years with the arizona division of developmental disabilities where he worked countless hours, helping people with disability get out of government-run institutions and back into their community, fully employed, contributing to their society and living with their families. his service has been expanded beyond those assisting gabby
giffords' her constituents, experiencing personal problems with the federal government. and now these same people are ron's constituents. welcome to the house, ron barber. mr. speaker, i'd like to yield some time to my distinguished colleague. the speaker: the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. flake: on behalf of the arizona delegation, welcome you, ron barber. nobody would have wished for the circumstances that made this seat vacant. we all miss our colleague, gabby giffords, but it was her wish that you fill this seat for the remainder of her term and she got her wish as it was the wish of so many arizonans. those of us who have worked with your office, with the staff during this trying time have been very impressed with your commitment to the state of arizona and that commitment
will now continue as a member of congress. we welcome you here. thank you. mr. pastor: mr. speaker, it's now with great pride i yield one minute to our distinguished new member, ron barber, congressman ron barber. the speaker: the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. barber: thank you, mr. speaker. first of all, i'd like to thank the arizona delegation for that warm welcome and all of you for that amazing welcome on my first day here. i also want to thank speaker boehner for his long and dedicated service to our country and for swearing me in today. and to my family in the gallery and my grandchildren here on
the floor -- thank you, all of you, my family, for your support and love without which i would not be here today. i have the most amazing family. i think everybody would say that but i'm very blessed to have them in my life, especially over this past year and a half, and to my high school sweetheart and wife nancy, i love you dealer and look forward to celebrating our 44th wedding anniversary tomorrow.
mr. speaker, i stand here on the floor of the house in the very spot where five months ago my friend and my predecessor, congresswoman gabrielle giffords, bravely delivered her resignation from congress. i want to thank the congresswoman for her vision and leadership and the inspiration she continues to give to our country. gabby, southern arizona misses you dealer and we cannot wait to have you home. -- dearly and we cannot wait to have you home. today as i begin my service in this, the people's house, i'm mindful that the stakes for our nation are very high. they are too high not to set aside political division in favor of seeking common ground.
too high to use our words as weapons. too high to think of those with whom we disagree as villains. as an arizonan, i look to the example of congressman mo udall ass and senator barry goldwater -- udall and senator barry goldwater two, leaders in their respective party who disagreed much but did so without being disagreeable. and they came together many times to do what was right for their state and their country. i am going to approach my work for the people of southern arizona with an eye not toward partisan victory but towards american achievement. because we as a country have much to achieve, we must protect middle class families at a time when our middle class is slowly disappearing. we must honor our veterans and military families by ensuring that the more than 100,000
veterans i represent in southern arizona and every other american veteran and service member receives the services and benefits they have earned. we must ensure the dignity and health of every american senior in retirement. we must secure our border so the border residents are safe on their land and indeed the flow of drugs into our communities and the illegal drug money out of our country. and we must, we must create jobs with innovative energy technologies, improvements in our essential infrastructure and by supporting local small businesses to grow. i look forward to working across party lines to achieve these goals for the good of my constituents and for all americans. thank you, i yield back.
the speaker: you understand clause 5-d of rule 20, the chair announces to the house that in light of the administration of the oath of office of the gentleman from arizona, the whole number of the house is now 433. without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the ayes have it. the gentleman from florida. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, on that i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker: a recorded vote is requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote.
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 240, the nays are 175. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? west virginia? >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, pursuant to rule 22, clause 7-c, i hereby
announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on h.r. 4348. the form of the motion is as follows. mr. mckinley of west virginia moves that the managers on the part of the house at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on the senate amendment to h.r. 4348 be instructed to insist on the provisions contained in title 5 of the house bill. mr. mckinley: relating to coal combustion residuals. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's notice will appear in the record, it will indicate that you are from west virginia. my apologies. mr. mckinley: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill h.r. 2578. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous
consent to remove congressman rogers and congressmanberg from h.r. 32 -- congressman berg from h.r. 3238. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. pascrell: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 688 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 2578. the chair appoints the gentleman from new mexico, -- new hampshire, mr. bass, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 2578 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: segment of the lower merced river of california and purpose. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time of the the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, each
will control 45 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. the gentleman is right. the gentleman from washington may proceed. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: the conservation and economic growth act is aimed care squarely at cutting government red tape and bureaucracy to boost local economic development and job creation. this legislation contains 14 commonsense bills from the house natural resources committee, nearly all of which receive bipartisan support. by solving problems and reducing red tape, this legislation will have a real impact on the people they affect. among its many economic and job creation benefits, it will encourage tourism and recreation by ensuring public access to public lands. it will promote responsible use
of our resources. it will protect the environment. it will secure federal lands along our borders, and it promotes clean and renewable hydropower. month after month, mr. chairman, republicans in congress have been focused on encouraging and supporting new job creation. the house has passed over 30 job creation bills that sit in the senate where democrat leaders have refused to take any action. by reducing red tape, american made energy, and streamlining bureaucracy, we can start creating jobs for tens of millions of americans looking for work. the conservation and economic growth act fits into the same job creation mold. when it quoms to the e.p.a., the american public is well aware of the ability of this federal agency to slow our economy with debilitating regulations. when it comes to federal lands predominantly located in the
western part of the united states, there is plenty of bureaucracy and red tape to go around. in that regard there are four primary federal land management agencies. the bureau of land management, forest service, fish and wildlife service, and national park service. combined they manage over 600 million acres of federal land and have over 60,000 federal employees. many of these federal employees do important helpful work, but there are many times when their actions or more importantly or as importantly outdated federal laws have a tremendous negative impact on their surrounding communities. but these federal policies, restrictions, and the bureaucratic decision can harm local economies and the public's ability to access public lands and multiple use force which these public lands were intended. it doesn't have to take federal spending or taxpayer money to solve these problems. it simply takes congress making
commonsense changes in laws and regulations to restore reasonableness, transparency, accountability, and, yes, mr. chairman, sometimes saturday through the actions of the federal government. that is the purpose of this underlying legislation. it puts local and national problems caused by federal red tape and policies that are harming the public and our economy throughout america. we'll hear more specific information from the sponsors of these solutions during the debate this afternoon. mr. chairman, this legislation also reflects the promises of house republicans when they were elected as the new majority in 2010. the conservation and economic growth act is an efficient way to uphold republicans' commitment to abopen -- an open and transparent house. the text of the act has been online since last tuesday. and available for members and the public to read now for a week. each and every one of the 14 bills that are in this package has had a public hearing, has
been open to amendment in the committee, has been voted on in the committee, and amendments will be debated and voted on here today in the full house. now, mr. chairman, this stands in stark contrast to the previous way of doing business. when we had monster omnibus bills forced through the house without any chance of amendments. one can compare this small 14-bill package that has undergone full public and legislative review with the 2009 monster omnibus lands bill enacted into law when the democrats controlled both houses of congress. the 2009 omnibus bill was over 1,200 pages in length, it cost $10 billion, it contained over 170 bills, including 75 that had never been considered in the house. and yet through all of this process not one single amendment was allowed to be offered and even the minority, the republicans at that time, were
denied an opportunity with a motion to recommit. those days of the monster omnibus are over. no longer will controversial bills that hadn't seen the light of day will be hidden deep inside a 1,000-page bill. since the start of this congress we reviewed bills one by one in the natural resources committee. each has had a public subcommittee hearing. and once the committee acts, the full house can consider them in a transparent manner. this bill, the underlying legislation we are dealing with, lives up to this standard. it is an antidote to the abusive practices of the past. it is a bite size package that can be easily read and today getting thorough debate on the house floor. now the house can act to approve this bill to roll back red tape, to restore some common sense to solve problems and boost economic activity. this bill deserves bipartisan support and i urge my colleagues to vote for its passage.
with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves the time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. markey: mr. chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the house, i rise in opposition to h.r. 2578. now some of you may recall the old rod serlingtv show "the twilight zone" at the beginning of each episode he would explain that viewers were about to enter another dimension. a dimension not only of sight and sound, but of mind. a journey into a wondrous land of imagination. next stop, the twilight zone. well, that is very much where we are this week on the house floor. we are truly entering another
dimension. a wondrous land of paranoid imagination. republicans call it the operational control zone. but it is really the drone zone. submitted for your consideration. the following facts. this week world leaders are gathering in rio to deal with the threat of global warming. meanwhile, the majority has us gathered here to address the threat sea lions pose to salmon. right now, firefighters are working day and night to try to contain wildfire in forests in colorado and new mexico. and the majority has us working here to give away old growth alaskan forest. we are just two weeks before the transportation authorization bill expires and student loan rates double. what are we doing? we are spending an entire day on
a piece of legislation that has zero chance of being enacted into law. it is a package of bad ideas that are largely irrelevant to the real issues facing our nation. part of this bill would flood part of a scenic river. title 3 of this earmark is to an alaskan native corporation that will facilitate clear-cutting of the tongass national forest. titles four and five appear to create more parks but include harmful provision that is would cripple the management of these parks. title 7 would authorize the death penalty for sea lions whose only crime is eating fish. title 10 would overturn the protections for endangered turtles from being run over by offroad vehicles. title 11 would extend the
practice of below cost grazing on public lands, a bargain basement discount for cattlemen all across this country not paying their fair share, actually being on a type of federal welfare, and unbelievably, title 14 would create a 100-mile drone zone along our northern and southern borders within which the border patrol could suspend 36 environmental laws and seize control of all public land management. let me spend a moment here talking about what i find to be the most offensive part of this legislation. title 14, this is the national map. and what the republicans do here today is they take a 100-mile area all along the northern
border of the united states and the southern border of the united states and they trade -- create a new area. and this new area is really a drone zone. and the reason it's a drone zone is that it allows for 36 health and safety and environmental laws to be overridden, and it would expand the area where the department of homeland security could use droughns for surveillance and allows the department of homeland security to shut down national parks at a moment's notice. so all of a sudden the department of homeland security can start using droughns in this area. now, when you add up all of the space that is now included, it is equal to the total area of california, massachusetts, new hampshire, and connecticut combined. which will now be in this new special area that has the
department of homeland security determining where droughns can be used. -- where drones can be used. as we know that won't be just for our environmental laws not being violated, they'll be over this whole area. if you take a look at this map, i understand why the gentleman from utah introduced this bill. utah is far away from the republican drone zone. not within 100 miles of the border of the mexican or canadian peoples. but what does it mean? nearly your entire state is in this drone zone. want to go to acadia national park? better check with the department of homeland security. and the republicans first. or minnesota, maybe you want to take a trip up to the boundary waters. better check with the department of hurt -- homeland security and the republicans first.
or olympia national park in washington state. better check with the department of homeland security or the republicans first. want clean air in the drone zone? better make sure the department of homeland security and the republicans haven't exempted the clean air act. want to drink some water after a long hike? better make sure the department of homeland security and the republicans haven't waived the state's drinking water act. make no mistake, this isn't a bill that addresses america's immigration issues. neither the department of homeland security or customs and border protection division support this bill. they don't want this authority. but the republicans are insisting on giving them this authority. 100 miles in. along the mexican and canadian border. the g.o.p.'s drone zone bill does not increase resources for border agents, but instead turns
over our natural resources to the department of homeland security. passing this bill does not increase the number of border patrol agents' boots on the ground, it just ignores the protections against trampling on sovereign and sacred ground like tribal and gravesites. it does not look for a path to citizenship that tells american families on vacation or vuss having a picnic that the department of homeland security can kick you off a path at any moment. under this bill, ranchers and their cattle can be herded away by border agents jeopardizing their entire ranching operation. families and visitors to public parks can have their trips canceled and the water, air, and the land will be left unprotected. instead of working to pass a dream act to help solve the immigration challenge, house
republicans instead want to create a nightmare scenario at our borders. that's why more than 50 hispanic and latino groups have joined with environmental organizations, tribal groups, and organizations representing sportsmen and hunters to oppose the republican drone zone bill. 50 hispanic and latino groups opposing this bill. we might be spending four hours here today on the house floor in a legislative twilight zone created by the majority, considering a bill that isn't grounded in reality, but as we do, let us not forget that there are millions of americans outside of this alternative reality who are trying to make ends meet, trying to keep their families together and safe, and hoping to maintain the environmental protections which make our country great. i urge a no vote on this bill.
i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm very pleased to yield three minutes to the prior sponsor of this legislation, mr. denham, from california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. denham: thank you. first let me thank the chairman for not only allowing all of these bills to come up but doing it in a very transparent fashion, allowing debate from both sides of the aisle and amendments from both sides of the aisle. . this truly has been a transparent debate, giving the american public a chance to see what we are doing here. but let me talk about this unimaginable place that some of the extremists like to talk about. the unimaginable place i'm talking about is california's central valley. where you have twice the national average of unemployment. where some areas of the district are 30% to 40% unemployment. that's truly un-american. when you have a solution where republicans and democrats can come together and yet you have
some extremists that are willing to ignore putting people back to work, it is an unimaginable place. but one that both parties should take note of. one that the president should not only take note of, but the president should actually come out and visit. now, the president likes to come to l.a. and san francisco quite frequently. he's been there over a dozen times of. but yet not once -- times. but yet not once when the republicans and democrats have invited him to come to the central valley and see the desk station, see the unimagineble place that this high unemployment leaves our community in. that's why you've got both republicans and democrats coming together in supporting this bill in a bipartisan fashion. when the wild an scenic river was designated, encroached nearly half a mile into an existing federal energy regulatory commission, operational boundary for the dam. aligning the merced wild and scenic boundary will allow ferc to consider m.i.d.'s proposal to raise the gates by just 10 feet.
we're talking about 70,000 acre feet of watt that are will create 840 jobs. now, it's not the five to six million acre feet that we need but it's a small step. but if the extremists can't even support this small step whether you have valley republicans and democrats coming together, the question is, what really is this unimaginable, un-american place that they talk about? we need thousands of jobs in the central valley. we need many more projects like this. we need the temperance flat, we need to raise in a fashion that republicans and democrats continue to agree on. while some say this is a set -- there this will set a precedent for undoing wild and scenic designations, this area being
it that. i am currently the ranking member of the water and power subcommittee and several of the projects owned and operated by reclamation are in this drone zone. there's concern about how the projects could be and of course the planning for the colorado river. the part of the colorado river basin system like reclamations yuma plant also in these drone zones. 1,000 miles of canal and related water delivery infrastructure that provide for a $5 billion economy, $5 billion, for the states of arizona and california, could be compromised as they are in these drone zones. the proposed legislation will also impede reclamation from meeting its mission, requirements and water delivery. obligations pursuant to the 1944 treaty between u.s. and mexico on the use of the colorado and the rio grande aye. title 14 also impacts the united states' ability to renegotiate with canada regarding the columbia river. in fact, several projects off the federal columbia river power system are all within washington state, montana, are all in this operating zone. water has no international boundary. this is a blatant attack on the environment, on the lives of
american citizens and on the health and safety that threatens their health and safety. we currently believe the compliance with laws and regulations is key to ensuring the rights of borderland landowners so rural communities are protected. ensuring the security of american borders is an important goal. this bill will not enhance our nation's border security and will do great harm to our borders and our environment. i urge my colleagues to vote against h.r. 2578 and i'd like to introduce into the record the list of the 54 organizations in opposition and i'd like for just a moment to read some of them. my colleague has already mentioned the la tinow organizations -- the chair: this will be covered in general leave. mrs. napolitano: thank you. alaska wilderness league, the american civil liberties union, border links, california coastal commission, center for biological diversity, citizens for a safe and secure border, citizens for border solution,
coastal states organization, co-chiefs democrats of america, defenders of wildlife, equality of life, human rights committee, lee valley samaritans. labor council for latin american advancement, league of conservation voters, national association of -- national bar association, in addition estuary research reserve organization, national parks conservation association, natural resources defense council. no more deaths, tucson, northern alaska environmental center, seven border communities coalition, and the list goes on, mr. chair. i'd like to submit it for the record and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady's request will be covered in general leave. the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. just to correct the record.
there is nothing in this bill that affects the bureau of reclamation or the hydrodams on the columbia river. in my district. i'm very pleased right now to yield three minutes to the gentleman from alaska who is the author of title 3 of this bill. the chair: the gentleman from alaska is recognized for three minutes. mr. hastings: three minutes and if he needs more i'll give him more. mr. young: i rise in strong support of h.r. 2578. i'm primarily interested in seeing alaska provisions. it's very important to understand something. the alaska national forest owns 17 million acres of the land. we're asking for 77 million acres of land be transferred to the sea alaska corporation that's already been cut. there's no old growth timber involved in this. it gets sea alaska away from sensitive areas and onto areas already zoned for timber management on a road system, exchange advance are near native villages, on an island where
unemployment is about 25%. this bill supports the forest service by making sea alaska timberlands more accessible to rural and mostly native community where unemployment is above the 25%. sea alaska lands base will then support a sustainable timber rotation. this bill affects approximately 77,000 acres and in a 17-million acre forest. it's already protected by designations so it cannot be harvest. sea alaska's contractors combine to make the largest profit sector employer in southeast alaska. providing over 360 jobs, including direct, indirect payrolls to almost 500 jobs. this bill also finalized the alaska native land claims' rights passed in 1971 and it is not entitled above what the 1971 native claim settlement, this congress passed, and limits to them. h.r. 2578 supports timber jobs while conserving environmentally sensitive lands and community
watersheds. failure to pass this bill will spell the end of the sea alaska timber program as early as 2012 and a loss of timber jobs in alaska that's decreased 90% since 1990. 90%. because of arkses -- actions of this congress when they passed the alaska national lands act and put most of the land offlimits. because the forest services are either unwilling or unable to offer adequate timber supplies, the remaining industry lies on sea alaska timber. the alaska forest association testified, a.f.a. strongly supports the passage of 2578 without delay. passage of this bill is critical to the future of our remaining industry. most importantly the bill finalizes land claim settlement for 20,000 alaska native jobs in southeast alaska. now, mr. speaker, i'd like to go to the bull dip awards. the bull dip awards, information put out on the legislation. we're talking about 77,000 acres that had already been cut, the
bull dip awards goes to the people that say there's transfer of over 50,000 miles of road. it may be 5,000 miles, or it may be 500 miles of road, but it's only roads that have been built on acreage that has already been harvested. the other area of the bull dip award is the fact is that the road will not be access to be public use. it will be used for public use. there is no restrictions. it's not any action that will be taken for anybody choosing these lands or moving on a these lands. all i'm asking today is give an action to this congress in 1971, the rights to the native people to land that's not old growth timber. i ask for two additional minutes. mr. hastings: one additional minute. mr. young: it's not old growth timber. this land has already been cut over but they want to use it in cultural projects. otherwise growing timber forever. not like the forest service, keeping old timber is not cut. this is the right thing to do and the idea that we radio have
people setting out propaganda, i know there's an outfit called red states saying this is going to cost the federal government money and it's a giveaway. it's strange that that same operation doesn't like federal government. i'm asking that this federal land which has already been harvested over be given to the alaska native people as they should have it and they're trying to stay away from the old growth timber. that's what they're trying to do if -- trying to do. the old growth timber is dying anyway. i sat on this floor and watched the alaska national lands act under george miller saying, don't worry, we'll have a timber industry. we've lost 15,000 jobs in southeast alaska, high-paying jobs, because of the so-called environmental movement. that does not make sense. that does not make sense for america. this is a renewable resources, should be utilized and managed
correctly. let's pass this legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i yield four minutes to the gentlelady from the state of kentucky. -- connecticut. the chair: the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized for four minutes. ms. delauro: i rise in opposition to this bill which would result in the national forest in alaska, our nation's largest and wildest national forest, being opened to additional logging. at 17 million acres, roughly the size of west virginia, the disease -- it is the crown jewel of our forest system. mr. young: will the gentlelady yield? ms. delauro: along with the -- i'd love to do that to the colleague but i can't. i need -- mr. young: 17 million acres was set aside already. ms. delauro: -- the gentleman ms. delauro: at 17 million acres, roughly the size of west virginia, the tongass is the crown jewel of our forest system, along the chew gas national forest in alaska, both of the world's most intact temperate rainforest, it provides critical habitat for wolves, grizzly bears, and other
wildlife. it is also a vital piece of the tourism industry in alaska. allowing visitors from around the world to take in a true environmental spectacle. i experienced it fairs hand when i got to travel throughout forest on an old navy mine sweep 10 years ago. it's hard to imagine why anyone would want to spoil this. but the forest will do exactly that. it removes 100,000 acres of some of the most used and visited lands in southeast alaska. from public ownership and gives them to the corporation who plans to clear-cut the vast majority of its land selections for timber. this is approximately 20,000 acres over the legal nimet under the alaska native claim settlement of 1971. with 290,000 acres of land and additional 560,000 acres of subsurface rights, it is already
the largest private landowner in southeast alaska. and after three decades of extensive and intensive logging, they have left a legacy of expansive clear cuts of the lands they already own. they will do the same to some of the most biologically and culturally valuable lands within the tongass. over the alaska for years the national forest has already lost 550,000 acres of old growth trees and marked by 5,000 miles of logging roads. this further threatens what is left of this national forest. it also endangers the economy of southeast' by privatizing lands and waters that are used by guys in commercial fishermen. industries that employ over 17,000 men and women, 20% of the alaskans in the region. the forest service currently manages threes lands for multiple uses and have announce add transition plan to ensure a sustainable future for the tongass.
we should not deliver this natural treasure and one of alaska's tourism draws over solely to one private corporation for timber rights. i urge my colleagues to protect the tongass for generations of americans to come and to vote against this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. the chair would remind members to address their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i am very pleased to yield three minutes to the author of title 14, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized for three minutes. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. chairman. the minority insists that it creates some sort -- we are creating some sort of drone zone in title 14. i understand the intent of that is to muddy the waters on what is otherwise a very clear issue. i tell you very much, like that phrase, i'm going to use it in the future, but it is also as cute as it is totally inaccurate. members should understand that this title specifically and
intentionally deals with federal lands on the north and southern border. it does not include private property. the use of that size, are as cute as they are accurate. the legislation does not expand the current reach of the border patrol. the border patrol already has enforcement authority out to 100 miles today. that's why the 100 miles figure is in there. the gentleman is also late in his authorization of droughns. the use of droughns is not authorized by this legislation. the legislation, the fact is the border patrol already uses droughns regardless of what the federal or the land designation happens to be. with passage of this title and this bill, the impact on drone use will be zero. whether you support droughns or are concerned with droughns -- drones or concerned with drones, this bill doesn't address it. once again it's cute as it is inaccurate. this legislation does not create -- increase or create new enforcement authority. does not limit constitutional
rights. the only source of this bill that's titled is to allow the border patrol to have on federal property the same rights they exercise on state and private property. these lands will still be managed and ministered by the department of interior and agriculture, but border security will no longer be a second to the whims of federal land managers. it becomes the priority. the idea of rounding up cattle by the border patrol is as cute as it is inaccurate, but i'm going to use it because it's cute. this bill specifically, specifically protects legal uses, including recreation, and specifically prohibits the border patrol from limiting public access. now, some people have said on the other side they object to this operational control of these areas by the border patrol. what does operational control mean? it's in the title. it is to prevent all unlawful entries into the united states, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband
through the international land borders with the united states. you are actually opposed to that? are you opposed to doing that? you are opposed to actually allowing our border patrol to make sure that is the purpose and that is what is happening? this bill is about giving the border patrol access to federal lands so they can do their federal responsibility instead of being prohibited from fulfilling their federal responsibility by certain federal regulation. that's wrong. it's cute, but it's also inaccurate. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i yield five minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. mr. holt: i thank the gentleman very much. this as we have heard is a package of bills dealing with land and it is as partisan as
can be. i wish that we were working in a bipartisan way we could have a real lands package that would go somewhere. we could have addressed the preservation of open space. this is important. all across the country. my colleague from utah and others, people in new jersey don't have a lot of federal lands. let me tell you, this is important for people in new jersey and every one of the other 49 states and in the territories of the united states. my constituents who live in the most densely populated state in the union have demonstrated again and again their support for open space preservation, for fighting sprawl, for providing for their kids, and their kids' kids with safe places to experience the outdoors.
this legislation does so many bad things, i hardly know where to begin. it's another attempt to remove most of the protections of environmental laws. and as you have heard from the ranking member, mr. markey, it establishes an intrusive domestic security enforcement zone, a drone zone, call it cute if you want, but as the ranking member said, if you're going to go to big ben or acadia or any of the other national parks that fall in this, you bert pay attention. -- better pay attention. it will do nothing to make us more secure. i could talk all day about the problems in this bill, but let me just focus on one. one reason that this bill is not
going anywhere legislatively ecause it is so extreme is the controversial provision it contains on the brazen effort to give away part of the tongass national forest. the tongass national forest is known as a crown jewel of the national forest system. encompassing 17 million acres in southeast alaska's pan hand handle, the last remaining intact temperate rainforest. it's the only remnant of the temperate rainforest that used to stretch from northern californiale to prince william sound. only half of the very large old growth tree stands that used to cover the tongass remained, and even the second growth lands is spectacular. the other side was talking about how, well, some of this is not first growth forest and therefore it's ok to give awayle to spoil. now, over a million people throughout the country, really throughout the world, visit the
congas national forest annually to -- tongass national forest annually to view the forest virtually unspoiled. the bill before us today transfers 100,000 acres of the best of the best lands in southeast alaska to the corporation including the fine salmon springs, the areas most visited, recreational sites and tourist sites as well as subsistance sites. this bill gives public land to a private company which some might call an earmark. well, whatever you call it, it's an unjustified give away. and since we are speaking of lands, i'd like to point out that i have introduced legislation to help preserve battlefields from the american revolution and the war of 1812, legislation based on and
including a very successful program to preserve civil war battlefields. this legislation, my bill, passed out of committee unanimously. why was this not included in this bill? we could have been more bipartisan. my colleague, mr. markey, has gone through a long list and others have gone through a long list of the problems with this legislation. suffice it to say this is not about preserving land for the long-term enjoyment and benefit of the american people. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i'm very pleased to yield one minute to the author of title 13 of this legislation, mr. whitman of -- wittman of virginia.
the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. wittman: today is a proud moment for virginia and the entire chesapeake bay community as the house is poifed to pass legislation to aid in the cleanup of one of the nation's most prized historic natural resources, the chesapeake bay. this body of water provides habitat for plants and animals and it is these resources that drive local economies, recreation, andal way of life for so many that live on and around its shores. i rise in support of h.r. 2578, especially title 13, the chesapeake bay accountability and recovery act. i'm proud to offer this measure which receives broad support throughout the watershed. in fact, during the 111 congress, the house passed similar legislation by a vote of 418-1. these provisions would implement and strengthen management techniques to ensure we get more bang for our buck and are more aggressive in pursuing progress in bay restoration efforts. this bill will also ensure
coordination to how restoration dollars are spent and that everyone understands how individual projects fit in the bigger picture in eliminating waste. i urge my colleagues to support the health of the chesapeake bay, this provision, and h.r. 2578. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona. million grijalva: continue to reserve our time. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i am very pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from nevada, the author of title 9 of this bill. the chair: the gentleman from nevada is recognized for three minutes. million amodei: -- mr. amodei: twilight zone, partisan as can be, package of bad ideas for the nation. phrases when you look at title 9. title 9 is about 10,500 acres
adjacent to the city of arrington. these acres are a known copper and iron ore deposit since about 1975. on this 10,000 acres and in title 9 you are seeing nothing that waives anything of environmental significance. not nepa, not the national historic preservation act. the city's going to pay for the land. we are not giving it away. all the cost associated with transferring the land, are to be borne, no cost to the government. the district and state bureau of land management offices were silent in terms of this proposal. there are no mining issues, cleanup issues, surface water, ground water, environmental, none of those issues. none at all. abandoned mine sites. by the way, in this particular county which is the leading county for unemployment in the state of nevada, which i am sorry to inform you we still lead the nation in unemployment, this represents a transfer of
less than 1% of federal land in lyon county. when we talk about open space preservation, guess what? there is 99% left. don't think you got that one, either. by the way, there were some concerns about 90 days being too soon to transfer this and some concerns about whether it was mandatory or not? did you hear the part about 1979 -- 1975 known deposit. you want to change the bill if you feel like doing it go ahead and by the way take as much time as you want? no, thank you. no, thank you to if you feel like it and take as much time as you want. so, when you hear about bad ideas for the nation, this is about responsible, multiple use of public resources that -- here's another part that may be of significance, 800 jobs, no cost for the federal government.
800 jobs, no cost to the federal government. this is a state where there are loan guarantees for renewable energy to the tune of $1.5 billion and we got 136 jobs to show for it. . 800 jobs, no cost to the government. when the office of management and budget talked about, they like to work through the community, i got news for you. title 9 is supported by everyone in the state of nevada that has a voice as a shareholder in these. there has about the none a single voice raised in opposition to this. so to categorize this as a problem when it's -- and oh, by the way, we've been working on it for four years. did i mention it's going to be appraised for the value? there's nothing more responsible for land use that could be 800 jobs, oh, oh, and the average payer is $175,000-plus per job. you want to do something for the people of the state of nevada, get behind this bill.
i want to thank my democratic colleagues who supported the bill in committee, and i look forward to them being advocates on the north side of the building. i yield back, mr. chairman, and thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. could i inquire as to the time available? the chair: the gentleman from arizona has 23 1/2 minutes left. the gentleman from washington has 24 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, the author of title 5 of this bill, mr. flores. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. flores: mr. chairman, i rise today in support of h.r. 2578, title 5 of this bill incorporates my legislation, h.r. 1545rks and would recognize and establish the waco mammoth site as a national monument. in 1978, waco residents paul and eddie were out looking for arrowheads and fossils along a river.
during their journey they happened to come across a large bone pro truding from the earth. real -- protruding from the earth. they immediately took the bone to the museum at baylor university for further annal sills. over a period of nearly 30 years, following their discovery, crews of archeologicalal experts, scientists and volunteers slowly excavated this lost world. eventually unearthing more than two dozen mammoths and other artifacts. in 2006 the waco mammoth foundation, a nonprofit organization of local citizens, helped make the site a public park. the city of waco and baylor university have been working together since to protect the site and to develop further research and educational opportunities at the site. this legislation will recognize the unique discovery of an extinct species while providing education, enjoyment for families and students visiting from all over the country and throughout the world and benefiting future generations for many years to come.
a special resource study on the site was conducted by the national park service and was completed in 2008. this study concluded that the site possesses national significant resources, is a suitable addition to the system and would be a feasible addition to the system. the study cites an appropriateness to investigate a partnership arrangement between the city of waco, baylor university and the n.p.s. given our current fiscal situation, the legislation included in this title has been drafted to provide national recognition that the site deserves without adding additional burdens to the federal budget or to the backlog at the m.p. is. i urge my colleagues to support this bill which will establish the waco mammoth national monument and give this central texas treasure the national recognition it deserves, all at no cost to hardworking american taxpayers. as i close, i ask unanimous consent to insert in the record a letter from the city of waco
in support of title 5 of this bill. the chair: the gentleman's request will be covered under general leave. mr. flores: thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i am pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from idaho, mr. labrador, who is the author of title 11 of this bill. the chair: the gentleman from idaho is recognized for three minutes. mr. labrador: thank you. thank you, mr. speaker. i stand to speak in support of title 11, the gracing improvement act of 2012. livestock graze something an important part of the rich ranching tradition in america. one need look no further than the iconic images of cowboys driving the huge herds of cattle across open land to realize how big a part ranching has played in american history. today my home state of idaho produces some of the world's finest tasting lamb and beef which makes its way to dinner tables across america and as far
away as korea. food production is a major part of idaho's history and it's an integral part of our cultural fabric and our economic security. these traditions are under attack and we must preserve them for future generations. ranchers are proud stewarts -- stewards of the land. yet the process to review the very permits which allow them to produce food have become severely backlocked -- logged due to lawsuits aimed at eliminating livestocks from public lands. the local management cannot keep up with the pace of litigation and endless environmental analysis. this diverts the already limited resources from these offices and leaves ranchers at risk of losing their grazing permits and jeopardizing their livelihoods. agriculture is a difficult way to make a living but producers choose this path because this is their livelihood, their passion and their way of life. when my constituent, a rancher, testified on behalf of h.r. 4234 in march, she talked not just
about the efficiencies the bill would bring to the overall system, providing cost savings to taxpayers, but she passionately expressed the unstable situation facing ranchers like her. 78% of the county's public land, making local ranchers and the economy depend on reliable, yet responsible access to land forge. ranchers not only face uncertainty each year about whether permits will be renewed, they're also being threatened with new bureaucratic red tape when it comes to trailing their animals across public lands. radical special interest litigants have driven the agency to consider this low-impact activity a major agency action that requires full environmental nail sis you understand nepa. the grazing improvement act of 2012 would accomplish three important things. first, it extends livestock grazing permits from 10 to 20 years in order to give producers adequate stability, second, it also reduces the work load on
overburdened federal land managers on the local level and allows them to get out in the field where they belong and finally the legislation includes bipartisan language to encourage land managers to use existing tools in order to expedite permit processing. we cannot good stewards of our land and resources without hurting american ranchers. we must alleviate the problems caused by the process created only to respond to the litigious environmental agenda. we can no longer allow the federal government to maintain an enormous backlog in processing grazing permits. my legislation aims to ensure grazing certainty and stability for america's livestock producers. our ranchers depend upon it. i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. i wanted to talk and maybe list so that the american people and the members of congress
understand the scope and the depth of 2587, and particularly title 14. national park service units within 100 miles of the u.s.-mexico and u.s.-canadian borders. there are -- and 54 national park service units and 11 national park service wilderness areas. the arcadia national park. the national recreation area. a national lake shore. gaylord nelson wilderness. big bend national park. cabrio national park, calve earns national park and the wilderness, national memorial, national monument, cored in aow national memorial, land national historic reserve, first lady's national historic site, fort buoy national historic site,
fort davis national historic site, fort stanwick national monument for union trading post historic site, gila cliff dwellings national monument, glazer national park, glazer bay national park, glacer bay wilderness, grenadines monuments national park, international peace garden, i skmbings le royal national park and wilderness, james garfield national historic site, joshua tree national park, clon dike gold rush national historic park, lake cleveland national recreation area, lake roosevelt national recreation area, mark billings rockefeller national historic park, peres national historic park, north cascades national park.
olympic national park, olympic wilderness, or began pipe cactus national monument, organ pipe wilderness, padre island national sea shore, garfield national historic park, perry's victory and international peace memorial, river raisen national battlefield park, rock lake national recreation area, water wilderness, st. crow island national historic site, san juan national historic park, theodore roosevelt inaugural national historic site, theodore national roosevelt park. voyagers national park, white sands national monument, women's rights national historic park, u.s. national park, the historic national preserve, yukon charlie rivers natural preserve. i list those because these are not -- turning leaf shared
treasures of the american people. from the land managers that provide the access, the interpretation and the multiuse mandate to these areas. to an agency like homeland security with no expertise, no track record, no history and giving them carte blanche control over these valuable legacy parks of our nation is one of the reasons that we have 66 organizations, environmental, la tinow and consumer organizations opposed to the legislation and opposed in particular to title 14. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i'm very pleased to yield four minutes to the gentleman from
texas, mr. canseco, who is author of title 4 of this bill. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for four minutes. mr. canseco: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i want to thank the chairman, mr. hastings, the park subcommittee chairman, mr. bishop, and the staff of the natural resources committee for working with me to move my legislation, the san antonio missions national historical park boundary expansion act, through the committee and have it included as part of the bill before us. will the chairman enter into a brief colloquy with me? mr. hastings: yes. mr. canseco: is it the chairman's understanding that after adoption of the manager's amendment, the bill contains reforms that would only allow for lands to come into the park via donation or exchange and that these reforms apply only to the land coming into the park boundary as a result of the legislation before us? mr. hastings: the gentleman is correct with the adoption of the
manager's amendment. mr. canseco: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to rise in support of the underlying legislation which contains my legislation, the san antonio missions national historical park boundary expansion act, which i introduced with the entire county of texas delegation. in efforts to settle north america, the english founded jamestown, plymouth rock and other colonial settlements but school children learn -- that school children learn about in u.s. history classes. the spanish took a very different approach in their efforts to settle their possessions in north america. instead of sending ships full of families to found new towns, the spanish sent franciscan priests to establish missions. at the missions, the spanish priests would bring local native americans to live at the mission, teach them farming, educate them and ultimately convert them to christianity. the san antonio missions national historical park is an important asset to the community in san antonio, texas, and one
of our nation's historic treasures. the san antonio missions national historical park is comprised of four mission churches, mission san jose, mission san juan and mission espado. adjusting the boundaries of the san antonio missions national park is absolutely critical to protecting these treasures and allowing the park to continue thriving and further enhance the visitors' experience. . it is also a critical part of the redevelopment taking place on the south side of san antonio. a recent study found the san antonio mission national historical park supported over 1,000 local jobs and almost $100 million in economic activity. this boundary adjustment will help reconnect the missions to the san antonio river where the mission reach project is taking
place to extend to the south side, the economic prosperity and job opportunities enjoyed in other parts of san antonio. such redevelopment will allow for significant job and economic opportunities that currently do not exist in parts of san antonio. the san antonio missions are important to the nation, and they help visitors understand the history of our nation, its diverse origins as well as the history of san antonio and the history of texas. i'd also add that the four missions that comprise the san antonio missions national historical park are still functioning parish churches, continuing to fulfill the role of the san antonio community for which they were founded almost 300 years ago. the san antonio missions are just as important to understanding the story and the history of america as other
historic places like jamestown, independence hall or mount vernon, and this legislation will help protect and preserve them for future generations of americans to enjoy all the while helping create jobs and economic opportunity on the south side of san antonio. i thank you very much and i yield back. councilmember kostanian -- the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield to mr. chaffetz who is the author of title 2 of this bill. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized for two minutes. mr. chaffetz: i want to thank chairman hastings, my colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee, mr. bishop, for his support. in this bill that we introduced, the section that will be included in this bill, dealing with the diamond fork system. in utah we are blessed to live in one of the most beautiful parts of the world.
one of the fastest growing states in the nation. the diamond fork system, which is included as part of the central utah project, has a capacity to generate up to 50 megawatts of hydroelectric power. currently, thousands of acre-feet of water flow through the diamond fork system through tunnels, pipes and canales each and every second. -- canals each and every second. they travel from strawberry res. var to the watt a much -- reservoir to the wasatch front. it will generate the necessary energy that we need along the wasatch front. the purpose of this bill is, included in h.r. 2578, is the way the cost payment requirements that are inhibiting developments of the hydropower as a bureau of reclamation facility in utah. the regulation inhibits it, if
the cost requirement is waived, the project will go forward, thus being able to yield the benefit. it is expected, according to the c.b.o., to get $2 million in revenue over 10 years that otherwise would not have received. this is a net increase to the revenue to the treasury. it is not an expense to the united states treasury. in fact, if we don't pass this bill, we won't be able to recover some of the costs. the increase to the treasury will go up. energy consumers, along with my district, which is so desperately needed, will get up to 50 megawatts of new power. and the environmental benefits of this energy are numerous, given it's clean and it's renewable. i'd also like to remind my colleagues that this bill passed the previous congress through a voice vote. we introduced this in a bipartisan way. we have democrats sponsored in this bill as well as republicans, and with that i'd be able to encourage the passage and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona.
mr. grijalva: thank you very much. i think the purpose of title 14 of h.r. 2578 is not to make the border more secure. rather, the purpose of the bill is to use the border security as the cover to effectively repeal more than a century of environmental protections for americans living and working along our borders with canada and mexico. in april, the natural resources committee held an oversight hearing with the house oversight and government reform committee during which the government accountability office, the interior department, the agriculture department and the border patrol all testified under oath that federal land management laws do not impair border security. according to a g.a. report, 22 of 26 border patrol agents in charge that were interviewed reported that federal land management laws have no impact on the overall security status of their jurisdictions. the number of border patrol
agents in charge were impeding border security -- were prevented from fixing the problems by the interior department were exactly zero. the administration cog at multi hearings. the record is clear problem the bill claims to solve does not exist. the true purpose of this legislation is also clear. the proponents oppose the more than 30 bedrock environmental protection effectively repealed by -- effectively to be repealed by this legislation, including clean water act, clean air act, safe drinking water act. everywhere, not just within 100 miles of the border. h.r. -- title 14 employs a manufactured conflict with border security which weakens our application. the laws to be waived by this act are work products of dozens of administrations and congresses developed after thousands of hours of negotiation and compromise and
in most instance were enacted with the strong bipartisan support. title 14 hands the border patrol a unilateral veto over all these laws, all this work and all this bipartisan effort. in this legislation, title 14 will not allow -- would not only allow d.h.s. to trample the ground near the border, it will allow the agency to trample the states and their people. this legislation would empower individual patrol agents to enter tribal lands without notice, conduct any and all activities, includingess can vation and construction without -- escavation and construction. this bill addresses none of those concerns. we will not secure borders by allowing our waters to be polluted. we will not secure our borders by allowing our air to be
dirtier, by ignoring decades long laws that protect the environment and the american people. that will not bring security to the border. this legislation in title 14 reduces the number -- reduces the number of immigrants coming to this country. if it does it will only be because the water, air and economics of our border communities is so degraded that no one wants to come there any more. this legislation is sweeping, it's reactionary, and this bill is not what it appears to be and it should be rejected and i reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i'm very pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, who's the author of title 10 of this bill. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for three minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, thank you very much, and i thank the chairman for his support of this provision in this bill. the title of my provision is
the preserving access to cape hatteras national seashore recreational area act. the cape hatteras act is about jobs, it's about taxpayers' right to access the recreational areas they own. it's about restoring balance and common sense to national park service management. this language would overturn a final rule implemented by the park service that excessively restricts taxpayers' access to cape hatteras seashore and is unnecessary to protect the wildlife. it would reinstitute the park service 2007 interim management strategy to govern access and specie protection at cape hatteras. the interim strategy was backed by 113-page biological opinion issued by the united states fish and wildlife service which found that it would not jeopardize clover, sea turtles
or other species of concern. in addition to adequately protecting wildlife, this bill will give taxpayers more reasonable access to the land they own. it would reopen 26 miles of beach that are now permanently closed to motorized beach access and give seashore managers flexibility to implement more balanced measures that maximize both recreational access and species protection. by doing so, this bill would reverse the significant job loss and economic decline that hattaras-allen has experienced. i want to repeat that, mr. speaker. by doing so, the bill would
reverse the significant job loss and economic decline that hattaras island has experienced since the park service cut off access to the most popular area of the seashore. this bill -- my bill and this bill has bipartisan support in this county. they are predominantly democrat. they support this bill 100%. they ask that this bill be moved through the house. north carolina senators, richard byrd, and senator haggan have introduced a companion bill says exactly on the senate side what this bill says on the house side. this bill is supported by american sports fishermen association and the congressional sportsman foundation. mr. speaker, that's why i'm honored today to be on the floor with my colleagues to support this legislation. it is time for the taxpayers to be considered, and it's time we protect the species that are endangered. this is a balanced piece of legislation, not just my aspect of it, but the bill itself. so i hope my colleagues will support this legislation in a bipartisan way and let's send this bill to the senate and i'll yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields
back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. without a doubt, proponents of 2578 and particular title 14, the border bill portion, will claim this legislation will enter the horrors of the border. it will end the horrors of the border. the states will conduct real work and reach comprehensive immigration reform. the horrors they will describe, the rape tree, the murders, the abuse of people, are somewhat quite real. the violence that's conducted by criminal organizations that prey on desperate and poor people, fueled by a drug trade that produces billions upon billions of dollars for these very criminals that create the violence. in the last decade, over 4,000 souls have died trying to cross through the most desloate parts
of the arizona desert, and this human tragedy should not be the excuse to undo environmental and public protection laws which the majority has been attacking on all fronts since the beginning of this congress. this is a dangerous precedent that in order to secure the border we must lose those protections. it's an absurd connection and there is no correlation. interesting, in the list of laws to be waived, we are truly to make a dent in that violence, we find no mention of suspending the unregulated gun shows that happen in border regions. 85% of the assault rifles used by cartels and organized crime syndicates along the borders and in mexico originate in the united states. from these gun shows.
interesting, there is no mention of suspending federal support for u.s. financial interests that harbor and launder money from mexican crime syndicates here in the united states. the environmental laws and protections being eliminated under title 14 will not bring long-term solutions to our beleaguered southern border. these laws are not the reasons for the stress. the reason for the stress is the unwillingness of this congress to deal with immigration reform and a broken immigration system. enforcement is part of the system. it is not the only part of the solution. the stresses caused by politicians who either exploit the issue for their own gain or run away from the issue because of their own fear for it. to begin to deal with this issue, we need the result to work toward comprehensive immigration reform. but all the majority wants to do is scapegoat its lack of
resolve to deal with this real issue in order to advance an agenda to hijack the laws that have served our public lands and our citizens well for decades. this is a terrible precedent. its back door amnesty for polluters, developers and mining industry and those extremists want all these protections and laws, environmental laws eliminated. the border is the excuse, the target is the environment. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you very much, m.i.a. mr. chairman. i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. herger, who is the author of title 8 of this bill. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. herger: thank you, mr. chairman.
i rise in support of h.r. 2578, the economic growth act. which would extend the partisan herger-feinstein-quincy library group recovery act for seven more years, ensuring that the forest service has a stable and consistent period to fully implement it. at the discretion of the forest service, bill would also allow for an expansion to all national forest system lands within parts of california and nevada. the expansion of the pilot project will enable the forest service to use the effective q.l.g. approach in additional forest communities. the northern california congressional district i represent includes all or part of seven national forests. the rural forest community near to them have been devastated by years of mismanagement of our national forests. nearly 20 years ago a group of local environmentalists and citizens formed the quincy library group to develop a
collaborative and locally driven solution to bring health and stability to our communities and the forests they live in. the q.l.g.'s efforts brought about the bipartisan herger-feinstein-quincy library group forest recovery act. mr. chairman, we need commonsense forest management that allows communities to utilize their natural resources and create jobs while also restoring the health of our forests. the quincy library group pilot project can provide a model for achieving these critical goals. in 2007 the 64,000-acre moonlight fire occurred in the plymouth national forest. that fire came to an abrupt halt when it raised the antelope at a fuel profile zone. it saved tens of thousands of
spotted owl habitat from burning. mr. chairman, this is the solution to our catastrophic wildfire problem that can and should be recommend cated. i urge my colleagues to -- replicated. i urge my colleagues to expand this balanced and collaborative project. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: continue to reserve, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from arizona reserves his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i inquire of my friend from arizona, we have no more requests for time and i am prepared to close if the gentleman's prepared to close. mr. grijalva: yes, we are. mr. hastings: i'll reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. this package of 14 bills is an unwarranted combination of individual bills that will do serious and lasting damage to communities and people across this country. many of the individual pieces
are controversial but they are overshadowed by title 14, the drone zone title, the drone zone created by this bill would trample the environment and the personal freedoms of millions of people living within 100 miles of the border. at a time when the clock is ticking on the re-authorization of the highway trust fund where real jobs could be created, we are wasting time on this misguided package. at a time when the clock is ticking on making college loans remain affordable, we are waisting -- wasting time on this package. we should rejict h.r. 2578 and get down to the serious work which is to create jobs, help the middle class families and make ends meet. mr. defazio and ranking member marky and i will be offering amendments to address the absolute worst aspects of this package. i urge my colleagues to support the amendments. unfortunately, even though those amendments cannot fit -- fix all
that is wrong with this package and i ask my colleagues to reject h.r. 2578. there was a point in which common sense and sanity should reveil in this house. we have a piece of legislation that begs the question on both before us and i would urge its defeat and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, can i inquire how much time i have left? the chair: the gentleman from washington has eight minutes remaining. mr. hastings: i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, let's go back to the basic issue really that's facing this country and i certainly -- i allude to it in my opening statement. what americans really want is jobs. and while this package of bills is in line with that, what it really does is added some certainty to those that live in and around federal lands. therefore allowing for at least
some certainty as it relates to jobs, but probably as important, if not more important, access to our public lands for those that want to utilize our public lands. there's been much discussion here about how this bill does some damage to the environment. let me just touch on a couple of issues that was mentioned on the other side and i think it needs to be clarified, at least here before this debate is over. first, the reference was made to sea lions that were guilty of one thing and that was eating only fish. well, i happen to be the author of the title that have bill and let me clarify. there's the rest of the story here. we had a hearing in the natural resources committee, the full committee today, on the endangered species act. i think frankly it hasn't been re-authorized for 25 years and i think we need to update that act to make sure that we cover species and my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle said it's a great act. ok, that's good. we at least have some establishment of commonality. the reason that provision in the bill regarding sea lions is that salmon are listed as threatened on the columbia river. and as they move upstream after coming back from the ocean, they get crowds going up the dam. there's a nonindigenous animal called the california sea lion that comes up there and feasts on these fish as they're going through the bonneville dam. so it's destroying an endangered species. and the california sea lion is not listed as endangered and they're not indigenous. this allows for lethal taking of those sea lions so the fish can pass upstream and spawn. nothing more than that. it's an acute way to borrow a phrase to say that they're guilty of only eating fish. but there's more to that story. this legislation also encourages the development of renewable hydropower, what could be cleaner than that? it promotes healthy forests and
prevents forest fires as my colleague from northern california just said in regard to the title of the act that he has in there. it restores access to different parts for recreational purposes in the north cascades and at cape on the atlantic coast and it preserves old growth in alaska. so, mr. chairman, there is a lot to be liked about this bill. but it seems most of the discussion is around title 14. let me read the title of title 14 one more time. it is the national security and federal lands protection act. now, why do we need that? because unfortunately there are those that want to come into our country illegally. and they don't have the same feelings as we do about our public lands. and when they come through illegally, in many cases they trash those lands. we're simply giving the border patrol more tools to protect those public lands and to
provide for our national security. i don't know why anybody on the floor of this house should be opposed to that aspect. that's all that title 14 does. as was explained very well by the author of that provision, mr. bishop of utah. so, mr. chairman, this bill is worth supporting. it has been developed in a bipartisan method, it has been developed in a transparent method, having gone through the committee process. so i urge adoption and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for general debate is expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill will be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. it shall be in order to consider as original bill an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 112-25, that amendment is in the nature of a substitute. shall be considered as read. no amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in report 112-549. h amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subblet to dea manned for division of the question. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. chairman -- the chair: will the gentleman kindly suspend? it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-539. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-539 offered by mr. hastings of washington. the chair: the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, this amendment makes some technical clarifying and conforming changes to the underlying bill. it amends title 4, subsection 4, to delete a portion of the land that the national park service
does not want to acquire for the san antonio mission and which would expose it to liability for cleanup costs. it conforms the text of title 6, subsection 6, to match what the house passed in the 111th congress in h.r. 2806, and it conforms title 8 with the leadership protocols regarding the length and amount of authorizations. and finally it clarifies what funds states may use to increase access to target ranges under title 12. with that i urge adoption and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. grijalva: thank you, mr.
chairman. on the imaginer's amendment we have no problem with the technical changes to the legislation. the content remains the same and the opposition remains the same. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield back the balance of my time and urge adoption of the the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the amendment's adopted. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-539. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- florida seek recognition? mr. defazio: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 2 offered by mr. defazio of oregon. the chair: the gentleman from florida, -- oregon, mr. defazio, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: i thank the chair. my amendment is simple. what it says is that should this legislation pass in the 100,000 acres of forest pass over to the sea alaska native corporation, a for-profit corporation, that we would ban the export of unprocessed logs from those
lands. this would be consistent with the law that applies to the lower 48, west of the mississippi river. in 1990, i partnered with senator bob packwood from oregon to make permanent what had then been an appropriations rider ban since the era of wayne morris. and the rationale for that was that, you know, we should not be a tree farm for other nations. we want to be an industrial nation, we want to get value added, we want to export infish -- finish if -- finished products overseas. we've seen in the last couple of years a flood of private lands' exports from oregon and washington which is timber being wasted. very recently the chinese were paying above market prices for raw logs, douglas fir logs, which they were using prime
timber one time in construction form and then discarding. an incredible waste of resource. and also a economic loss to the pacific northwest. despite the fact that washington state exported $1 billion worth of nonfederal raw logs last year, which is twice the amount that they exported just two years before, the number of logging jobs did not increase, despite this export, and the number of sawmill jobs dropped by 1/3 in washington state. we're exporting a limited natural resource to which we could add value through what we have are the most productive mills in the world in the united states of america and instead those logs are going overseas and we're actually losing jobs.
yes, it is profitable for the private landowners and we do not have restrictions on the export of private logs. but this is public forest lands today which would be converted to private forest lands and we believe that the potential benefits should be maximized, should this happen, and that these logs should be manufactured before being exported. if they were exported i'd say in fact there would be a substantial raw log market in my state because my mills are importing timber from around the world, actually, and from other states in the u.s. to keep their mills running. and in the same -- in oregon nonfederal raw log exports, again, private land exports have doubled over the last three years to $2.3 billion in value while my sawmills and logging industry reached new lows. this harvesting for export of
raw logs is not benefiting the local economies of the united states of america. and in alaska raw log exports from alaska to china have increased 16 fold over the last decade, yet, you know, the economic benefits of running those logs or potentially running those logs through sawmills was not realized benefiting rural communities. i have many depressed rural areas which i represent. you know, we're fighting over how we can get some more logs off federal lands, logs which can't be exported and these logs do ont not only benefit alaskans who could use the manufacturing jobs and perhaps they would see new investment in shah mill capacity should this amount of timber come on to the market, but potentially other west coast safeties including oregon and washington where our sawmills are struggling to find adequate supply.
i believe it would be a beneficial, commonsense amendment. federal trees, federal forests, and would make the use of those logs, should they be harvested, consistent with the rest of the federal lands in the western united states. and with that i would yield -- i'd reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i'd claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: i yield four minutes to the gentleman from alaska. the chair: the gentleman from alaska is recognized for four minutes. mr. young: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the chair: without objection. mr. young: i strongly oppose this amendment. this amendment may have good intentions but it's misguided. it will hurt the employment in the native villeage of alaska. we have studies -- village of alaska. we have studies that have shown we will will be hurting if we do not export some of the logs.
this was defeated 30-14. last night the alaskan forest service wrote in strong opposition to the amendment. it's not right for the federal government to tell somebody on private land where they can sell their product. the only person that should be able to do this is the owner of a product. we don't tell where the californians sell their house. we don't tell warehouses to sell their timber and we shouldn't tell a private landowner where to sell the timber. if we told the tongass national forest, as far as harvesting capability, if the forest agency, they have 50% of all growth timber sales. 100% to be sold, new growth. this is a little bit, i say, not sincere in the sense this won't create jobs and the
federal government's already allowing timber to be sold wherever they wish to be do. i say the amendment is not placed correctly. i'd like to keep the timber in the united states but the market is not there or it's not as high as overseas people that bid on it, then you have to let the private person in fact sell his timber. i will suggest respectfully, the thing that concerns the most in this whole argument is some of the arguments against this legislation. this is about a native group that was not -- it's a corporation. it's a native group of villages put together that had a high unemployment rate. i saw this across the internet now and saying this in fact is a giveaway. talking about being giving away. this is timber area that's already been cut and they do not want to cut the old timber area. this is what's so important.
but for some reason, they move it -- i understand what the gentleman's trying to do but it's not right to have a private entity be told by the federal government where they can sell their product. we don't tell the rice growers or tell somebody where to sell their product. this is about the best market and this is wrong because they will have timber in a few years. i say maybe 50 years. in the whole state of alaska because this already's already been cut. they'll be able to sell this timber at the high price, probably by the united states by then because we will all be long gone. with that i ye. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oregon has 30 seconds remaining. mr. defazio: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i certainly respect the gentleman from alaska and i know his intentions benefit the people of alaska. my -- i've been involved in this issue now for almost --
well, for 22 years on the issue of exporting raw logs and in fact i did try and restrict the export of private logs back there in 1990 and couldn't get that. at least we got the federal and at least we kept the states and we do get value added and we do for every 1,000 board-feet of timber harvested we get more jobs than just a logging job, tracking job and loading it on the ship job. we get the jobs in the mills. and i would argue that the same wood flows. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington has two minutes remaining. mr. hastings: how much time do i have?
the chair: two minutes. mr. hastings: i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: i rise in opposition to this amendment because this amendment would single out one particular group of native alaskans for restrictions that's currently only apply to timber harvested from certain federal lands in the lower 48. now, the irony here, as was pointed out by the gentleman from alaska, is that the forest service in the tongass allows for cedar harvested, 50% new growth and 50% old growth. it is hypocritical to impose domestic manufacturing limitations on natives while the forest service is doing just exactly the opposite. i will also add, this amendment does not affect other landowners on the tongass. it only affects the sealaska. i don't think this is what we should be doing on the floor of the house is singling out one group and that's precisely what this amendment does. i urge rejection of this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon.
those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. defazio: on that i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-139. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mark nilsson i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: -- mr. markey: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-139 offered by mr. markey of massachusetts. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 688, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: grazing fees, many people may not know what that is. our federal land across the country, cattlemen, can bring
their cattle onto federal lands, that is the public lands of the united states and graze. and what do they charge? well, they charge $1.35. that's exactly what they would charge in 1986. now, right next to this federal land in many states, there are -- there is state land and that state land in colorado is, you know, very valuable, but they ep sure the governor of colorado that the cattlemen there in that state pay $10 to graze. not $1.35 in montana. cattlemen have to pay $7.90. in utah they have to pay $7.30. but on the public land in each of those states, that is the federal lands, it's $1.35. just had an increase. and who pays the price? well, the federal taxpayer pays the price because the cattlemen get to basically have this incredible subsidy.
so, you know, just to use the analogy, you know, when i started working, i got paid $1.35 when i was a kid and i'm sure there are many that would like to charge a buck 35 for a kid to work in the supermarket but they can't do it because time moved on. unless you're a cattleman when they locked that minimum price into a medically sealed, cry row jencally price. -- cryrogenically price. you have a rent-controlled apartment in new york city. and the rent was set in 1986 and 176, and now the markets
have raised that price up to perhaps $4,000, but the republicans would say, well, rent control, that's good. we like keeping the price that way. well, because it benefits a certain class of people. and i understand the republican philosophy of keeping the minimum wage as low as possible, keeping the, you know, rent control price for an apartment as low as possible. i understand the government intervention role of the federal government not allowing the free market the price of something, but here what happens is it balloons the federal deficit because people aren't able to collect what we absolutely know to be the price to graze for a cow per day. we know what the price is because in colorado or utah or montana or in washington state, we know what the state is charging on state public land. so this is an attempt to use the department of interior the ability to raise by $1, not all the way up to $10, not all the way up to $7 but just $1 from a buck 35 up to $2.35. just as a little experiment
just to see what happens out there in the market when people actually have to pay something that even -- that approximates what the price to graze to be. at this point, mr. chairman, i'd like to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington, for what purpose do you rise? mr. hastings: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: and i yield four minutes to the gentleman from idaho, the author of the title of this bill. the chair: the gentleman from idaho is recognized for four minutes. mr. labrador: i rise in opposition to theament. the good gentleman from massachusetts continues to say we need to treat this land the same as private land. and the thing that's really fascinating to me is that we have in colorado and utah and idaho many people that would like to do their grazing on state land or private land. but the difference is that in massachusetts, only 1.6% of the
land is actually federal land. in fact, if you look at the acreage, it's 81,000 acres in massachusetts are federal lands. and that's why they can actually rely on many other things for their grazing and many other things that they do. in idaho, 68% of the land is federal land. in fact, we're talking about 32.5 million acres in idaho that are actually having to be managed by the federal government and that we have to deal with on a daily basis in the state of idaho. you know, we need to ask the question, why is it? i think most grazers, most producers would like to actually be doing it on federal land -- on state land, where they will be paying more but they receive more benefits for being on the state-owned lands and the state-managed lands. and my question to the gentleman is, why doesn't he
allow idaho and other states in the west to do what we want to do which we want to do is we actually want to manage our own land? we have been asking that for a long time, but it's interesting to me that the states that only have 1.4% of federal lands continue to tell the states that have 68% of federal lands that they cannot manage their own lands. if we were allowed to manage our own lands we would actually be able to charge a little bit more, but we would do away with all the nepa requirements and all the other requirements that we have to deal with right now when we're on federal lands. so i think it's a little bit hypocritical for somebody to come here to the house floor and object to something that they don't even have to deal with in their own state, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: can the chair please inform us how much time remains? the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts has 1 1/2 minutes
remaining and the gentleman from washington has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. markey: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i'd advise my friend from massachusetts i am the last speaker on his amendment so if he's ready to close i'll close. i'll yield myself the remainder of the time. the argument being made by the republicans is -- mr. markey: the argument being made by the republicans is this is nonsincecal. on state land in your own state you're charged $10 or $7 for the cattlemen to graze, but on federal land it's only $1.35 in your state. and your answer to raising the price for cattlemen is that we should be having a debate over whether or not the state of
colorado or montana controls all of the federal lands in your state. then you begin to debate whether or not cattlemen should only get away with $1.35. you know, you're giving new definition to the term free-range beef. you're allowing, you know, for the cattlemen in these states to get away with murder and you're not even debating the issue of how they get away with this. that's all we want here. tell us why you think they deserve $1.35. you don't want to reach that issue. you want to go on the secondary issue of how much land in each state is controlled by the federal government which is not what we're debating. we're debating how cattlemen get away with this bargain basement price. then comes to every other state that make up the difference in the federal deficit because you're unwilling to collect it. mean quhile you say to grand -- meanwhile, you say to grandma, higher rates for medicare. you say to kids in school, higher payback for the loans you take out. but for the cattlemen in your
own state you don't understand that this is a debate that goes to the heart of why it is the people are unhappy with the way the federal government operates. the chair: the chair reminds members to address their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield myself the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: this would amount to a nearly 75% increase on the fees for public land grazers. now let me emphasize the word public land. we hear this all the time. and the idea is, public land is owned by all americans, even people who live in states where there are no federal lands. but i would advise my colleagues that people that live on public lands own the public lands too, if the first argument is correct, then the second argument is also correct. what is interesting about this grazing fee debate is, if this
grazing fee debate -- fee is raised, it could put some people out of business. that is the stated goal of some environmental extremist groups. what is also interesting, as was pointed out by my colleague from idaho, when you operate on federal lands, you are subjected to endless litigation and review stemming from nepa and outside tax by environmental groups. but probably more important, and this is a distinguishing part on this whole debate, some people claim that these ranchers are subsidized but the fact is, when the west was settled, we were never given an opportunity to buy these lands for state purposes, they remained in federal control. so as a result, everybody has a say in public lands. what my colleague from idaho is simply saying, if we had
control of our public lands, whether it's state lands or private or county, we would probably manage it better but we don't have that opportunity because we're never given the opportunity. so as a result, we have to fight off these huge increases that come from people that probably have a different idea of what it's like. so i think this is an ill-advised amendment and i urge its rejection and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number four, for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will
designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number four printed in house report 112-539 offered by mr. bishop of utah. the chair: 3ur sunt to house resolution 688, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. chairman. there are four elements involved in the amendment i am proposing. the first one is is to narrow the list of laws that can be waived by the border patrol on these areas to maintain ooperational control of the land. presently it lists 36 bills that could be waived, and i want you to know that that number was not irrational, it was not picked out of the air. 36 bills have precedence in what this house has already done. in california, when the government was trying to finish the fence in california, there were litigation and laws
prohibiting them from doing it so the federal government proposed the 36 laws that they thought did or would impede their rules and congress agreed with them. we allowed them to waive the 36 laws. these are the same 36 laws. i take that back, the democrats added one more to the list and that was fine as well. 20 of those are not going to be a problem but 16 still could be. 10 it limits from 36 to 16 as those that can be waived for the purpose of allowing border patrol and homeland security to do the job for which they are paid to do. second thing, it specifically prohibits any additional access to private property. it eliminates the probalt of border patrol reducing public
access to any federal lands and that includes for purposes of hunting or fishing or offroad vehicles. it adds a provision to ensure that we are to protect tribal sovereignty that nothing in this bill may supersede, replace, the gate or diminish treaty obligations or agreements with indian tribes, existing practices and negotiation-cooperation between the border patrol and the tribes will continue. it also clarifies what is the purpose of operation control. which is to preevent -- to prevent all unlawful entry into the united states including entry by terrorists. from bringing instruments of frism through the international land border of the united states. there are three reasons why this amendment and indeed the underlying bill is important. number one, a sovereign country controls its own borders.
we are not doing that here. we need to. number two, we will never solve our overall immigration issue until we can guarantee that we can in some way lower the anger and the rage and the anxiety that's out there. if indeed we can look at our fellow citizens and with a straight face say, we have control of the border, all of a sudden the ability of solving other problems, some of which are easy and some are complex, the ability to do that increases. and third, and most importantly, violence against women. the women who are raped along these trails, whose garments are left on these trees as a trophy to the coyote who raped these women, these women who have no other source to go, they have no one to complain to and no one to ask for pr text, this must stop. the border patrol can stop this
practice. right now, what we're doing is simply putting up signs saying, areas are offlimits to american bus that does not stop this practice. unless we can give the border patrol access to this territory so they can stop this practice, we're not doing anything about it. we are not solving this particular issue. one more time, we have talked about the drone zone in here, which is once again cute and inaccurate. this amendment has nothing to do with the drone zone. it does not authorize nor does it stop drones. it doesn't authorize black helicopters or stop them or red-headed stepchildren or illegal druids coming into the country but what it does do is allow our professional border patrol to have the same rights of access on federal land they have on private from the and state land and it says we will control our border, we will solve our immigration problem and we will stop the rape trees. we will stop this heinous practice from going forward and we will do it positively. that's the purpose of this amendment to this title of the
bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from utah reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. markey: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. markey: this amendment is further evidence that the problem the drone zone bill claims to be solving does not exist and the underlying bill is a dangerous overreach. when the legislation was introduced we were told it was necessary to establish this 100-mile drone zone around the entire united states, east coast, west coast, hawaii, and alaska. that version of the drone zone looked like a giant red belt surrounding the entire country. then supporters of the bill decided that they had gone too far. the bill was altered to say the drone zone would only cover a 100-mile stretch along the eastern border of alaska. but etch with that change, we were still allured that a blanket waiver of the full list
of 36 bedrock environmental laws was absolutely necessary to pull off border security. now we have a further chidge this will waive the list of laws from the drone zone from 36 environmental laws down to 16 environmental laws. this ever-shrinking bill, it gets smaller and smaller as people realize environmental laws are not the problem when it comes to worder security and the zone created by this bill would harm the environment and individual freedoms for millions of americans. the bishop amendment proves that the underlying bill has always been an extreme and extremely harmful solution to a problem that does not exist. perhaps if we give supporters enough time they can shrink the idea down to waiving parking enforcement in a small area around tucson. this amendment redues the damage this bill would do but does not begin to prevent that damage, waiving 36 laws was an
unnecessary overreach and waiving 16 laws would be as well. that said, limiting the scope of this terrible bill is a small step in the right direction, so there is no reason to oppose this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. markey: would the chair inform us as to the time remaining on both sides? the chair: the gentleman from utah has three minutes, the gentleman from massachusetts has 30 seconds. mr. markey: could you inform me once again? the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts has three minutes remaining. mr. markey: i yield one minute to mr. filner. mr. filner: i rise in opposition to the bill, especially the border parts of the bill, and the grijalva
amendment that will be coming. i know how harmful this bill can be. as i read the exemptions from laws, i can see, i don't know, undumonted child labor filling in wetlands. come on, our natural beauty depends on these protections. these laws protect us. and the department of homeland security, as i understand it, is not in support of these provisions. they testified in july of 2011 that the border patrol, the border protections agency enjoys a close working relationship with the department of interior and department of agriculture that allows us to fulfill our border enforcement responsibilities while respecting and enhancing the environment. this excessive use would affect public lands and natural park -- national parks across the
country. mr. markey: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. filner: it would affect the statue of liberty monument, the cape hatteras national seashores and scores of others. we must protect these important national parks, recreation areas and wilderness lands for future generations. i invited mr. -- i invited, mr. chairman, the gentleman whose bill this is, i think, mr. denham, to join me at the boarder to see what we would be protecting. i don't think he ever answered my letter. i yield back. mr. bishop: i am the final speaker on our side if the gentleman from utah is ready to conclude? mr. markey: i yield back the balance of my time.
the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized 30rk seconds remaining. mr. bishop: the 36 laws placed were there when homeland security asked for those, when congress agreed to it,s the precedent. i'm lowering it to 16. i have been on the border, i have been on the border and seen the rape trees. this must stop. i also have been on the border to see there are 48 different organization who have endorsed the underlying bill, including the national association of former border patrol officers, the national border control council, the local border patrol council in arizona, the national association of police organizations. those who work this realize the importance of this and that's why they're supporting it. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from utah. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-539.
for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: -- amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-539 offered by mr. grijalva of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 688, the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: out of all the titles cobbled under this one piece of legislation, title 14 is the most alarming and i have introduced this amendment to strike it all from the bill. not only is the text of one of the most controversial bills introduced this congress, it's intended to span the scope and the authority of one government agency to achieve a loosely defined objective, an agency that has not even asked for this expanded authority. title 14 of this legislation
would supersize customs. at their discretion and without any recourse by the public to counter that. if this bill were to become law, families that use forests, wildlife areas in all these states could be subject to increased surveillance without any indication. we already know what happens to economic welfare of families and economies of states in alabama and arizona when states pass hostile anti-immigrant laws. this takes the same concept and spreads it across our northern and southern borders. white now customs and border protection isn't suffering from lack of authority. if anything it's suffering from lack of focus. the ability to access federal lands isn't causing border patrol problems. radios that don't work, the lack of infrastructure and personnel are what they have cited as barriers in the most recent g.a.o. report.
yesterday during the debate over the rule for the bill, the sponsor of the legislation that has become title 14 claimed that we can't deal with the issue of immigration reform before securing our border lands. he went on to say that people are angry about the situation at the border and before this anger is addressed, we can't do anything about our broken immigration system so we are going to pay some lip service to our border security to advance what is essentially an anti-environment, anti-immigrant agenda. well, that should make all of us angry because it adds to division in our nation and the sense of millions of families in the border region and across this region feel like they are political pawns in a system in a game that is never ending. millions of people live along this 100 miles and they deserve the same protection from environmental pollution or government overreach that the rest of us in the country enjoy. the original bill granted
d.h.s. a waiver of 36 laws. the recently introduced amendment would allow that list to be 16. the fact that we were able to concede half of the original on the list proves that the bill is from the outset an unnecessary overreach. the 16 laws left in the legislation are not minor statutes. they include the national historic preservation act, the endangered species act, the antiquities act and the administrative procedures act. the solution to a broken system along the border is comprehensive immigration reform. if you took that 100 miles zone along the southern border and made it into a state, it would lead the nation in poverty, unemployment, educational attainment, lowest wages, most uninsured and lowest economic growth. yet, this legislation and title 14 once again takes this region and instead of providing
support and comprehensive attention to that region, we further marginalize it and isolate it. all the laws that are being waived and eliminated are all landmark pieces of legislation that guide and manage our federal lands, resources that belong to every single american taxpayer. throwing away decades of law that help protect and preserve our federal lands makes no sense. the supporters of this legislation will say it is necessary to address the horrors and violence that occur on the border. it's not true. it's back door amnesty for extremist anti-environmental groups, industries and developers who lust after our public resources, for private profit and taxpayers -- at taxpayers' expense. that's why i introduced my amendment to strike the title from the bill. i encourage its support and reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: i rise to claim
time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. bishop: i hope i will not take the five minutes at the time. with all due respect to my good friend from arizona for whom i have a great deal of admiration, i would emphasize, again, that the title of this section is national security and federal lands protection. does not extend to any other property exthose that belong to our federal government along the border. there is a sunset provision so it can be reviewed. more importantly, the element that is in this particular title are there for a reason. there is precedent for them. 100 miles is what the legal definition of border land actually is. but 36 laws -- i'm ready to go back to those -- but 36 laws were the laws presented by the department of homeland security as those potential laws that could cause them damage, and this congress agreed to that precedent. congress agreed to that
precedent. congress established that they could be waived for that specific purpose. i once again want to tell you what secretary napolitano said about this particular issue of border security, that the removal of cross-border violators in public lands -- you want to protect the environment, get the drug cartels and the human traffickers off of that particular area. it is the removal of those violators from public lands is a value to the environment as well as to the mission of the land managers which is once again 48 groups, talk about 48 groups that support this that come from conservation groups, they come from agriculture groups, but more importantly they come from the border patrol agents themselves. those are the ones that come forth and testified that they need special ability of having access to this land if we are going to control the border which is what a sovereign country does. mr. chairman, this is the word
of what their responsibilities are. this is why what we have told the border patrol they have to do -- prevent all unlawful entries into the united states including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics and other contraband through the international land borders of the united states. that's in this title. that's their job. that's what the border patrol has requested to do. all we need to do is give them the tools they need to be able to accomplish that. tools on federal land that will mirror the tools they have on private and state lands. let them do their job. they need access to this area to patrol it and apprehend the bad guys. give them that opportunity. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from utah reserves. mr. grijalva: if i may inquire as to how much time.
the chair: the gentleman from arizona has 30 second remaining. mr. grijalva: let me yield the remaining time to the gentleman from north carolina, ranking apropers. d.h.s. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. >> even with the bishop amendment just adopted, the bill waives 16 different environmental laws. for example, the national environmental policy act, wildlife refuge laws, to gain operational controls over these lands. mr. price: you know, mr. chairman, it would mean our northwest border, the border patrol would have largely unfettered access and environmental protects would be waived within 10 miles of seattle. in arizona this would encompass all of tucson, new york, buffalo and syracuse could come under control. these are sweeping and unnecessary provisions. i urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: is there any -- could i inquire any time left on either side?
the chair: the gentleman from utah has 2 1/4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from arizona has no time remaining. mr. bishop: i appreciate the arguments given. when i have been on the border and been able to talk to the people that worked on the border what they need to protect the border, once guenther' telling us they need the access. the ability to waive these laws, these rules, these regulations is what we have done in the past. congress already did once before. there is precedence. this is not something that is new, but this is definitely what is needed. this is the right thinking to do. so i urge you to -- this is the right thing to do. i urge you to reject this amendment. in all fairness, mr. chair, it would be possible for me to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from arizona so he has a chance to close on his particular amendment.
the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate your courtesy. thank you. i would at this point say that i appreciate the time and i'll wait to call for the yeas and nays. thank you very much. the chair: the question is now offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. with that i'd ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. at the now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-539. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii seek recognition?
mr. hanabusa: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-539 offered by ms. hanabusa of hawaii. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 688, the gentlewoman from hawaii, ms. hanabusa, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from hawaii. ms. hanabusa: thank you very much, mr. chair. first i'd begin by saying we have had my amendment before the committee and the representations made was that it did not cover hawaii. i'm here to basically reaffirm that on the floor of the house. this all started because when i was home i was the speaker at the 50th anniversary of the u.s.s. arizona memorial. as i sat there i began to understand that in fact a national park service has jurisdiction over the arizona and all of its facilities in pearl harbor. it caused me to go back and check exactly how many lands
that's under the jurisdiction of the national park service and fish and wildlife which is all within this law. there are 257,772 acres in the national park service, and 298,980 acres under the fish and wildlife service. and as you all know, with 100 miles from any border, it would cover the whole state of hawaii. but, mr. chair, i believe that with the representation from the gentleman from utah, i'd withdraw my amendment if i am assured this is not intended to cover hawaii. and i reserve until i hear from the gentleman from utah. the chair: the gentleman from hawaii yields. the gentlelady yields. mr. bishop: yes, hawaii was taken out in committee. ms. hanabusa: with that, mr. chair, i respectfully withdraw
my amendment. the chair: without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. the chair understands that amendment number 7 will not be offered. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 112-539 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order -- amendment number 2 by mr. defazio of oregon, amendment number 3 by mr. markey of massachusetts, amendment number 5 by mr. grijalva of arizona. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in the series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-539 by the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-539 offered by mr. defazio of oregon. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those favoring a recorded vote
will shall rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
gentlelady from missouri seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute. the chair: without objection, the gentlelady from missouri is recognized for one minute. mrs. emerson: my softball co-captain, ms. debbie wasserman schultz, want to remind all of you tomorrow night once again the bicameral, bipartisan softball team plans to beat the washington news media in a softball game, and weigh want to make sure all of you know the details so you can join us in the very oppressive heat that we will be playing in. ms. wasserman schultz: i thank the gentlelady for yielding and we are really excited. this is the fourth annual congressional women's softball game. we are the defending champions. we beat the bad news babes last
year. we have expanded our team. we have the gentlelady from alabama who's a ringer this year, mrs. roby. you should come out and see her play. she's got some skills. so even though the press corp have been talking some good trash and they are practicing apparently on the beach at the g-20, we have geled as a team, come together in a bipartisan, bicameral way and between our superior fielding, hitting and strategic approach to the game, we look forward to continuing as champions of the annual congressional women's softball team. 7:00 tomorrow night, watkins recreation center, come on out, encourage your staff. this year it's $10 entry fee, but it raises money for the young survival coalition which is an organization that raises awareness and supports young survivors of breast cancer, and
i will just conclude by thanking all the members and staff as a breast cancer survivor myself and a young one at that, it is so personally and deeply meaningful to me that the congressional family is always so supportive of the women members. and thank you to my congressional sisters. you guys are awesome. mrs. emerson: i want to thank martha roby for making our average go way, way down. with that, mr. chairman, we yield back. the chair: without objection, two-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-539 by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-539 offered by mr. markey of massachusetts. the chair: a recorded vote has the chair: a recorded vote has been requested.