Martin Heinrich

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HEINRICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HEINRICH

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

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HEINRICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. Speaker, shortly after being elected to Congress, I met with some New Mexico tribal leaders who brought to my attention the onerous process for securing a long-term lease on trust land--an unnecessary procedural burden that affects every single home mortgage on Indian land. We all know how important homeownership is to healthy communities, and the last thing the Federal Government should do is stand in the way of families ready and willing to buy a home. That's why I introduced this bill, the Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Home Ownership Act, which we call the HEARTH Act. Native families buying a house go through the same process as everyone else--they find a house they like, work with their bank to gain approval for a mortgage, and make an offer to the seller. But before these families can close on the sale, they must also get approval from the Bureau of Indian Affairs to lease the land that the house is built on. That approval can take between 6 months and 2 years--an intolerable delay for most buyers. We all know that a seller is rarely able to wait 2 years to sell their house, and banks are often unable to hold a mortgage approval for anywhere near that long. I know that there are many Native families who would prefer to stay and raise their children in the communities where their families have lived for generations, but instead have had to move from Indian Country to nearby cities because they want to own a home. Families shouldn't be forced to make such an important decision based on how many months, or years, it will take a Federal bureaucracy to approve a mortgage on tribal land. Similarly, many tribal communities lose out on commercial investment because the process for securing a lease through the BIA takes so long. In these tough economic times, we should not be making it harder for business to develop on tribal land. The HEARTH Act would allow tribes to develop their own leasing regulations and make leasing decisions on the tribal level rather than waiting for BIA approval. Under the bill, tribes would submit their regulations to the Secretary of the Interior for approval. Once the regulations are approved, tribes would be authorized to make their own decisions about how to lease their land in accordance with approved leases. This process would be completely voluntary for tribes. A tribe that chooses not to submit leasing regulations for approval would continue under the current system of BIA approval. Many tribes already have a lease approval process through their tribal government that approves land leases before they're even sent to the BIA. For those tribes that want the authority and responsibility for making final leasing decisions at the tribal level, the HEARTH Act would give them the option of doing so. Our Nation is home to a vast diversity of tribes, and Federal policy should reflect that diversity. The HEARTH Act will allow tribes to exercise greater control over their own land, support self- determination, and eliminate bureaucratic delays that stand in the way of homeownership and economic development in tribal communities. Mr. Speaker, before I close, I want to make sure to thank Representatives Markey, Hastings, Boren, Young, Kildee, Cole, and Lujan for their meaningful work on this important legislation. Again, I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important bipartisan bill to support Native families and communities. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega). (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HEINRICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HEINRICH. I want to applaud the majority for bringing this strong conservation legislation to the House floor today to designate a national monument in Congressman Tipton's district. There are a number of bills like Congressman Tipton's waiting for action that would either designate a new national monument or provide designation of a new wilderness area. This includes a bill that I have sponsored to include new areas in the existing Manzano Mountains Wilderness. Congratulations to Congressman Tipton for his success in advancing local conservation efforts. I hope that this is the beginning of consideration of similar bills pending before the committee so that we can advance our conservation goals across the Nation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. I want to thank my friend from Massachusetts for the time today and for her leadership on these issues. Mr. Speaker, the Cibola National Forest provides a stunning backdrop to the city of Albuquerque and much of central New Mexico. Stretching north to south through the Sandia and Manzano Mountains, this national forest demonstrates the value of preserving wild places near urban areas. H.R. 491 would expand the boundaries of the forest to streamline management and improve recreational access for local residents. It would transfer a 917-acre parcel, known as the Crest of Montezuma, from the Bureau of Land Management to the Forest Service. The Crest of Montezuma is an isolated BLM parcel adjacent to Cibola National Forest. The bill would also extend the forest boundary around three small parcels of private land adjacent to the Crest of Montezuma to allow the future purchase of these parcels subject to available funds. The owners of these parcels are willing sellers and eager to see their land permanently protected for the public good. H.R. 491 has strong local support from local residents, including from the Las Placitas Association, a 300-member citizen group that represents residents near the Crest of Montezuma. Local sportsmen also support the bill because of the importance of these lands as wildlife habitat. Over the last 3 years, I've received many letters from constituents asking me to make sure that the Crest of Montezuma is managed in a way that preserves its role as a wildlife corridor and opens it up for recreation for local residents. I am pleased to sponsor this bill to add these critical lands to the Cibola National Forest, and I ask my colleagues for their support.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. Chairman, for more than a century, the Antiquities Act has given American Presidents the authority to protect some of our Nation's most important and threatened places. Across my State of New Mexico, we see the benefit of the Antiquities Act. Bandelier National Monument, Carlsbad Caverns National Park, White Sands National Monument, and El Morro National Monument were all originally protected through the Antiquities Act. Research done last year by the New Mexico Green Chamber of Commerce shows that New Mexico's 10 national monuments established through the Antiquities Act account for 1.3 million annual tourist visits and $54 million in annual tourist spending supporting over 1,000 New Mexico jobs. In the last few weeks, countless New Mexicans, including sportsmen like myself, have asked President Obama to designate a new national monument to protect the Organ Mountains outside of Las Cruces, New Mexico. We are calling on our President to protect our vulnerable natural and cultural resources in southern New Mexico through the Antiquities Act. This amendment offered by my colleague from North Carolina would take that power away from the President and give State legislatures the power to make decisions about public lands that belong to all Americans. The Antiquities Act was specifically designed to allow Presidents to respond quickly to protect places in the national interest. Had the Antiquities Act been written with the language of this amendment, the Grand Canyon could have been overrun by sprawl, ancient cliff dwellings and the Petrified Forest National Park might have been looted, and the Arches National Park wouldn't even exist. An additional concern is that several State legislatures only meet for a limited number of days each year and can't respond to urgent threats to public lands. In my State, we only meet for 60 days in odd years and 30 days in even years. The Foxx amendment would prevent archeological, cultural, and historical sites from receiving the urgent protections they need. It also doesn't recognize that the United States has vast areas of unincorporated territory that is not under the jurisdiction of any State legislature. President George W. Bush used the Antiquities Act to protect lands and waters in unincorporated Federal areas, including the Marianas Trench Marine and Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monuments. National monuments should not be a partisan issue. After being signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt, 16 Presidents of both parties--eight Republicans and eight Democrats--have used this act to protect federally owned lands and waters to better protect America's treasures for future generations. And by attaching this divisive issue to this bill, the chances of a Presidential veto are greatly increased. I hope that we would refrain from endangering the pro-sportsmen portions of this bill with controversial issues like this one. As an active sportsman, I strongly support the Antiquities Act, and I ask for a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

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

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As an active sportsman, I am proud to introduce this amendment today. It's likely that you have heard claims from some of my colleagues across the aisle that the manager's amendment will resolve the concerns that I have raised today, thus making this amendment redundant or duplicative. Mr. Chairman, that is simply not the case. While I appreciate the intent of my colleagues to resolve my concerns, their language is still far too vague and needs additional clarification. As an avid hunter, I strongly support increasing access to public lands for hunting and fishing, but we can achieve that goal without eliminating the very wilderness protections that have protected some of the best wildlife habitat and, I would add, some of the best backcountry hunting opportunities in our Nation. The bill under consideration today would eliminate long-standing protections against logging, oil and gas drilling, and motor vehicle use in wilderness areas. It would create a loophole in the Wilderness Act for anything that would provide ``opportunities for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting.'' Under the Wilderness Act, land managers are allowed to act in ways that are otherwise not allowed in wilderness areas if the action is necessary for ``the minimum requirements necessary'' for the administration of the area. In practice, the minimum requirements necessary language and standard means that land managers can use motorized vehicles, chainsaws, even helicopters in extreme emergencies, to fight fires, rescue stranded hikers, or remove downed trees from trails that threaten human safety. This bill would extend that kind of exemption to any action that would ``provide an opportunity for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting.'' This means that activities otherwise not allowed in a wilderness area, like motor vehicle use, would now have to be permitted if it could be used to facilitate everyday activities like hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. Now, the manager's amendment includes language intended to address these concerns by providing that these provisions ``are not intended to authorize or facilitate commodity development, use, or extraction, or motor recreational access or use.'' Whether or not that's the bill's intention, the language in the bill allows for that possibility, and saying that wasn't the intent doesn't change what the language allows. In contrast, my amendment provides that nothing in this bill ``shall be construed to allow'' these otherwise prohibited activities in wilderness areas. ``Intended'' versus ``shall''; there's a very powerful legal difference. And sportsmen across the country recognize this difference and support my amendment. In the last few hours, I've heard from countless supporters in my own State, including the New Mexico Wildlife Federation; the New Mexico chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers; Dona Ana County Associated Sportsmen; the High Desert Sportsmen; and the Sportsmen Concerned of Northeast New Mexico, just to name a few. And nationally, we've heard from groups like the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and TU. As the bill's sponsors say that they are not trying to create sweeping exemptions to the Wilderness Act, I have no doubt that they'll support my amendment, as it clearly eliminates these loopholes that were unintentionally included. As a back-country hunter, I know how valuable wilderness is to hunters and anglers, and I hope my colleagues will continue to support protecting wildlife habitat in wilderness areas and vote for my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to my good friend and colleague and a sportsman from northern New Mexico (Mr. Lujan).

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. Speaker, on the evening of March 26, 2012, I unfortunately missed rollcall votes 127, 128, and 129. If I had been present, I would have voted in favor of rollcall vote 127, Representative Stiver's (OH 15) bill, H.R. 2779. If I had been present, I would have voted in favor of rollcall vote 128, Representative Grimm's (NY 13) H.R. 2682. If I had been present, I would have voted in favor of rollcall vote 129, approval of the journal.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. Speaker, on March 19, 2012, I unfortunately missed rollcall vote No. 111. If I had been present, I would have voted in favor of rollcall vote No. 111, Representative Berman's (CA 28) bill, H.R. 3992.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. Speaker, on this afternoon of February 14, 2012, I unfortunately missed rollcall vote 49. If I had been present, I would have voted in favor of rollcall vote 49, on approving the Journal.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. Speaker, I unfortunately missed three votes the afternoon of February 3, 2012, which included rollcall votes 31, 32, and 33. If I had been present, I would have voted in favor of rollcall vote 31, the Motion to Recommit Representative Woodall's (GA-07) H.R. 3578. If I had been present, I would have voted against rollcall vote 32, final passage of Representative Woodall's (GA-07) H.R. 3578. If I had been present, I would have voted against rollcall vote 33, the conference report for Representative Mica's (FL-07) H.R. 658.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. Speaker, I unfortunately missed three votes on the afternoon of January 18, 2012, which included rollcall votes 2, 3, and 4. If I had been present, I would have voted against rollcall vote 2, Representative Scott's (SC-01) bill, H. Res. 515. If I had been present, I would have voted in favor of rollcall vote 3, Approval of the Journal. If I had been present, I would have voted against rollcall vote 4, Representative Tom Reed's (NY-29) bill, H.J. Res. 98.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona for pulling us together from around the four corners to honor these incredible Native Americans, these incredible Americans, especially on this historic anniversary. And I'm certainly honored to join my colleagues tonight to honor the quiet valor of all the Navajo Code Talkers. Today, some six decades since their service during World War II, only one of the original 29 Code Talkers, Corporal Chester Nez, survives. And I am incredibly proud of Corporal Nez, who at the age of 90 resides in my congressional district in Albuquerque with his son Mike, his daughter-in-law Rita, and their children. Corporal Nez's story is much like the hundreds of Code Talkers who followed in his footsteps. He grew up on the Navajo Nation to parents who grew corn and pinto beans, kept goats and sheep. And he grew up in a time when Navajos were sharply mistreated and even unable to vote in our own elections in places throughout the Southwest. Yet in 1942, at the age of 18, he sprung into action and he joined the 382nd Platoon in a role that is largely credited with saving thousands of American lives. Along with the other 28 original Code Talkers, Corporal Nez developed a code from their unwritten language. You can find the code's explanation today in the index of his autobiography. And whether in artillery, tanks, aboard ships or in infantry, the Code Talkers played a vital role in some of the worst battles in the Pacific theater, communicating battlefield codes that were never, ever broken by the enemy. Their code-talking was considered so essential to the war that, unlike their counterparts, many of them were forced to serve straight through the war with no breaks for rest or trips back home. And today, we widely recognize that their service helped turn the course of World War II. Yet because of the sheer secret of their role and the possibility that they would be called back for the same duty in the future, the actions of the Code Talkers weren't declassified until 23 years after the war ended. And it wasn't until 55 years later that they were bestowed with the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor and Silver Medal. To the young people of the Navajo Nation for whom Corporal Nez's quiet valor is a remarkable example, I encourage you to carry on his legacy by keeping the Navajo language alive and well for generations to come. Mr. Speaker, I know that the Navajo Nation takes such pride in these heroes. And on behalf of all of us who owe a tremendous debt of gratitude for their service, I'm proud to recognize the courage, service, and bravery of all the Navajo Code Talkers, and especially Corporal Nez of Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. Speaker, I unfortunately missed a vote yesterday afternoon, specifically rollcall vote 879. If I had been present, I would have voted in support of rollcall vote 879, the Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 527.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. Speaker, I unfortunately missed votes which included roll call votes 829, 830, 831, 832, 833, 834, 835, and 836. If I had been present, I would have voted in opposition of rollcall vote 829, the Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2838. If I had been present, I would have voted in opposition of rollcall vote 830, H. Res. 455--Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2838-- Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2011. If I had been present, I would have voted in favor of rollcall vote 831, H.R. 3321--America's Cup Act of 2011. If I had been present I would have cast the following votes on amendments to the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2011: rollcall vote 832 (Cummings Amendment): ``yea;'' rollcall vote 833 (Thompson Amendment): ``yea;'' rollcall vote 834 (Napolitano Amendment): ``yea;'' rollcall vote 835 (Bishop Amendment): ``yea;'' rollcall vote 836 (Slaughter Amendment): ``yea.''

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. Speaker, I unfortunately missed three votes on September 12, 2011, which included roll call votes 699, 700 and 701. If I had been present, I would have voted in favor of rollcall vote 699, H.R. 2076, the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2011. If I had been present, I would have voted in favor of rollcall vote 700, H.R. 2633, the Appeal Time Clarification Act of 2011. Finally, if I had been present, I would have voted in favor of rollcall vote 701, H.R. 1059, to protect the safety of judges by extending the authority of the Judicial Conference to redact sensitive information contained in their financial disclosure reports, and for other purposes.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a notable labor advocate in New Mexico's First Congressional District, Mr. Rod Weigand. Mr. Weigand has served for the past 7 years as Grand Lodge Representative for New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming as part of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, or ``IAM.'' In his role, Mr. Weigand has conducted numerous campaigns in the Aerospace, Service Contract and Automotive sectors of industry. He was also instrumental in securing collective bargaining agreements in the Service Contract arena which included White Sands Missile Range and Kirtland Air Force Base. His 31 years of membership, dedication, and service to the Machinists Union have centered upon core values of organized labor: fair pay for an honest day's work, dignified treatment in the workplace, and equal opportunity for all. In recent years, those kinds of organized labor struggles have come under increasing attack. Yet the strength of the labor movement is visible in leaders like Mr. Weigand. Mr. Weigand's dedication to the well-being of working New Mexican machinists and aerospace workers resulted in many sacrifices in his own life. Yet his work has been instrumental in mentoring numerous union activists in hopes of maintaining a middle class America, while allowing for those less fortunate to realize their American dream. This great nation should continue to be the land of equal opportunity as it was intended by our forefathers. In New Mexico, when many other sectors recently struggled or lost jobs, our innovative industries grew in revenue and contributed to our national defense, energy independence, and economic vitality. Those sectors are helping our nation's ability to rise to the challenges of the 21st century and they're also providing high-skill high-wage jobs. I appreciate Mr. Weigand's leadership in those New Mexican sectors, including high technology manufacturing and aerospace. I am proud to honor Mr. Rod Weigand for his continued leadership in strengthening the manufacturing and aerospace industry in New Mexico and for promoting the well-being of its workers. The impact of leaders like Mr. Weigand and the Machinists and Aerospace Workers is critical to New Mexico's future. As a result, today's workers enjoy benefits far beyond what they had before and in the words of IAM, ``it doesn't cost to be a union member--it pays.'' I wish Mr. Weigand and his family our best in all of their future endeavors.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. Speaker, I unfortunately missed two votes this evening, which included rollcall votes 601 and 602. If I had been present, I would have voted in favor of rollcall vote No. 601, H.R. 33. If I had been present, I would have voted in favor of rollcall vote No. 602, on Approving the Journal.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. Speaker, I unfortunately missed fifteen votes on July 12, 2011, which included rollcall votes 539, 540, 541, 542, 543, 544, 545, 546, 547, 548, 549, 550, 551, 552 and 553. If I had been present, I would have voted against rollcall vote 539, Representative Sessions' (TX-32) amendment to H.R. 2354. If I had been present, I would have voted in favor of rollcall vote 540, Representative Moran's (VA-08) amendment to H.R. 2354. If I had been present, I would have voted in favor of rollcall vote 541, Representative Markey's (MA-07) amendment to H.R. 2354. If I had been present, I would have voted against rollcall vote 542, Representative Lamborn's (CO-05) amendment to H.R. 2354. If I had been present, I would have voted in favor of rollcall vote 543, Representative Connolly's (VA-11) amendment to H.R. 2354. If I had been present, I would have voted in favor of rollcall vote 544, Representative Miller's (NC-13) amendment to H.R. 2354. If I had been present, I would have voted against rollcall vote 545, Representative Broun's (GA-10) amendment to H.R. 2354. If I had been present, I would have voted against rollcall vote 546, Representative Welch's (VT-At Large) amendment to H.R. 2354. If I had been present, I would have voted against rollcall vote 547, Representative Pompeo's (KS-04) amendment to H.R. 2354. If I had been present, I would have voted against rollcall vote 548, Representative Tonko's (NY-21) amendment to H.R. 2354. If I had been present, I would have voted against rollcall vote 549, Representative Garrett's (NJ-05) amendment to H.R. 2354. If I had been present, I would have voted in favor of rollcall vote 550, Representative Wu's (OR-01) amendment to H.R. 2354. If I had been present, I would have voted against rollcall vote 551, Representative McClintock's (CA-04) amendment to H.R. 2354. If I had been present, I would have voted in favor of rollcall vote 552, Representative Schiff's (CA-29) amendment to H.R. 2354. Lastly, I would have voted in favor of rollcall vote 553, Representative Garamendi's (CA-10) amendment to H.R. 2354.