Cynthia Lummis

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mrs. LUMMIS. I also rise in opposition to the amendment by the gentleman from the State of Washington. The best way to manage wolves is to let State experts do the job. Now, that's true whether you want to increase the number of wolves in your State, like the gentleman from the State of Washington wants to do, or you want to maintain a recovered population, which is what we want to do in my State of Wyoming. Now, the truth about current wolf management is that if Washington wants to try to increase the wolf population in western Washington, they cannot do it under the current rules. And in my State of Wyoming, when asked at our committee meeting whether the wolf was fully recovered in the State of Wyoming, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service testified that, yes, the gray wolf is fully recovered in the State of Wyoming, has been for a long time.

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

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. We don't have to pass this bill to read this bill. We know what's in it. It's been online for 72 hours. The American people can go read it. But in case you haven't read it, let me tell you what it does. It caps spending. It caps spending consistent with the discretionary spending cuts that we passed in the budget earlier this year. And it cuts some mandatory spending in 2012, setting us on the path that Moody's and S&P say they need to ensure investors that they can have confidence in U.S. treasuries. It will create the glide path that Ben Bernanke has told us over and over that we need to bring spending under 20 percent of GDP. And it will pass a balanced budget amendment, like the vast majority of States have. This is the way to implement what we need to raise our debt ceiling. We know that we cannot default on our debt, so we will raise our debt ceiling in a way that Standard & Poor's and Moody's have said they need to see in order to assure our borrowers that our currency is valuable, that our obligations will be met, and that we are going to get our spending under control. As the chairman of the House Budget Committee said a few minutes ago, when we passed his budget, we passed a plan that would broaden the base of taxes and lower the rate, that would not cut Medicare for seniors, for people over 55 years of age who aren't yet on Medicare, did not touch Social Security, and yet would preserve for the American people the decisions that this country was founded on.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. I move to strike the last word.

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment and to support the underlying bill. Water rights are a State issue. And this amendment would allow two Federal agencies to increase their own scope of jurisdiction pursuant to the Clean Water Act. Those agencies have acknowledged that this amendment would allow them to increase the scope of their jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. It is not that nonnavigable waters go without regulation. Nonnavigable waters are regulated. They are regulated in the States by State systems. In the State of Wyoming, that system is a regulatory system administered by the executive branch. In Colorado, that system is an adjudicatory system regulated through the courts. But in every case, in the West, where water is precious and sparse, the people who control it--whether it is in my State, like the board of control and our four regions and our water commissioners, our superintendents, our ditch riders, our ranchers, our farmers, our Department of Environmental Quality--they know the names of the streams; they know the names of the people who interact with the streams, the livestock that interacts with the streams, the wildlife that interacts with the streams, the weeds, the crops, the grass. They understand these ecosystems. State government has been regulating water for over a century in a very comprehensive, clear, boots-on-the-ground, understand the systems way of managing. Now if you take that and allow the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to expand their jurisdiction in a way that includes nonnavigable waters, it will take that regulatory scheme that is working so well, and it will bring it to Washington, 2,000 miles away from where the regulators are currently doing their jobs well every day, and put it right here in Washington, D.C., where people don't understand the scarcity of water, where people don't understand our regulatory schemes, where they don't understand our case law, where they don't understand our ditch riders, where they don't understand our superintendents, where they don't understand our boards of control, they don't understand our State engineers. Under the Western Attorneys General Conference, there is a specific entity related to the State engineers. The State engineers in the West are the people who regulate water. They meet regularly to discuss interstate issues and water jurisdiction as well as intrastate issues. This is a well-regulated, well-understood, well-managed, well- articulated system. To take it and decide the Federal Government, for no good reason, could do better at a time when the Federal Government is broke and we cannot expand its jurisdiction without costing the taxpayers needlessly more is a travesty, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate and honor Jackson Hole Mountain Resort (JHMR) from the state of Wyoming for their receipt of the National Ski Area Association's (NSAA) Golden Eagle Award. Having been a previous recipient of this award in 1995, JHMR yet again receives the highest honor in environmental achievement. This prestigious award is judged by industry peers and a select group of judges. As an example to all industries, both within and without the business of skiing, JHMR has managed to produce an environmentally-friendly ski resort. They are a great example to us all of environmental achievements. The award coincides with the resort's five year anniversary of ISO 14001 certification. JHMR is one of only two resorts in the United States to have met these standards. This specific award, the Golden Eagle Award, honors their environmental excellence for ``Medium Size Ski Areas'' (200,000--500,000 visits). Businesses, such as this resort, are our hope for a more beautiful world in the future, showing us that spectacular sites do not have to come at the cost of our environmental degradation. Jackson Hole Mountain Resort is justly proud to receive this award. Their selection shows their positive impact and contribution to a better environment. A few of their contributions, to note, are: modifications to their heating systems, reducing propane use by 20% and recycling all motor oil, along with antifreeze, batteries, and snowmelt (from grooming equipment). They have demonstrated a level of responsibility, commitment and care that deserves our recognition, support and utmost respect. Their developments and strategies are exemplary. They are a great example to us all. I commend them for their great deeds, and agree they are most deserving of this Golden Eagle Award.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Chairman, the gentleman from California would be correct, that ranchers and farmers should be able to pay to deal with the predator situation. The problem is, they're not allowed to. The Federal Government doesn't allow people to kill predators that are attacking their livestock. So consequently, here's another situation just like we discussed yesterday, where the government puts restrictions on ranchers and farmers so they cannot protect their own livestock. So the taxpayers--because of their demands that ranchers and farmers not protect their own livestock, the Federal Government steps in. In addition, though, wildlife strikes on airplanes cost U.S. commercial aviation $700 million a year. One part of Wildlife Services is when USDA works with 822 domestic airports, as well as Department of Defense air bases in the U.S. and in Iraq and in Afghanistan. So part of this is to assist with efforts to prevent conflict between wildlife and commercial aviation flights, some of which can be quite devastating and deadly. Furthermore, there's been an $18 million loss of sheep and lands to predators, or $111 million when you add cattle and calf losses. Absent predator management, losses would explode, and that would drive family farms and ranchers out of business. This is a very balanced program in terms of the approach it takes to shared responsibility between airport managers and Wildlife Services, ranchers and farmers and Wildlife Services. It requires a tremendous cost share or matching program at greater than 40 percent. The Wildlife Services Division has more than 2,500 cooperative agreements in place across the United States. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), former chairman of the Ag Committee.

Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Chair, the committee would be very pleased to work with the gentleman from New Mexico and myself in particular since my daughter is a new resident of your State.

Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment. It is violative of clause 2 of rule XXI because it proposes changes that require a new determination that is not within the purview and scope of the current bill. I respectfully ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Chairman, I now yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the chairman of the Ag Committee.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Before I withdraw the amendment, I wish to correct that this amendment has never been considered in committee or on the floor. This amendment only applies to the two lines in this horse inspection issue which deal with an individual's right to pay their own money to have a horse inspected. There are no taxpayer dollars involved in this amendment. I'm only striking the two lines that now you're even not allowing people to pay their own money to have a horse inspected. With that opportunity to correct the record, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the subcommittee informs me that he will accept the amendment.

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. I don't have a copy of it.

Mrs. LUMMIS. I object.

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. LUMMIS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mrs. LUMMIS. I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mrs. LUMMIS. I yield to my colleague from Ohio.

Mrs. LUMMIS. Would you consent to a departure as I use the remainder of my 5 minutes to discuss the issue of the stockyards and the GIPSA rule?

Mrs. LUMMIS. With the Chairman's leave, I would consent.

Mrs. LUMMIS. Respectfully, my chairman and I disagree on this issue. I raised this in our subcommittee of Appropriations, and his superior abilities to convince the subcommittee prevailed. But I weigh in on the side of Mr. Gibson and Mr. Gosar, and let me tell you why. The information that the committee chairman has is correct insofar as it gives you numbers on broadband access that will allow you a speed of receiving service that is so slow that it is basically 20th century rather than 21st century communications. For example, under the speed at which the numbers that the gentleman from Georgia has derived cover, this 99, 98 percent coverage, it would take you 9 hours to download a movie. Now, who's going to do that? But with this digital world we're in, the kinds of data that need to be unloaded in order to be a lone eagle, to have a business, to have the type of broadband access that my colleague from Arizona would like the Native Americans in his State to have, would require a much faster broadband service. And when you look at the speed of the broadband service that is consistent with having a robust community that has real broadband service, my State is at the rock bottom. Less than half of the people in my State have the kind of robust service that is typical of urban areas or suburban areas. The same could be said for my colleague from Arizona and the areas of his State where Native Americans so desperately need the opportunity to market products over the Internet. So I encourage my colleagues to support the position of my colleagues, Mr. Gibson and Mr. Gosar. And I rise in support of their amendment. I yield to the gentlelady from Ohio.

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.