Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2739) to authorize certain programs and activities in the Department of the Interior, the Forest Service, and the Department of Energy, to implement further the Act approving the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America, to amend the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to call up this legislation which is comprised of 61 separate measures that were already considered by this body, packaged by the Senate, and sent back to us for further and final consideration. This is a bipartisan package, almost evenly split between bills sponsored by Democrats and Republicans.

Further, I would note that 57 of the measures included in this package originated in the Committee on Natural Resources. In this regard, I salute the committee's Chairs who worked so hard on this legislation:

Raul Grijalva, chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands; Grace Napolitano, chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Water and Power, and Donna Christensen, chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs.

In this body, these three Members did all of the heavy lifting, the hearings, the managing of the individual bills on the floor, the listening from other Members of this body that helped to make the package we are considering today possible.

The pending measures include new protections for wilderness, national parks, historic sites and trails, and precious water resources from sea to shining sea.

I will not speak to each and every provision of this legislation today but would like to highlight two in particular.

This bill will finally designate the long-awaited Wild Sky Wilderness in Washington State, championed by our colleague, Rick Larsen. As I noted last week when the House considered wilderness legislation for my home State of West Virginia, to be in a wilderness area is truly a humbling experience. To be part of designating the wilderness is even more humbling because wilderness is an effort to retain the landscape as God created it. And as with God's good graces, we are working toward designating new wilderness areas in West Virginia today.

Let this be the next-to-last action, other than the President's signature, on establishing the Wild Sky Wilderness in the State of Washington.

The other measure I would like to highlight would finally bring badly needed immigration, national security and labor protections for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Further, this legislation would also grant a nonvoting delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives to the Northern Mariana Islands.

For too long, abuses took place in the CNMI, and for too long remedial legislation was held hostage in this body. Let this legislation bring forth a new dawn, the start of a new era with a delegate to this body, that the people of the CNMI's voices be heard.

Again, I want to thank the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Dr. Donna Christensen, for her great work on this matter.

There are other issues of note in this bill. It would expand parks in Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Washington and Idaho. It would improve visitor transportation options at Denali National Park and Acadia National Park. And it would expand and increase the authorization for the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom. Three new national heritage areas and nine existing areas will receive Federal assistance under this measure. Seven other areas will be examined as possible new park units.

This bill would also authorize Federal participation in new and expanded water recycling projects around the west, projects which will provide an estimated 52,600 acre-feet of water annually in an area experiencing severe drought.

It's a good bill, Mr. Speaker. I urge all Members to vote for this package.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a senior member of our Committee on Natural Resources, Mr. DeFazio from Oregon.

Mr. Speaker, I have already commended her profusely, but I want to once again thank the chairwoman of our Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Donna Christensen, from the Virgin Islands for the hard work and long hours that she has put in on this legislation. I now yield her 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to yield 2 minutes to another of our subcommittee chairwomen who has put in long hours and very hard work on this legislation, the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans (Ms. Bordallo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of our Committee on Natural Resources, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I have commended this gentleman in my opening remarks because he truly has worked hard over a number of years for a major part of this package. It is a highlight of the package, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen) to explain it.

Mr. Speaker, a simple response to the gentleman who just spoke. There's no eminent domain authority whatsoever granted in this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut, a very valued Member that has worked hard on this bill and has done a superb job, and I want to commend Mr. Courtney for his leadership and work on this legislation.

I am prepared to close on this side, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, this is 60-some pieces of legislation in this bill, and it may not be perfect, but it's the nature of the beast, as the process is. Of the 60-some measures in this legislation, 57 that went through our committee on

Natural Resources were pretty well examined. They weren't just thrown into this bill without any consideration whatsoever. Either in this Congress or the previous Congress, these bills have had hearings on them. I mentioned the subcommittee process that worked its will in our Committee on Natural Resources. So this bill has had pretty careful scrutiny.

I'd like to conclude by commending the majority leader of the other body, Mr. Reid. He has called me on this legislation. It passed through the other body after a tortuous process. The final vote over there was 91-4. I also want to commend the Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee on the other side, Mr. Bingaman, for his work and his tenacity.

Again, I commend my ranking member, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the subcommittee ranking member, Mr. Bishop, and the staffs on both sides of our committee on Natural Resources for the long hours that they have put in on this legislation. It is indeed, as the process goes, an excellent piece of legislation, and I am very proud and highly commend it to my colleagues for passage and on to the President for his signature.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this Senate- passed bill, and urge that it be passed and sent to the President for signing into law.

It gathers into one omnibus measure some 60 bills--dealing with various public land, national park, water, and territorial issues--that have already been passed by the House but on which the Senate has not taken separate action. To expedite their consideration, Senator Bingaman, the Chairman of the other body's Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, gathered them into one package after most if not all of them had been favorably reported by that committee and been pending on the Senate calendar for some time. Each part of the package is important, but I want to highlight three.

produced water legislation

Section 514, entitled ``More Water, More Energy, Less Waste,'' is based on my bill, H.R. 902, the ``More Water and More Energy Act,'' which passed the House last year.

Its purpose is to facilitate the use of water produced in connection with development of energy resources for irrigation and other uses in ways that will not adversely affect water quality or the environment.

I think there is a possibility that it can help change an energy- industry problem into an opportunity, not just for oil and gas producers but for everyone else who would benefit from increased supplies of useable water. And especially in the arid west, that covers everyone--not least our hard-pressed ranchers and farmers.

The focus of the section is the underground water extracted in connection with development of energy sources like oil, natural gas or coalbed methane. It would do two things:

First, it would direct the Bureau of Reclamation and the USGS to identify the obstacles to greater use of produced water and how those obstacles could be reduced or eliminated without adversely affecting water quality or the environment.

Second, it would provide for Federal help in building pilot plants to demonstrate ways to treat produced water to make it suitable for irrigation or other uses, again without adversely affecting water quality or the environment. At least one of these pilot plants would be in each of the States in the Upper Basin of the Colorado River--that is, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming--and at least one would be in one of the States in the Colorado River's lower basin--Arizona, California, and Nevada. This is to assure that, together, the plants would demonstrate techniques applicable to a variety of geologic and other conditions. The Federal Government could pay up to half the cost of building each plant, but no more than $1 million for any one plant. No Federal funds could be used for operating the plants.

The extent of the potential benefits was shown by the testimony of Mr. David Templet at a hearing on the similar bill of mine the House considered in the 109th Congress.

Testifying on behalf of the Domestic Petroleum Council and several other groups, including the Colorado Oil & Gas Association, he noted that produced water is the most abundant byproduct associated with the production of oil and gas, with about 18 billion barrels being generated by onshore wells in 1995. And he pointed out that if only an additional 1 percent of that total could be put to beneficial use, the result would be to make over 75 billion gallons annually available for use for irrigation or other agriculture, municipal purposes, or to benefit fish and wildlife.

Now, remember that in the west we usually measure water by the acre- foot--the amount that would cover an acre to the depth of one foot--and an acre-foot is about 328,560 gallons, so an additional 75 billion gallons is more than 230,000 acre feet--more water, indeed.

And at the same time making produced water available for surface uses, instead of just reinjecting it into the subsurface, can help increase the production of oil and gas.

At the hearing, this was illustrated by the testimony of Dr. David Stewart, a registered professional engineer from Colorado. He cited the example of an oil field in California from which an estimated additional 150 million barrels of oil could be recovered if water were removed from the subsurface reservoir. And he pointed out that where oil recovery is thermally enhanced, a reduced amount of underground water means less steam--and so less cost--is needed to recover the oil.

The potential for having both more water and more energy is also illustrated by the example of a project near Wellington, Colorado, that treats produced water as a new water resource. I had the opportunity to visit it last year, and found it very interesting. An oil company is embarking on the project to increase oil production while a separate company will purchase the produced water to supplement existing supplies, eventually allowing the town of Wellington and other water users in the area to have increased water for drinking and other purposes.

In view of its potential for leading to both ``more water'' and ``more energy'' as well as ``less waste,'' I was pleased but not surprised that the Administration, through the Interior Department, has testified that it ``agrees that the goals of the bill are commendable and the needs that could be addressed are real.'' So, I welcome the fact that the Senate has followed the lead of the House in approving this legislation, and I look forward to its enactment.

platte river recovery implementation legislation

Section 515 of this Senate-passed bill is also based on a bill (H.R. 1462) I introduced last year. It will authorize the Interior Department to participate in the implementation of the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Species in the Central and Lower Platte River Basin.

As I said when the House debated that bill, I consider myself fortunate to have the honor of introducing it, and am gratified that it was cosponsored by my Colorado colleagues, Representatives DeGette, Salazar, and Perlmutter, as well as the entire House delegations of our neighboring States of Wyoming and Nebraska.

Its purpose is to continue a cooperative effort involving the Federal Government and the States of Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming (and other entities and groups) aimed at recovery of endangered species in ways that will not involve the creation of Federal water rights or requiring the grant of water rights to Federal entities. It is the result of 14 years of negotiations that culminated in 2006 when the Governors of Colorado, Wyoming, and Nebraska joined Secretary Kempthorne in signing the agreement.

The program is modeled after a somewhat similar program for the recovery of several endangered species of fish in the upper basin of the Colorado River. I have strongly supported that program because it has enabled us in Colorado and other participating States to meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act while allowing continued development and use of water for other purposes as well. While such arrangements are not easy to work out, I think doing so is far better than alternative approaches that are more likely to be marked by conflicts or litigation. So, I think all concerned in the negotiation of this important agreement are to be congratulated.

The Program has three main elements--(1) increasing stream flows in the central Platte River during relevant periods through retiming and water conservation/supply projects; (2) enhancing, restoring and protecting habitat lands for the target bird species; and (3) accommodating certain new water related activities. Its purpose is to benefit three endangered species (interior least tern, whooping crane, and pallid sturgeon) and one threatened species (piping plover) referred to as the ``target species.'' The Federal Government is to pay half the cost, for which the total authorization would be $157.14 million plus any needed inflation adjustments. Implementation of the Program will mitigate the adverse impacts of certain new water related activities through the implementation of state and federal depletions plans. This will allow continued growth and water development to occur in the Platte River basin along with improving conditions for the target species.

The legislation is important for Colorado and our neighbors in Wyoming and Nebraska. I am glad that the Senate has approved it and look forward to its becoming law.

Northern Marianas Legislation

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to note that Title VII of the bill before us includes important provisions related to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or CNMI.

Subtitle A of that Title responds to longstanding Federal concerns regarding immigration, labor, and law enforcement in the CNMI.

Its enactment will bring completion, at long last, to more than a decade of congressional and executive branch efforts to extend the U.S. immigration laws to the CNMI including the establishment of Federal border control as anticipated by the 1976 covenant agreement between the CNMI and the United States.

And Subtitle B will enable the citizens of the CNMI--who have been U.S. citizens and members of the U.S. family for over 20 years--to elect a Delegate to the House of Representatives, a necessary step if we are to keep faith with our Nation's founding principle of representative government.

The CNMI, a U.S. Territory located in the western Pacific Ocean, is an archipelago comprised of fourteen islands. The majority of CNMI's population lives on three of the most southern islands: its capital Saipan, Rota, and Tinian. At the end of World War II, along with most of the other islands in the Micronesian region, they were included in a United Nations Strategic Trust Territory administered by the United States. In the early 1970's, the Northern Marianas sought greater self- government, and in 1975 submitted a ``Covenant'' proposal to the U.S. for final approval. After favorable consideration by Congress, that Covenant, which established the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in political union with the United States, was signed into law in 1976 by President Gerald Ford.

During the negotiations over the Covenant, island officials expressed concern about possible adverse effects on their culture and economic development that could come from application of certain U.S. laws. In response, the Marianas government was given temporary responsibility for determining minimum wage laws, immigration standards, and an income tax system.

Beginning in the late 1980s, the CNMI focused on developing a garment industry and used its local control of immigration policy to allow for the recruitment and importation of foreign guest workers. But there were increasing reports of abuses.

For example, after visiting the islands in July, 1997, the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform reported it had found problems ``ranging from bureaucratic inefficiencies to labor abuses to an unsustainable economic, social and political system that is antithetical to most American values,'' including exploitation of foreign workers with retaliation against protesters, suppression of basic freedoms, and flagrant abuses of household workers, agricultural workers, and bar girls. The Commission said the CNMI's guest-worker policy had created major policy problems and resulted in a two-class system where the majority of workers were denied political and social rights.

That and similar reports prompted efforts to achieve reforms through Federal legislation, and both the George H. W. Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration were concerned about repeated allegations that foreign guest workers were being mistreated and exploited. Both Administrations supported addressing the problem through legal reforms.

I have long supported those reforms. In 1999--my first year as a Representative from Colorado--I joined as a cosponsor of a bill a bill entitled the ``United States-Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Human Dignity Act'' to bar use of the ``Made in the USA'' label on textiles produced in the CNMI unless they were produced in plants that conformed with American labor laws, including those aimed at protecting health and safety and guarding against exploitation.

And ever since, I have supported similar legislation, including the bill (H.R. 3079, the ``Northern Mariana Islands Immigration, Security, and Labor Act'') which passed the House last year and which is the basis for Subtitle A of Title VII of the bill before us today.

I did so, in part, because in September, 1999, the Committee on Resources (as it was then named) held an oversight hearing regarding the enforcement of federal laws and the use of federal funds in the CNMI at which officials of the Interior Department and the Departments of Justice and Labor, testified that reform legislation was needed.

As the witness from the Justice Department put it, ``in order to control crime in the CNMI, the U.S. government must be able to prevent criminals from gaining unlimited access to the islands. We cannot expect to stop the flow of drugs, or guns, or trafficking in women and forced prostitution, unless we keep out the people who we know are already committing these crimes'' and ``the only way to fight effectively the larger crime problem on the CNMI is to apply the Act as it is applied in other U.S. jurisdictions with appropriate transitional phase-in provisions to prevent avoidable adverse impacts on the economy.'' And the witness from the Labor Department told our committee that ``there are extremely serious, pervasive, and stubbornly persist[ing] immigration, labor, and human rights problems in the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas'' which ``derive from systematic, structural weaknesses in the legal framework in the Commonwealth and any solution to these problems demands a comprehensive, structural solution.''

In short, in the words of the witness from the Interior Department, ``current Federal law is insufficient to correct the continuing inadequacies caused by CNMI immigration and labor policy'' and ``the need to apply . . . Federal immigration, wage, and trade standards is inescapable.''

Unfortunately Mr. Speaker, while responsible Federal officials saw the need as inescapable, for too long Congress did not act to meet that need. In part, that was because those responsible for some of the worse abuses had friends in powerful positions here in the House of Representatives.

That evidently was why the then-leadership of the House refused to even allow the House to debate a reform bill (S. 1052 of the 106th Congress) sponsored by the Republican Senator who chaired the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources that passed the Senate without dissent in 2000.

Instead of being brought to the House floor, like this bill, that measure was bottled up in the Resources Committee and Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist who represented some of its most important opponents, reportedly informed his clients that ``We erected a roadblock in the House to stop the bill from moving.''

But now that roadblock is gone, and today we can write an end to that sad chapter by approving reforms that have been delayed far too long.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill that deserves enactment, and I urge the House to approve it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. President, today I will introduce the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007.

Ending racial profiling in America has been a priority for me for many years. I worked with the senior Senator from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, back in 1999 on a bill to collect statistics on traffic stops, which is where the problem of racial profiling was first revealed. Many studies from around the country now confirm that racial profiling is indeed a real problem that wastes police resources and diminishes trust between police departments and the communities they protect.

In 2001, in his first State of the Union address, President Bush told the American people that ``racial profiling is wrong and we will end it in America.'' He asked the Attorney General to implement a policy to end racial profiling. The Department of Justice released a Fact Sheet and Policy Guidance addressing racial profiling in 2003, stating that racial profiling is wrong and ineffective and perpetuates negative racial stereotypes in our country. Though these guidelines are helpful, they do not end racial profiling and they do not have the force of law. Unfortunately, more than 6 years after the President's promise to the country, we have not yet ended racial profiling in this country.

The End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 will do what the President promised; it will help America achieve the goal of bringing an end to racial profiling. This bill bans racial profiling and requires Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers to take steps to end this practice.

Racial profiling is the practice by which some law enforcement agents treat differently African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, Arab Americans and others simply because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, or perceived religion. I have the utmost respect for law enforcement agents, and I believe that most of them do not engage in this practice. Nonetheless, reports in States from New Jersey to Florida, and Maryland to Texas all show that African Americans, Hispanics, and members of other minority groups were stopped by some police far more often than their share of the population and the crime rates for those racial categories.

Passing this bill is even more urgent after 9/11, as we have seen racial profiling used against Arab and Muslim Americans or Americans perceived to be Arab or Muslim. The 9/11 attacks were horrific, and I share the determination of many Americans that finding those responsible and preventing future attacks should be this Nation's top priority. This is a challenge that our country can and must meet. But to do that we need improved intelligence and law enforcement. Making assumptions based on racial, ethnic, or religious stereotypes will not protect our nation from crime or from future terrorist attacks.

A report released in May by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics, covering 2005 data, found that while an African American person is now almost equally likely to be stopped as a white person, he or she is more than two and a half times more likely to be searched, more than twice as likely to be arrested, and more than three and a half times more likely to experience the use of force. Yet, according to studies from multiple police jurisdictions, these encounters with law enforcement are less likely to reveal criminal activity on the part of African Americans than whites. The flagrancy of this flawed and irrational practice has led Harvard Law School professor Charles Ogletree to observe, ``If I'm dressed in a knit cap and hooded jacket, I'm probable cause.''

The disparities outlined above, which also apply to other ethnic groups, have led the International Association of Chiefs of Police to call for an end to racial profiling. In addition, police departments around the country have independently developed programs and policies to prevent racial profiling and comply with the Department of Justice's policy guidance. In my own State of Wisconsin, law enforcement officials have taken steps to train police officers, improve academy training, establish model policies prohibiting racial profiling, and improve relations with our State's diverse communities. I applaud the efforts of Wisconsin law enforcement. This is excellent progress and shows widespread recognition that racial profiling harms our society. But like the DOJ policy guidance, local programs don't have the force of law behind them. The Federal government must step up, as President Bush promised. It must play a vital role in protecting civil rights and acting as a model for State and local law enforcement.

Now, perhaps more than ever before, our Nation cannot afford to waste precious law enforcement resources or alienate Americans by tolerating discriminatory practices. The mass detention of hundreds of Middle Eastern and Arab men on minor violations after 9/11, for example, resulted in not a single terrorism charge. These detentions did, however, shatter the lives of many people with no connection to terrorism whatsoever through lengthy disappearances, detentions, and deportations.

Similarly, when the Federal Government required the registration of individuals from Arab or Muslim countries in 2002, between 500 and 1,000 registrants who voluntarily complied were detained in the Los Angeles/Orange County area alone. Such heavy-handed tactics do not help us in fighting terrorism--they shut off dialogue and make good people unwilling to risk interaction with their Government. Treating sympathetic communities as suspicious ones is counterproductive, and it is wrong.

It is past time for Congress and the President to enact comprehensive Federal legislation that will end racial profiling once and for all. In clear language, the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 bans racial profiling. It defines racial profiling in terms that are consistent with the Department of Justice's Policy Guidance. But this bill does more than prohibit and define racial profiling--it gives law enforcement agencies and officers the tools necessary to end the harmful practice. For that reason, the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 is a pro-law enforcement bill.

This bill would allow the Justice Department or individuals to enforce the prohibition by filing a suit for injunctive relief. The bill would also require Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to adopt policies prohibiting racial profiling, implement effective complaint procedures or create independent auditor programs, implement disciplinary procedures for officers who engage in the practice, and collect data on routine and spontaneous investigatory activities. In addition, it requires the Attorney General to report to Congress so Congress and the American people can monitor whether the steps outlined in the bill to prevent and end racial profiling have been effective.

This bill also authorizes the Attorney General to provide incentive grants to help law enforcement comply with the ban on racial profiling, including funds to conduct training of police officers or purchase in- car video cameras.

Like the bill I introduced in 2005, this year's bill contains a significant improvement over previous versions. In some early proposals, DOJ grants for State and local law enforcement agencies were tied to the agency having some kind of procedure for handling complaints of racial profiling. At the suggestion of experts in the field, the bill now requires law enforcement agencies to adopt either an administrative complaint procedure or an independent auditor program to be eligible for DOJ grants. The Attorney General must promulgate regulations that set out the types of procedures and audit programs that will be sufficient. We believe that the independent auditor option will be preferable for many local law enforcement agencies, and such programs have proven to be an effective way to discourage racial profiling. Also, the Attorney General is required to conduct a 2-year demonstration project to help law enforcement agencies with data collection.

Let me emphasize that local, State, and Federal law enforcement agents play a vital role in protecting the public from crime and protecting the Nation from terrorism. The vast majority of law enforcement agents nationwide discharge their duties professionally and without bias and we are all indebted to them for their courage and dedication. This bill should not be misinterpreted as a criticism of those who

put their lives on the line for the rest of us each and every day. Rather, it is a statement that the use of race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin in deciding which persons should be subject to traffic stops, stops and frisks, questioning, searches, and seizures is wrong and ineffective, except where there is specific information linking persons of a particular race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin to a crime.

The provisions in this bill will help restore the trust and confidence of the communities that our law enforcement have pledged to serve and protect. That confidence is crucial to our success in stopping crime and in stopping terrorism. The End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 is good for law enforcement and good for America.

I urge the President to make good on his pledge to end racial profiling, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam Speaker, I have had the wonderful opportunity, or privilege, I guess, at different times, of standing, sitting in this chair, standing at this mike either to present bills or to control time or to present rules. Oftentimes, I was perplexed at the discussion that went on, because oftentimes our side would be giving wonderful speeches and their side would be giving wonderful speeches but never on the same topic. We didn't even have the terms defined. That will not happen today with this particular bill, because there is but one issue, and the issue is clear, and it is precise.

We do not have a problem with the creation of the wild and scenic river for this Eightmile area in the State of Connecticut. I am under the assumption that at the public hearings that were held in Connecticut, issues that could be of concern, for example, if you have a kid and want to add a bedroom, if you want to add a garage to your home, if you want to fix the roof to your house, if you want to repair a road that's been washed out or even ask to clear some of the brush next to the river, that not only could that possibly be prohibited, but it would probably be prohibited because there is precedent in other wild and scenic areas where that exact same thing has happened.

But, with that, and I am sure it was covered in those public hearings, I am convinced a majority of residents in this area supported the wild and scenic area. I was somewhat disenchanted, when we were told in the hearing it was unanimous support. Later on, we found out it was not that and the record has been amended to illustrate that.

In one city, in which one of the letters I received said only five people were opposed to it, in reality it was about a 400-person meeting with about a third, about 40 percent who were opposed to it. Still not a majority, so I am not opposed to the scenic river.

What is significant, though, is there is a significant minority of individuals in this area that are fearful of what may happen to their homes in this area. Their rights and their fears should be considered and should be considered carefully. It is ironic that this happens to be in the district in which both the leaders of the State and local government turned their backs on Susette Kelo and brought about that infamous court case decision dealing with Kelo, imminent domain issues.

We do not want that to be replicated, which is clearly why the Republicans presented language in both the Resources and Rules Committee to make it specifically clear what was the intent of this bill. The language we propose simply says, no Federal funds may be used to condemn land to carry out the purposes of this act or the amendment made by subsection B. Nothing would be done. It is puzzling to us why the Democratic Party would not support that language, when all the Democrats from the sponsor to the committee chairman say that is, indeed, their goal.

If their goal is not to use condemnation, then you should say so. Why this wasn't accepted in a bipartisan way is, for me, puzzling. Otherwise, this bill need not to be here today; it could easily be handled by unanimous consent.

The language that the chairman of the subcommittee gave you does not prohibit condemnation. It is based on zoning ordinances, zoning ordinances.

It is unusual that, indeed, Federal statute should be contingent on local governments coming up with their zoning ordinance as of a specific date.

What happens if they don't have those? What happens if they change those zoning ordinances, as has already happened?

This is like a trial lawyer's dream come true in being able to take this language to a court and say, Look, Congress didn't specifically protect property rights with no condemnation language; they put their emphasis on local control. Ergo, local control should take precedence.

They claim that the only land that will be taken will be done by donations or willing sellers. Another phrase, we have problems, simply because we have files that are bulging, of citizens who became willing sellers only after years of harassment put on them by Federal agencies.

If you mean that you don't want condemnation, say it. Say it in logical terms that any citizen, any lawyer or any judge will clearly understand.

If you don't mean it, then use double-talk, use loopholes. There is more that we need to talk about on this particular issue.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

I am very pleased to yield to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) such time as he may consume.

If I could ask the gentleman from Arizona how many more speakers you have.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

As I said before, there are some significant issues that always take place on these particular types of bills. Indeed, there is no basic statutory structure for wild and scenic bills. They've gone all over the place, including the now infamous one in New Jersey, which I think was actually the last bill to go through during the last session.

These are the issues that we've talked about before which can, indeed, take place under wild and scenic areas where people do not have the right to fix their roof, do not have the right to expand their garage, do not have the right to clear areas on their own property. It is not just a possibility; it is actually a probability. There is precedent for all of those.

But once again, this isn't this key issue. We are willing to have 8 miles of scenic river in Connecticut. The key issue is defending those people in Connecticut and establishing a precedent that is significant the rest of the way.

It's not simply a matter of reading the bill; it's a matter of reading the law. The language of zoning requirement, which once again is a conditional one. You mentioned the Attorney General from the State of Connecticut wrote a letter and once again he said the act flatly prohibits use of eminent domain if, and once again that's the conditional language, if the lands are subject to local zoning laws that conform to the purposes of the act. And once again the date that these zoning laws should have been in effect, the zoning ordinances have already been changed from that particular date.

But the key element is that that zoning language, that willing seller language, is inserted into the existing bill and it comes directly after this sentence, and the sentence is very clear. Nothing contained in this section, which is everything we've been talking about in this bill, nothing contained in this section however, shall preclude the use of condemnation. Nothing that you add as far as zoning ordinances or willing sellers precludes the right the Secretary of Interior has in the rest of the bill and the rest of the section from condemnation, unless you simply adopt the Republican language, and that is why we hit over and over and over again on this issue.

It is important that we stand up for property rights and personal property. It's important that people have some sense of security and safety in their own homes. And this bill doesn't take away this provision of the act which says, nothing contained in this section shall preclude the use of condemnation. That is to which we object. That is the problem with this bill. That is what must change.

The Republican option was clear, simple and to the point. The Democrat option, whatever the motive was, is somewhat double-talk. It's a loophole. This language that we propose is very similar to what this body adopted by a voice vote with the Department of Interior appropriations bill.

And in conclusion, Madam Speaker, I'm actually sad that we had this bill before us at all. There is no reason this bill should be before us with a closed rule. I wish that the Democrats had moved in a bipartisan way to work with us to meet what are legitimate concerns. And if, indeed, protection of private property is a partisan issue, I'm more than happy to be on the side of private property. That's the right side to be on in this issue. This bill may indeed sometime become a metaphor for this entire section where we can see how much muscle can be flexed to push through issues rather than sitting down and trying to solve problems.

I truly hope that in the future we can work in a bipartisan way, that we can actually talk together to find language that is mutually acceptable to both sides of the aisle for these issues, because there's no reason that we should actually have to go through a closed rule on this type of a bill.

But the issue is simply black and white or yellow and black, I guess. Will you actually ensure, by taking the money away, there is no condemnation, or do you leave the language in the act? It's clear. It's understandable. It should be clear to our colleagues. It will be clear to our constituents and our voters.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, with the exception of 2 minutes, which I reserve for tomorrow.

Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today with my colleague Senator Gordon Smith to introduce the Global Pediatric HIV/AIDS Prevention and Treatment Act. Millions across the world recently observed the 20th World AIDS Day on December 1, a day of mourning, solidarity, and hope: mourning for the more than 25 million killed already in the AIDS pandemic; solidarity with the 33.2 million living with HIV today; and hope that this plague will be conquered in our time--with an achievable goal of realizing the birth of an HIV-free generation.

In the U.S., we have reached a point where a child living with HIV/ AIDS no longer faces certain death. Thanks to anti-retroviral, ARV, therapy, many children born infected with HIV/AIDS now have the opportunity to grow up healthy. However, long-term survival is a dream that eludes most of the 2.5 million HIV-infected children around the world.

Of the more than 2.5 million new HIV infections in 2007, more than 420,000 were in children. But while children account for almost 16 percent of all new HIV infections, they make up only 9 percent of those on treatment under the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR. Without proper care and treatment, half of these newly-infected children will die before their second birthday and 75 percent will die before their fifth.

Every day, approximately 1,100 children across the globe are infected with HIV, the vast majority through mother-to-child transmission during pregnancy, labor or delivery or soon after through breastfeeding. Approximately 90 percent of these infections occur in Africa. With no medical intervention, HIV-positive mothers have a 25 to 30 percent chance of passing the virus to their babies during pregnancy and childbirth. Yet, a single dose of an ARV drug given once to the mother at the onset of labor and once to the baby during the first three days of life reduces transmission of HIV by approximately 50 percent. Providing the full range of interventions, as is the standard of care in the U.S., can further reduce the rate of mother-to-child transmission of HIV to as little as 2 percent. However, according to UNAIDS, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, less than 10 percent of pregnant women with HIV in resource-poor countries have access to prevention of mother-to-child transmission, PMTCT, services.

Significant barriers to PMTCT and the equal care and treatment of HIV-infected children continue to exist. Among the barriers to PMTCT services is their poor integration into the healthcare system, the lack of infrastructure and poor quality health facilities, low utilization of pre-natal services, and a high percentage of unattended at-home births. Because children are not just small adults, providing care and treatment presents special challenges such as limited access to reliable HIV testing for the youngest children, a shortage of providers trained in delivering pediatric care, weak linkages between services to prevent mother-to-child transmission and care and treatment programs, and the need for additional, low-cost formulations of HIV/AIDS medications.

The unfortunate reality of current HIV/AIDS treatment programs is that they will become unsustainable in the long-term unless the number of new HIV infections is reduced globally. The importance of PMTCT for the prevention of the spread of HIV cannot be overstated. According to UNAIDS, prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission requires a comprehensive package of services that includes preventing primary HIV infection in

women, preventing unintended pregnancies in women with HIV infection, preventing transmission from HIV-infected pregnant women to their infants, and providing care, treatment and support for HIV-infected women and their families. A 2003 study found that by adding family planning through PMTCT services in 14 high prevalence countries, more than 150,000 unintended pregnancies were averted, child infections averted nearly doubled, and child deaths averted nearly quadrupled. Studies also show that current levels of contraceptive use in sub- Saharan Africa are already preventing an estimated 22 percent of HIV- positive births.

For many pregnant mothers, PMTCT services may be the only entry point for health care services for themselves and their families. That is why it is essential that PMTCT services be integrated with prevention, care and treatment services. With adequate integration of those services and strategies to ensure successful follow-up and continuity of care, we can significantly improve the outcomes for HIV-affected women and families.

The legislation I am introducing today, the Global Pediatric HIV/AIDS Prevention and Treatment Act, will help prevent thousands of new pediatric HIV infections in the years to come and improve the treatment of children living with HIV/AIDS throughout the world. The legislation will bring our international HIV/AIDS efforts in line with the infection rate of children, by establishing a target that, within 5 years, 15 percent of those receiving care and treatment under PEPFAR should be children.

The legislation establishes another 5-year target to help prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV. In those countries most affected, 80 percent of pregnant women should receive HIV counseling and testing, with all those testing positive receiving anti-retroviral medication for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV.

Under the legislation, the U.S. comprehensive, 5-year global strategy to combat global HIV/AIDS must also integrate prevention, care and treatment with prevention of mother-to-child transmission programs, as soon as feasible and consistent with the national government policies of the foreign countries of PEPFAR countries in order to improve outcomes for HIV-affected women and families and to promote follow-up and continuity of care.

Lastly, the legislation authorizes the creation of a Prevention of Mother-to-Child Transmission Expert Panel to provide an objective review of PMTCT activities funded under PEPFAR and to provide recommendations to the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator for scale- up of mother-to-child transmission prevention services under PEPFAR in order to reach the newly-established target for PTMCT. The Panel consists of no more than 15 members, to be appointed by the coordinator, and will terminate once it submits its report containing recommendations, findings and conclusions to the coordinator, Congress, and is made public.

To be clear, this legislation does not establish any earmarks within PEPFAR. It does not dictate how much money should be spent on specific activities. I, for one, oppose the current policy under PEPFAR which dictates that one-third of all prevention funds be reserved for abstinence-until-marriage programs, to the detriment of other more effective programs that are producing better results. Certainly abstinence programs have a role to play in PEPFAR, but they should not draw funding away from other, more effective programs. Therefore, it is my hope that Congress does away with that earmark when it reauthorizes PEPFAR, and instead allows for flexibility within PEPFAR.

Instead, the legislation sets 5-year targets that are focused on those receiving services without specifying how much money any given country should spend on specific services to reach the target. I believe this approach is consistent with the April 2007 Institute of Medicine report on PEPFAR which called on Congress to replace arbitrary budget directives with specific targets accounting for the unique epidemics in specific countries, as well as existing available resources. Removal of budget restrictions and the implementation of program targets, such as those authorized under this legislation, would allow local providers to invest in the services and activities most needed to achieve national goals for prevention, care, and treatment.

The struggle against this disease continues on all fronts. Just recently, a report showed that right here in Washington, D.C., the city is in the grip of a ``modern epidemic,'' with one in 20 residents HIV- infected, a rate ten times the national average. In my own State of Connecticut, the need for care and treatment services is at an all time high, while the funding to meet this increased need has declined.

As we take stock of the HIV/AIDS pandemic and our progress against it, we must bear in mind the special vulnerability of the world's children. With this legislation we can increase the number of children receiving care and treatment under PEPFAR and expand access to PMTCT services in order to prevent thousands of new pediatric HIV infections.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this completely closed rule and to the underlying big government legislation to use eminent domain to strip property owners of their rights that the Democrat majority is bringing to the House floor today.

This is the first of two closed rules being brought to the floor today courtesy of the Democrat majority from the graveyard of democracy and good ideas in the House of Representatives, the Rules Committee. It represents yet another example of the procedural gimmickry being blatantly exploited by the Democrats as they continue to completely ignore their campaign to run the most honest, open Congress in history.

Mr. Speaker, as any 5-year-old could tell you, the opposite of open is closed, and that's precisely what the American people are getting from the Democrats once again, another closed rule.

In fact, as compared with last Congress, through the same date, as of July 30, the Democrats have brought exactly twice as many closed rules to the floor as Republicans did when we held the Speaker's gavel.

Mr. Speaker, I will insert in the Record a document prepared by the Republican staff of the Rules Committee comparing the Democrats' awful record of reporting out closed rules in the 110th with last year's record of those controlled by the Republican Congress.

I appreciate the gentlewoman's inquiring about our intent. We have at least two speakers who would wish to speak on this issue at this time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. Speaker, the bill that is being brought forward today, I believe, is yet another example of the Democrat majority's attack on what I would refer to as constitutional balanced authority in this country. By virtue of bringing this bill forward, it means that what we will be doing is not allowing what I think is a fair process for people dealing with their own private land.

And I'm sure that you'll have lots of people who are my friends who are Democrats say, well, this is so important that we've got to have this land for the interest of all of the people, so we can have this pristine land. But, Mr. Speaker, we're talking about private property. And private property rights are those things under which this country, one of the things that this country is founded under that makes us entirely different than other countries. Other countries, many of them, all around the world, do not extend to their citizens the right for private property.

And so today, once again, what we're seeing is an assault, an attack, using Congress to come and use the powers of the Federal Government against private landowners. I'm sure if their story were being presented today, these private landowners may tell the story about how, for many, many years, I don't know the stories, but how many, many years, being from Texas we could tell the same story, in Connecticut it might be even longer, how people have passed these pieces of property down through generations.

But the fact of the matter is that any time that private property is being taken as a result of a force or a threat, in this case, to make a scenic wilderness area pristine and to preserve that as opposed to a single property owner keeping what they had, making those choices within the law and looking up and seeing the Federal Government staring down at them with all the resources of the Federal Government, knowing that the United States Congress brought this action on them, is regrettable.

It's regrettable that it had to happen this way. It's regrettable that we could not at least, through the Rules Committee, make a simple amendment in order that would say, why don't we clarify that we're not going to force this issue, that we'll hope that some compromise happens, but that we're not going to allow this condemnation.

Not at all. Can't have that kind of debate here.

And this Congress had claimed that we were going to be open and honest, and it would be the most open and honest Congress in the history of the United States Congress.

So that's what's regrettable. That's what's regrettable that here we find ourselves on a Monday at the end of July trying to help the big Federal Government to grab the land from private landowners. And I think that's wrong. I think it's wrong. I think it's wrong for this House to do that without being on record of saying we're not going to sick the Federal Government on these people who might be private landowners.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a recorded vote for the previous question for this rule. And if the previous question fails, I will ask the House to amend the rule to provide for the separate consideration of H.R. 3138, which would amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to update the definition of electronic surveillance.

Our country is facing a very serious problem, and I said this on the floor of the House twice last week, that must be addressed before the House adjourns in August. That means last week we had two weeks to get it done; this week we have one week to get it done. The majority Democrats continue to shirk their responsibilities to keep Americans safe by ignoring the seriousness of this threat.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 11 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico, the ``Land of Enchantment'' (Mrs. Wilson).

By prior agreement, I will close at this time, and I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, if the Rules Committee wants to spend special time on the House floor debating these closed rules, I believe that we can do better than the Eightmile Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

However, for some reason this Democrat leadership cannot seem to find time to schedule consideration of legislation that was just spoken about by the gentlewoman from New Mexico and the gentleman from California that clarifies one very specific thing, and that is that the United States Government will no longer be required to get a warrant to listen to foreign terrorists who are not even located in the United States of America.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, we have got time to pick on private landowners and to take their land by the use and force of the Federal Government, but we don't have time to schedule legislation to come and protect this country. Utterly incredible.

The Director of the National Intelligence, Michael McConnell and the Director of the CIA, Michael Hayden, have testified to this Congress that under current law their hands are tied. They are giving this body notice: we cannot do this under the law. And as Director McConnell testified, FISA is outdated and has been made obsolete by technology.

Today, once again, the Republicans are asking for us to support the intelligence community because they are forced to obtain warrants to listen to terrorists outside of our Nation, and as a result, and this is a quote, ``We are actually missing a significant portion of what we should be getting,'' directly from the Director of Central Intelligence.

This Congress has known about it for months. Republicans were on the floor last week. We are on the floor again this week. We are saying we are getting ready to go on break, we need to protect this country, we need to pass the law. We are asking the Democrat leadership once again if you have got time for this bill that is about a river, you certainly should have time to protect this country when our intelligence people are saying we need it. We have been saying for months we need it. The Republicans are on the floor today again to say there are 5 days left and then we will be on vacation.

Are they going to say to the American people and to the intelligence community, ``Too bad, we didn't have time to do that?''

If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are serious about facing down this threat, Mr. Speaker, they should come and join us. They should join us in defeating the previous question so that the House will be able to then address this issue since the Democrat leadership won't.

Don't hide behind something that deals with Republican or Democrat, and do the right thing for the country. This is a very real and a very serious threat.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include my amendment and extraneous material in the Congressional Record.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.