A bill to extend the authorization for the Coastal Heritage Trail in the State of New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, I am actually saddened to rise today on this particular bill. The 16 heritage areas that are either existing or proposed, many of them are very good, things that I would readily support.

Unfortunately, they have been packaged into what the government book my high school students read called ``A Christmas Tree'' in a very real way, in which bad proposals can be packaged around the few good proposals that are in here in hopes that people will tolerate the bad in hopes of getting a favorable recommendation from the good. My State and most State legislatures would never have tolerated this type of bill. This bill would be split up in our State so that each proposal would stand on its own merits and go up or down. Unfortunately, we do not use that procedure here. We ought to, but we do not.

Even in areas where something like an appropriation can be justified by lumping things together, in an authorization, it should not. That is why I rise in opposition to H.R. 1483.

When this bill was originally introduced, it was to reauthorize nine heritage areas, giving each an additional $10 million. Since the reauthorization on these nine original areas doesn't lapse until 2012, 5 years hence, it is interesting why we are taking the time now to revisit these particular areas. Even though some of these areas are simple technical corrections and changes, for most it appears that the reason we're doing it again is because they have gone through their money and they want more.

It is difficult when the process of a heritage area is supposed to become self-sufficient. It is an affront to heritage areas that are trying to become self-sufficient and break themselves from Federal dependence.

In 1994 when these same nine areas were being discussed, the Democrat hero of heritage areas, the advocate, the chairman of the then subcommittee, the late Bruce Vento stated: ``There is a limit to the length of time or the amount of money the Federal Government can be in a heritage area.'' Not totally grammatical, but you get the point of what he was trying to say.

He went on to say: ``In 10 years, we are out of there. Then they are on their own and we get the benefit of that conservation.''

Thirteen years later, that has not been the case. In fact, it has been said that for every dollar spent on these heritage areas, there is $10 to $20 from the private sector that comes back. It sounds like a great return on our investment if it could be independently verified.

In fact, during the hearings on this bill, the National Park Service testified that no heritage area has become self-sufficient. Unfortunately, it gets worse.

The Heritage Area Alliance, the association which represents all heritage areas, has told us in committee hearing that they should never become self-sufficient and they should always rely on continuous Federal appropriations for every heritage area. In fact, the Heritage Area Alliance has become a cottage industry where groups get grants from the Federal Government to go around telling other people how to get more grants from the Federal Government. And this performance we are now wishing to reward. While a public-private partnership can yield positive results, this program has taken on a life of its own.

In the Resources Committee, the bill was amended to cut back additional funds to existing heritage areas from $10 million to $5 million. I compliment Chairman Grijalva for his amendment and the chairman of the full committee for accepting it. It is like taking the balls off the bottom branches of the Christmas tree so the cat won't play with them.

And after taking that positive step, they reverse course and tacked on six new heritage areas. They have had hearings, but in fairness, only one has gone through the regular order that the chairman of the full committee established when we first met this year.

The Democrats also decided to make changes that were never part of the hearing. The new heritage areas will now receive $15 million each, up from the $10 million that they requested. It is great and lucky to receive a 50 percent bonus without asking for it. This gracious move by the Democrats means the total cost of this bill is now $135 million. Some of our committees thought that was a paltry sum. But $135 million is the total annual Federal income tax paid by 33,276 middle-class taxpayers. And this is how we are being responsible for their particular money.

We have some problems concerning some of the subtitles included in this new omnibus Christmas tree bill.

A journey through Hallowed Ground Heritage Area has been diligently sought by my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). I commend him for his dedication to this cause, and there is much of his proposed area that I like and I applaud. However, one of the problems still is there are issues that still persist. There is both support and opposition within this proposed area. Two of our colleagues have asked their particular congressional districts be removed from this designation. In committee, an amendment was offered to remove their districts, but it was rejected. And because this is a closed

rule, our colleagues do not have the opportunity of coming down here and on the floor of the House presenting their reasons why they wish to be withdrawn from this particular district.

We should not take Federal designations lightly. When we create a Federal designation, a Member who is opposed to that should be respected in his particular wishes. We were told this would disrupt the continuity of this heritage area. Well, this heritage area spans four States and it is supposed to still be locally operated. One must ask how a Virginia-based management entity will represent the local interests of four States. It is a legitimate question, but the bottom line is we still should respect our colleagues' privilege to represent their constituencies.

There has been criticism that private property protections in this bill are inadequate. The majority claims that the protections in this bill are sufficient because it states that participation is voluntary. Voluntary.

If two of our Members want to voluntarily opt out of this particular bill and are not allowed to do so, how will any property owner sitting in one of these new proposed districts get any kind of confidence that they are safe when it is not voluntary for any Member to remove their districts from these types of recommendations?

In the Resources Committee, I offered an amendment that would have simply provided for the right of private property owners to withdraw their land from a heritage area boundary. This is the exact same provision that has been on the 12 prior heritage areas. This is the same provision that Mr. Wolf added in his bill and was taken out by the committee even though he objected to the removal of that language from his own particular provision. Why are we treating these heritage areas different than the precedent we established for the other heritage areas? It is not an additional burden to the management. It would go a long way to assuring constituents that their rights would be protected. Unfortunately, the amendment was defeated again because the Democrats claim that their language was sufficient, an argument that has proved inaccurate on other occasions. In light of the infamous Kelo decision, we need to be extra cautious in the House when we deliberate on property rights.

The other side will claim that there is no risk to property rights. While I hope that is correct, we need to be very sure because boundaries have a consequence, or why should we have them. Proponents of this bill on the one hand say we need boundaries to protect historical properties, but on the other hand there is no regulatory authority. You can't have it both ways. It is an invitation to lawsuits. We have already seen cases brought forward based on these recommendations. I would point my colleagues to Pogliani v. United States Corps of Engineers. It has already happened that lawsuits have been filed to discontinue actions based on inclusion in a heritage area. The right to opt out of the boundary we proposed would have prevented this type of situation in the future.

In some respects this legislation is simply not ready for prime time. The Muscle Shoals proposal, which is another one I like a lot, I think it is good, but it has not yet completed a feasibility study. In other words, we don't have the assurance this heritage area could get off the ground before we wish to actually make the check for it.

We were promised in this particular bill that there would be a map included. If you see in the self-executing rule of the Rules Committee, they have put a number in place that used to be blank. A small little detail. But we have not been provided with a map of what the boundaries of this new heritage area actually are. So how can we tell people they can be voluntarily in or out of it when we don't even know yet what the boundary levels are? No wonder this has become a closed rule.

There is another area in this bill that was created, a Niagara Falls region, at the behest of the very powerful chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter. Proponents claim it is needed to protect the falls. Protect the falls from what? What potential harm to the falls can be protected by the provisions of this particular bill? Remember, proponents say there are no restrictions or regulations imposed. Perhaps the totally unique commission that is established in this portion of the bill that has the Secretary of the Interior creating a new entity and staffing it with Federal employees and paying for it can finally answer that particular question. There is little more in this particular provision than using the National Park Service to conduct economic redevelopment projects. The Park Service does not have the expertise, or the funds, or the desire to be burdened with this subject.

At the center of the economic development plan for Niagara Falls is a new casino. Niagara Falls, honeymoons, gambling, there may be a nexus there somewhere for us. But while the State of New York has the right to pursue casinos and help their development, it is inappropriate to use national heritage areas to promote the casino. An amendment was offered when the Niagara Falls heritage bill originally went through the committee to put a firewall between the Federal funds in this bill and the casino. Committee Democrats rejected again this simple amendment. Whatever my colleagues feel on the issue of gaming is irrelevant. We should all agree, though, that this is not an appropriate use of Federal funds, especially when one area is given an advantage over the other.

Finally, concerns have been raised that these heritage areas and their boundaries may be used to impede the placement of energy transmission lines. While this may not be the full intent of the sponsors, we must proceed cautiously before we further damage our ability to keep up with the demand for energy. The grid is already heavily taxed, and it would be a tragedy to see blackouts as an unintended consequence of these designations.

Mr. Speaker, because we do not have an opportunity to improve this bill via amendment as a result of the closed rule, I have to urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, unfortunately.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the sponsor of this particular bill, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), at the conclusion of which it would be very nice if the other side would have additional time for him because he's supporting your side.

Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to yield the gentleman 1 minute of our time as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), once again speaking in favor, and I would ask maybe perhaps the other side would be a little bit more generous than the last time with their giving him some additional time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

(Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter signed by 110 organizations interested in property rights who are opposed to this particular bill, including such groups as the Taxpayers Union, a supervisor in the affected area, Property Rights Foundation of America, Family Research Council and a mayor in my district.

Coalition Letter Detailing Risks of National Heritage Area Designation

The following letter--signed by a diverse group of more

than 110 organizations, elected officials and citizens--was

delivered on September 4 to Senate Majority Leader Harry

Reid, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker

Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader John Boehner, Senate

Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff

Bingaman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee

Ranking Member Pete V. Domenici, House Committee on Natural

Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall, House Committee on

Natural Resources Ranking Member Don Young as well as all the

members of the House and Senate Natural Resources Committees.

Dear [Elected Official]: The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in

Kelo v. City of New London ignited a national outcry against

government abuse of property rights. The ``bridge to

nowhere'' and other wasteful programs triggered angry

protests against the practice of earmarking National heritage

areas are the Kelo decision and earmarks rolled into one.

National heritage areas are preservation zones where land

use and property rights can be restricted. They give the

National Park Service and preservation interest groups (many

with histories of hostility toward property rights)

substantial influence by giving them the authority to create

land use ``management plans'' and then the authority to

disburse federal money to local governments to promote their

plans.

As a March 2004 General Accountability Office report on

heritage areas states: ``[National heritage areas] encourage

local governments to implement land use policies that are

consistent with the heritage areas' plans, which may allow

the heritage areas to indirectly influence zoning and land

use planning in ways that could restrict owners' use of their

property.''

The proposed ``Journey Through Hallowed Ground National

Heritage Area Act'' provides a good case study on how

heritage areas can be self-perpetuating federal pork and

influence projects. The chief lobbying organization for this

heritage area, the Journey Through Hallowed Ground

Partnership, received a one million-dollar earmark in the

2005 federal transportation bill at the behest of Members of

Congress sponsoring legislation to establish this heritage

area--an earmark that was granted before the organization was

even incorporated. A million-dollar earmark thus was issued

to help create a steady stream of future pork, at the expense

of the rights of local landowners.

We believe zoning and land use policies are best left to

local officials, who are directly accountable to the citizens

they represent. National heritage areas corrupt the principle

of representative government and this inherently local

function by giving unelected, unaccountable special interests

the authority to develop land management plans and federal

money with which to finance their efforts.

Once established, National heritage areas become permanent

units of the National Park Service, and as such, permanent

drains on an agency that currently suffers a multibillion-

dollar maintenance crisis. According to the GAG, ``sunset

provisions have not been effective in limiting federal

funding [for National Heritage Areas]: since 1984, five areas

that reached their sunset dates received funding

reauthorization from the Congress.''

Supporters of new heritage areas have the public will

precisely backward: Americans want stronger property rights

protections and less pork-barrel spending--not more earmarks

to programs that harm property rights.

Please do not support the creation of additional national

heritage areas or federal funding for heritage area

management entities, support groups, or groups that lobby for

or advocate the creation of new heritage areas.

Sincerely,

David Ridenour, Vice President, National Center for

Public Policy Research; J. William Lauderback,

Executive Vice President, The American Conservative

Union; John Berthoud, President, National Taxpayers

Union; Paul Poister, Executive Director, Partnership

for the West; Larry Pratt, Executive Director, Gun

Owners of America; William Niemeyer, Mayor, City of

West Alton, MO; Ryan Ellis, Executive Director,

American Shareholders Association; Peter Flaherty,

President, National Legal and Policy Center; Steve

Snow, Supervisor, Loudoun County, VA; Carol W.

LaGrasse, President, Property Rights Foundation of

America; Paul M. Weyrich, National Chairman, Coalitions

for America; Tom McClusky, Vice President of Government

Affairs, Family Research Council; Jay Lehr, Science

Director, The Heartland Institute; Jim Martin,

President, 60 Plus Association; Bill Moshofsky, Vice

President, Oregonians In Action; Niger Innis, National

Spokesman, Congress of Racial Equality; Gregory Cohen,

President and CEO, American Highway Users Alliance.

Richard Falknor, Executive Vice President, Maryland

Taxpayers Association, Inc.; Linda C. Runbeck,

President, American Property Coalition; Thomas K.

Remington, Managing Editor, U.S. Hunting Today; Fred L.

Smith, President, Competitive Enterprise Institute;

Matt Kibbe, President, Freedom Works; Mychal Massie,

Advisory Council Chairman, Project 21; Steve Baldwin,

Executive Director, Council for National Policy Action,

Inc.; Caren Cowen, Executive Director, New Mexico

Cattle Growers' Association; Randy T. Simmons, Mayor,

Providence City, UT, Professor, Utah State University;

Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman, American

Family Association; Leroy Watson, Legislative Director,

National Grange; Kelsey Zahourek, Executive Director,

Property Rights Alliance; Roy Cordato, Ph.D., VP for

Research and Resident Scholar, John Locke Foundation;

Tom DeWeese, President, American Policy Center; Rachel

Thomas, Property Rights Advocate, Huachuca City, AZ;

Rose Ellen Ray, Treasurer, Citizens for Property Rights

Loudoun County, VA.

Paul Driessen, Senior Policy Advisor, Center for the

Defense of Free Enterprise; Maxine Korman, Korman

Ranch, Hinsdale, Montana; Gerald Hobbs, President,

Public Lands for the People; John Grigsby, Vice

President, Taxpayers for Accountable Government; Don

Parmeter, Executive Director, American Property

Coalition; Leo Schwartz, Chairman, Virginia Land Rights

Coalition; Pat King, Anvil Ranch, Tucson, AZ; Tom

Borelli, Ph.D., Portfolio Manager, Free Enterprise

Action Fund; John and Connie Morris, Members, Tongue

River Watershed Alliance, and MT and WY Farm Bureaus;

Brad VanDyke, Representative, Rural Utahns for Local

Solutions; Jerry Hamilton, Environmental Coordinator,

Formation Capital Corporation; F. Patricia Callahan,

President and General Counsel, American Assoc. of Small

Property Owners; Lew Uhler, President, National Tax

Limitation Committee; Jon Caldara, President,

Independence Institute; Dan Byfield, President,

American Land Foundation; John Taylor, President,

Tertium Quids.

Susan Carlson, Chairman and CEO, American Civil Rights

Union; Gary Palmer, President, Alabama Policy

Institute; Lenore Hardy Barrett, State Representative,

Idaho; Jonathan DuHamel, President, People for the

West-Tucson; Jack and Patricia Shockey, President and

Director, Citizens for Property Rights; Fred Grau,

Executive Director, Take Back Pennsylvania; Mike Dail,

Chairman, American Land Foundation; Chuck Cushman,

President, American Land Rights Association; James

Stergios, Executive Director, Pioneer Institute; Deneen

Borelli, Fellow, Project 21; Marilyn Hayman, Chairman,

Citizens for Responsible Zoning and Landowner Rights;

C.J. Hadley, Publisher/Editor, Range Magazine;

Elizabeth Arnold, Grassroots Consultant, Environmental

Community Outreach Services, Juneau, AK; Greg

Blankenship, President, Illinois Policy Institute; Bill

Wilson, President, Americans for Limited Government;

Jane Hogan, Secretary, Ontario Hardwood Company, Inc.

Katherine Lehman, President, People for the USA Grange

#835; Howard Hutchinson, Executive Director, Coalition

of Arizona/New Mexico Counties; C. Preston Noell III,

President, Tradition, Family, Property, Inc.; Dr.

William Greene, President, RightMarch.com; Leo T.

Bergeron, President, Upper Mid-Klamath Watershed

Council; Eugene Delgaudio, President, Public Advocate

of the U.S., Inc.; Leri M. Thomas, Ph.D., Charter

Member, Virginians for Property Rights; John

McClaughry, President, Ethan Allen Institute; Richard

O. Rowland, President, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii;

James W. Jarrell, Sr., Board Member, Virginia Bear

Hunters Association; Erich Veyhl, Publisher, Maine

Property Rights News; Dane vonBreichenruchardt,

President, U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation; Mark

Williamson, Founder and President, Federal

Intercessors, New Mexico Federal Lands Council, New

Mexico Wool Growers, Inc.; Beth Machens, Board of

Aldermen, City of West Alton, MO .

Janet M. Neustadt, Board of Aldermen, City of West Alton,

MO; William J. Richter, Board of Aldermen, City of West

Alton, MO; Deborah Anderson, Treasurer, City of West

Alton, MO; Susan Silk, City Clerk, City of West Alton,

MO; Charlotte Meyers, Assistant Administrator, City of

West Alton, MO; Ora B. Anderson, Jr., Planning and

Zoning Commission, City of West Alton, MO; Ray

Ponciroli, Board of Aldermen, City of Portage, MO; Army

Ridenour, Director, Americans for the Preservation of

Liberty; Bruce Colbert,

Executive Director, Property Owners Association of

Riverside County, CA; Randall and Ruth Lillard, Farmers

and Landowners, Madison County, VA; Joyce Morrison,

Farmer and Agricultural Environmentalist, Fieldon, IL;

Donald Castellucci, Jr., Councilman, Town of Owego,

Tioga County, NY; Milari Madison, Property Owner,

Loudoun County, VA; Robert L. Sansom, Farmer and

Landowner, Madison County, VA; Mary E. Darling,

Sonoita, AZ.

James Vadnais, Port Angeles, WA; Floyd Rathbun, Fallon,

Nevada; Steven and Peggy Breen, Boise, Idaho; Peggy

Bogart, Access Advocate; Dan Goulet, Portland, OR;

Susan Freis Falknor, Bluemont, VA; Harold L. Stephens,

Member, Citizens to Protect the Confluence; Jerry

Fennell, Chairman, Jicarilla Mining District; Bonner R.

Cohen, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, National Center for Public

Policy Research; Judy Keeler, Secretary, Bootheel

Heritage Assoc. (Animas, NM); Alexandra H. Mulkern,

Mechanicsville, MD; Lee Riddle, Brookings, OR; Stephen

L. Ralston, Columbia, PA; Mark Pollot, Boise, ID; Billy

Jean Redemeyer-Roney; D.J. McCarthy, Civil Engineer;

Clifton McDonald, Needles, CA; Kirk and Jeri Hansen,

Clayton, ID; Suzanne Volpe, Sterling, VA.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the GAO report that was just referenced, it is one of those unique things, not wishing to actually criticize the Federal Government for what they do, but in the entire report, not one property owner was interviewed, not a single property attorney was interviewed, nor a Realtor, nor appraiser, nor a local zoning official. Simply put, the report neglected to ask those who actually know what the impact of a heritage area has on the property rights and values of their land.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield an additional 2 minutes to the sponsor of this particular bill, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).

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

Do I understand you have no more speakers?

Then I'm prepared to close as well, if that's okay.

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the very beginning of this particular debate, on this particular bill there are elements of this bill that I fully support and I think are wise, good moves forward. There are some things in there that simply are not.

We have talked a lot and heard a lot about some of the better parts of this bill. However, we're talking about heritage areas. And I'm sorry, in all due respect, a casino as a heritage area for Niagara Falls? Those are some of the stretches that we have in this particular element.

When we had our committee hearing, there were several people that were talking about the need for these new heritage areas. One particular individual who was testifying told of the importance of having this Federal designation, so I tried to zero in on that and ask what it is specifically about this designation that cannot be done by the local levels, by State government, the local entity. Give me one thing that cannot be done that only the Federal Government can do. There was not one element that was given until somebody behind him simply answered that the correct answer is there are 15 million reasons why you have this designation, and each one has a portrait of George Washington on it.

We have all been lobbied on this bill, even though lobbying is not allowed in this bill. We have tried to put amendments and provisions of these parts that would clarify, clarify that lobbying could not be used by this Federal money going to these entities, and yet the chairman's argument against this, well, it would be making it too difficult for heritage areas to then ask for money. Had we not had a closed rule, some commonsense changes as, for example, where the map actually is, should there be lobbying allowed, should there be real protection for private property owners, should we actually define what these are, they would have been allowed to be discussed and at least voted on this particular bill. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee cut out that opportunity, and now we're here with a closed bill.

Many of my colleagues who do not serve on the Resources Committee may not be aware that the Department does not support these bills. On each and every heritage area that we've had recommended to the committee, the Department has asked the committee to defer action until a criteria for heritage areas is established. And I can see why some deferment makes sense. Perhaps we wouldn't be here debating heritage areas that have not yet finished their feasibility studies or had their maps prepared had we listened to that advice.

A lot of good things, but this is still a classic Christmas tree with a lot of bad things that are hidden by the good ones.

I urge my colleagues not to support this omnibus lands bill, this Christmas tree of lands bill, simply because there are too many bad things that need to be fixed before it moves on.

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes, in it's current form.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This particular motion to recommit ensures that the rights of State and local governments within heritage area designations will be able to regulate hunting and that it will be unharmed by this legislation.

This bill currently provides that heritage area designations shall not diminish the right of States to regulate hunting, but it is silent on the issue including the right to carry firearms.

The motion to recommit also clarifies that laws regarding fishing and possession or use of a weapon or trap shall be governed exclusively by States and localities.

The second amendment is a critical right. We want to protect our constituents against consequences of this legislation that could harm that right.

National parks have regulations that limit hunting and the right to carry or possess firearms even in States and localities where it is legally permitted. The text you see to my left is title 36 for the National Park Service Department, and this is the language that would prohibit in heritage areas those rights that even are currently allowed by State and local legislation.

These regulations harm wildlife and the environment because even local wildlife management officials are impeded in their work.

Before any attempt is made to restrict the rights of gun owners and second amendment defenders, this motion to recommit protects their legal existing rights now and in the future. It is important that it be said and be said clearly.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

As I am sure the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia knows, each and every one of the divisions within the Department of the Interior has different sets of rules and regulations. BIA land would not be a problem. A national park designation would be. So any of these heritage areas that were under the direction of the National Park Service, and there are some within this new bill, would fall under title 36. That's why this legislation desperately needs to be there,

the same amendment that we actually did present at another time in one of our committees.

So, yes, it's still significant. It's still important. It needs to be there to clarify specifically. If the intent is not to change what has been happening by the locals, this clearly sets in all these areas what has been local will continue and State and local regulations will have precedence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 765, I call up the bill (H.R. 1483) to amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to extend the authorization for certain national heritage areas, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 1483.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, as America continues to grapple with the war and citizens throughout these United States deal with their daily struggles, I think it is important for us to harken back to our heritage and to celebrate our culture.

From the coalfields of southern West Virginia to the Land of Lincoln in Illinois; from the awesome beauty of Niagara Falls to the Muscle Shoals of Alabama; from the hallowed ground of the Virginia Piedmont, where battles were fought to unify this Nation, to the Santa Cruz Valley of New Mexico, this is the fabric of America. This is her heartbeat. Let us take time to listen to it and to celebrate it.

The legislation we are considering today was introduced by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Ohio, Representative Ralph Regula, who has been a strong and effective advocate for heritage areas, not only in the area he represents but also throughout the country, and I commend and salute him for that leadership.

Heritage areas help to preserve and interpret the geological history, the natural history and the human history of an area in a comprehensive fashion so that we and our children will better understand how our land has shaped our history and how our history has shaped our land.

National heritage areas are local community-driven preservation projects. Most of them arise out of the concerns of a core group of committed,

local folks who want to work together to preserve the places and resources that make their country or town or region unique. These citizens bring their proposals to their elected representatives in Congress because they need technical and planning assistance from their government and matching funds to use as seed money to help get their program off the ground.

Now, 23 years after the first national heritage area was designated, the program is at a crossroads. The Congress can either provide the program with the tools and support it needs to continue, maturing into a successful preservation model, or the Congress can turn our backs on heritage areas and leave local communities to fend for themselves as they try to save those things that make them special, that make America special.

We are moving this legislation today because we support national heritage areas and we want to see them succeed. Ever since Congress established the Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor in 1984, heritage tourism has been growing, and today it is a significant economic engine. These areas are worthwhile, not only as a way to help local economies, but also as a crucial tool for preserving our communities' and our people's links to the past.

By providing Federal recognition and financial support, we encourage preservation and interpretation of important periods in our Nation's history in a way that traditional units of the national park system cannot do.

Our initial investment ``primes the pump,'' if you will, and ensures that those areas get a solid start toward financial and operational independence. Given that each Federal dollar is matched by local funds, the Federal investment in the heritage area program is money well spent.

In addressing the Rules Committee Monday, my colleague Mr. Regula noted that the $8 million made in his heritage area has yielded more than $270 million in non-Federal funding. For affected local communities, heritage areas are a program that works.

H.R. 1483, as amended, would establish six new heritage areas, increase the funding authorization for nonexisting areas, and make mostly technical changes in the establishing legislation for several of those areas. The bill also includes a study of the Northern Neck of Virginia, requested by our late colleague, Representative Jo Ann Davis.

Bringing this bill before the House today responds to the frequent and energetic requests of numerous Members on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats. In total, H.R. 1483 includes bills that are cosponsored by dozens of Members in both parties, including the entire House delegation in Illinois and New Jersey.

We also had very helpful input from the administration on this legislation, including detailed studies of the suitability of each new heritage area. Most of the changes being made to existing heritage areas were added at the request of the National Park Service.

This is a good bill, Mr. Speaker, and I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for his commitment and leadership on heritage areas. We support passage of H.R. 1483 and urge its adoption by the House today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honored at this point to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady that the gentleman from Utah has already referenced, the chairlady of our powerful House Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from New York, Representative Louise Slaughter, who has been a true fighter for her Niagara Falls National Heritage Area.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Ohio 1 minute, also.

Mr. Speaker, continuing with the strong bipartisan support for this bill, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend and dear colleague, the gentleman from Peoria, Illinois (Mr. LaHood), whose bipartisan nature and friendly relations we're going to truly miss in this Congress next year.

I beg your pardon, it's your side of the aisle that should be yielding the time totally, but I'll be glad to yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Virginia, who has been very instrumental in crafting this legislation, and I appreciate his help.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer).

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is left on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) who has been very instrumental in crafting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, with the development of such strong bipartisan legislation of this nature, it obviously takes a lot of work by Members' staffs on both sides of the aisle and by members of the originating committee, our Committee on Natural Resources, as well.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Raul Grijalva, one of those gentlemen that has taken the reins of leadership this year as chairman of our Parks Subcommittee and done a tremendous job.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California, Mr. Sam Farr.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, as I understand I have the right to close.

That's correct. And I reserve the right to close.

Mr. Speaker, in summation, these are not good times for the ratings of the United States Congress in the public opinion polls. We all know that in this body; yet I think if the American people would see Congress in action this very moment that those poll ratings might very well go up.

We've seen examples on this legislation of Members on both sides of the aisle in a bipartisan, nonpartisan manner, working to preserve what is the best of America. I look at the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), I look at the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), I look at the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) on the other side of the aisle, and I look at the many Members on this side of the aisle from different parts of the country, south, north, west, that have joined together in bringing this legislation to the floor today.

Yes, we have respectful disagreements, and I respect the gentleman from Utah's position, but we also have worked very hard in what I think the American people want to see, and that is a nonpartisan effort to solve this country's problems.

Now, if you looked up the word ``red herring'' in Webster's Dictionary, the definition would be the property rights arguments that the critics of this bill are using against this legislation.

Heritage areas have no regulatory authority. Over 60 million Americans live in heritage areas. The entire State of Tennessee, for example, the entire State of Tennessee is a heritage area. Almost my entire congressional district is a heritage area. There have been no impacts on private property rights, mining, road building, economic development. I believe we've done quite well in each of those areas in my congressional district, most of which is a heritage area.

And the gentleman from Arizona, the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Grijalva, brought out very well where we've seen no instances where there have been private property issues, no instances where such problems have occurred.

Now, those that have expressed concern about property provisions in this bill, let me be clear. In the 20 years plus of this program's existence, opponents have not been able to identify one single instance in which someone has been deprived of the use of their property as a result of such designations as we're considering in this bill.

And nevertheless, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has quoted, we do, in this legislation, provide extensive property, private property provisions. These private property protections are the same language approved by the Senate, the same language proposed by the administration in heritage area systems bills under consideration in this Congress, and the same language included in heritage areas bills passed by the previous Congress under the other party's control.

The history of this program, as we have seen in repeated debate on the floor and in committee, not to mention the GAO report which has been referenced, has proven that there are simply no legitimate private property issues here. It's time to move on, stop flogging this dead horse and bringing up this red herring.

Now, the gentleman from Utah mentioned our late colleague, the gentleman that was elected to Congress with me, the late Representative Bruce Vento, the former chairman of the Parks Subcommittee. And the gentleman from Utah mentioned that he did not intend for the Federal heritage areas to last longer than 10 years. I'm reasonably sure, however, that our late colleague did not foresee these areas having to contend with close to $90 a barrel oil and the other increase in costs, I might add, that the numerous heritage areas created under Republican Congresses that were all authorized for 15 years. We have provided an increase in authorized funding for heritage areas to ensure that heritage areas have enough funds to get on their feet.

So the issue here is not private property rights. The issue is not gaming in these areas. The issue is not earmarks. I would say to my colleagues, imagine, for example, if Yellowstone National Park did not exist and Members of Congress introduced legislation to provide for such a crown jewel of our national park system. Would that be called an earmark?

The issue is not lobbying by local people, our local legislators. They have a right to try to secure that additional State and local funding necessary to match Federal funding. We provide

protections. Federal law prohibits any other lobbying by local groups.

So the issue, as I conclude, Mr. Speaker, is not about earmarking, not about lobbying, not about private property rights; it's about the American people and protection of what is theirs and providing our American people a place in which they can take their families, can spend quality time of life in these times when it's so hard to spend quantity time together, that they spend quality time together. And that's what we're talking about in this legislation. That's what we're talking about in our heritage areas, in America's heritage.

So I conclude by urging my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue the nonpartisan, bipartisan spirit that has brought this bill to the floor and pass this legislation by a tremendous margin.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise maybe not necessarily in opposition to the motion but, nevertheless, to claim time to speak.

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue, as is typical of a minority of the minority, that has not been mentioned one iota in any of today's debate, in any of the committee debate developed on a bipartisan, nonpartisan nature in bringing this bill to the floor, not in any way brought up in any of the extensive hearings held by our subcommittee chairman, Mr. Grijalva, and is brought up at this last second out of the clear blue, which, again, I say should not be surprising because it is typical of a minority of the minority to make such efforts.

But I would ask the gentleman from Utah, is he referring to all Federal lands? Because as I am sure he knows, the heritage areas are not part of the national park system, the chart that he just brought forward, nor are they under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. The heritage areas are part of a collaborative effort between Federal and State and local people with local governing units with matching dollars, not all Federal dollars, as I am sure the gentleman knows.

So I ask that question. Are you intending this language for all Federal lands?

I yield to the gentleman from Utah.

I am not sure we are talking about the same definitions here.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House in the motion to recommit, I report H.R. 1483 back to the House with an amendment.

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.

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. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 27, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to consider the following nominations: Admiral Gary Roughead, USN for reappointment to the grade of Admiral and to be Chief of Naval Operations; General William E. Ward, USA for reappointment to the grade of General and to be Commander, United States Africa command; General Kevin P. Chilton, USAF for reappointment to the grade of General and to be Commander, United States Strategic Command; and Lieutenant General James N. Mattis, USMC to be General and to be Commander, United States Joint Forces Command and Supreme Allied Commander for Transformation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 27, 2007, at 10:30 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The hearing will focus on modernization and efforts to address the needs of the air traffic system and to improve the movement of aircraft and passengers. Subcommittee members will be provided the opportunity to review problems encountered by travelers during the summer 2007 travel season and to consider steps that can be taken to improve the air traffic system.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a business meeting during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 27, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

During the Executive Session, Committee members will markup the following agenda items: S. 1578, Ballast Water Management Act of 2007; S. 1889, Railroad Safety Enhancement Act of 2007; S. 1453, Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA) Extension Act of 2007; S. 1965, Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act; S.J. Res. 17, a joint resolution directing the United States to initiate international discussions and take necessary steps with other Nations to negotiate an agreement for managing migratory and transboundary fish stocks in the Arctic Ocean; S. Con. Res. 39, a concurrent resolution supporting the goals and ideals of a world day of remembrance for road crash victims; Nominations for Promotion in the United States Coast Guard (PN 878, PN 946, PN 947, and

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 27, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on hard rock mining on Federal lands.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 27, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on the ``Border Insecurity, Take Three: Open and Unmonitored''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 27, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on the Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, September 27, 2007, at 9 a.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting to consider pending business, to be followed immediately by an oversight hearing on the prevalence of violence against Indian women.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct a markup on Thursday, September 27, 2007, at 10 a.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building room 226.

Agenda:

I. Bills: S. 1267, Free Flow of Information Act of 2007, (Lugar, Dodd, Graham), S. 2035, Free Flow of Information Act of 2007, (Specter, Schumer).

S.J. Res. 13, Joint resolution granting consent to the International Emergency Management Assistance Memorandum of Understanding, (Leahy, Snowe, Kennedy, Whitehouse), S. 980, Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2007, (Feinstein, Sessions, Biden).

II. Resolutions: S. Con. Res. 45, commending the Ed Block Courage Award Foundation for its work in aiding children and families affected by child abuse, and designating November 2007 as National Courage Month, (Cardin, Cornyn).

S. Res. 258, recognizing the historical and educational significance of the Atlantic Freedom Tour of the Freedom Schooner Amistad, and expressing the sense of the Senate that preserving the legacy of the Amistad story is important in promoting multicultural dialogue, education, and cooperation, (Dodd).

III. Nominations: James Russell Dedrick to be United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 27, 2007, in order to conduct a hearing on the Nomination of Paul J. Hutter to be General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs. The committee will meet in room 562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, be authorized conduct a hearing entitled ``An Examination of the Google- DoubleClick Merger and the Online Advertising Industry: What are the Risks for Competition and Privacy?'' on Thursday, September 27, 2007, at 2 p.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building room 226.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services and International Security be authorized to meet on Thursday, September 27, 2007, at 3:30 p.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Cost Effective Airlift in the 21st Century''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 27, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 128, to amend the Cache La Poudre River Corridor Act to designate a new management entity, make certain technical and conforming amendments, enhance private property protections, and for other purposes; S. 148, to establish the Paterson Great Falls National Park in the State of New Jersey, and for other purposes; S. 189, to decrease the matching funds requirement and authorize additional appropriations for Keweenaw National Historical Park in the State of Michigan; S. 697, to establish the Steel Industry National Historic Site in the State of Pennsylvania; S. 867, to adjust the boundary of Lowell National Historical Park, and for other purposes; S. 1039, a bill to extend the authorization for the Coastal Heritage Trail in the State of New Jersey; S. 1341, to provide for the exchange of certain Bureau of Land Management land in Pima County, Arizona, and for other purposes; S. 1476, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resources study of the Tule Lake Segregation Center in Modoc County, California, to determine the suitability and feasibility of establishing a unit of the National Park System; S. 1709 and H.R. 1239, to amend the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Act of 1998 to provide additional staff and oversight of funds to carry out the Act, and for other purposes; S. 1808, to authorize the exchange of certain land in Denali National Park in the State of Alaska; S. 1969, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to determine the suitability and feasibility of designating Estate Grange and other sites related to Alexander Hamilton's life on the island of St. Croix in the

U.S. Virgin Islands as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes.