Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, rise in opposition to this amendment.

This funding limitation would stop changes to the National Forest Management Act planning regulations. This is a bad amendment, and that is the best thing I can say about it.

National forest planning has become an endless gridlock which needs to be fixed. This administration is trying to make appropriate changes. If this amendment were adopted, the Forest Service would either continue to operate under the outdated 1982 planning regulations or begin to implement highly prescriptive and expensive 2000 planning regulations.

The 1982 planning regulations require the Forest Service to use unnecessary analytical processes and implement outdated science requirements. Under the old forest planning regulations, it takes an average of 5 to 6 years to complete a forest plan at a cost of 5 to $6 million each. Now, this is much too long. And, in fact, it is not a plan effort. It is not a scientific move. It is an effort to stop all harvesting in the forest, and we know that this amendment would delay forest projects which are now needed to clean up our forests and reduce the danger of fire, the real problems with fire that has been exaggerated in many ways by the lack of scientific forest management throughout the country, especially in the West.

This amendment would require national forests to be managed under plans that are clearly out of date, waste money on out-of-date planning methods, and are designed just to stop harvests altogether. So I certainly hope you will join me in defeating this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).

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

A few weeks ago, we passed legislation that would stop the disastrous fires. It will take a long period of time. It will take management plans to be implemented to get rid of the crowded undergrowth and stop the fires that are costing us billions of dollars and burning up tens of millions of acres of our forests.

Let me tell my colleagues, these forest plans, and there are 40 forest plan revisions under way, 36 of these plans are more than 15 years old. Unless regulations are changed, 52 more are expected to go beyond the 15-year limit in the next decade. We cannot make any progress in fighting fires, stopping fires, not having to spend the money and the millions of dollars unless we get plans that are going to take less than 15 years, and yet most of these plans are going to do.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

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

Mr. Chairman, we have appropriated a great deal of money, and I appreciate the efforts of my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), in that area. He has been a leader in that area. But time is not the only consideration here. If we have money in the vault for the next 15 years and it is not spent, then the fires will continue and the young lives will be lost.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to remind all of us that we spend millions of dollars in research. Science is going on in modern silviculture every year. We have forest research stations, we have private research stations, we have all our universities with schools of forestry participating in the science, and so it is working every day.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter).

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) who spoke earlier, and I agree with him, we have lost lives and we have lost forests because we have had years and years and years of delay rather than trying to address this subject, and that is what these resolutions are trying to do.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) to close.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. In the beginning, there was no limit to snowmobiles in these parks. In the last days of the Clinton administration, the administration barred all snowmobiles from the parks. Clearly, people live in the parks and this was not acceptable, emergency purposes. We had to come up with a program that would be reasonable, and I think this plan that is in place or will be in place is a balanced approach that addresses air quality, noise, wildlife, and safety concerns while continuing to allow the American public access to enjoy the parks during the winter months.

For the first time, a strict daily limit will be placed on the number of vehicles, and the snowmobiles must achieve at least a 90 percent reduction in hydrocarbons and a 70 percent reduction in carbon monoxide compared to conventional two-stroke engines. We now have four-stroke engines.

The sound question is that no more than 73 decibels of sound, a five- decibel reduction, has been put in place and 80 percent of the snowmobiles will be commercially guided. We have tried to reach a balanced plan that I think is reasonable. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich).

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time for closing.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment proposes to state a legislative position. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I will work with the ranking member and the gentleman to resolve the problem.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This amendment is bad policy. We should not stop all activities on the national level. Each national forest deserves to get decisions based on local commissions and based on specific situations.

We have four lawsuits going on this already. One Federal judge has already ruled that there are problems with the Clinton administration's roadless rule.

We need to have careful consideration before we lock up these areas and prevent multiple use. Wilderness area designations should be done site by site, not at this broad-brush national level.

It is possible that some forests and roadless areas may need some treatments to reduce hazardous fuels. We need to be careful that we do not make a national policy that could lead to dangerous conditions.

Half the areas covered by the Clinton roadless rule are at risk for catastrophic fire. The rule makes treatment of these areas a low priority when they should be a high priority. Already this year, fires that have started in roadless areas have destroyed hundreds of thousands of acres and burned several hundred homes.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

There is much misinformation on this subject. The gentlewoman earlier said that the forest belongs to the public, and it does. It is the people's forest, no matter where they live; and that gives us a great responsibility because we cannot, through ignorance, destroy it. We want to save it because of the beauty it has, as well as the commercial value.

President Roosevelt created the Forest Service to be harvested as a source of fiber for the country in the best scientific way possible as an example to private landowners on how to manage in the future their forests. The Park Service was created to not be harvested. It is inside the Department of the Interior. The Forest Service is inside the agricultural department.

If someone going down the street has a heart attack, we do not want someone to come up off the pavement and say, well, I read a book about this, or I saw something on TV. I am ready to carve the fellow open and do something. We would want a professional to take care of the problem. We have our best schools of forestry at our universities. We have the best science at our experimental stations.

We have the responsibility to protect the forests and to use the best science possible. I would urge all of my colleagues go to the universities that have the best schools of forestry and talk about that, because they train people there in the area of silviculture with modern technology. We can do wonderful things with that, in assessing what we can do in the forest rather than read a pamphlet and say we should have no roads; we should have no harvest at all.

We must maintain the forests in a scientific manner. We have had environmental rules in the last 20 years that have probably destroyed 10 times more trees than have been harvested. The forests belongs to the people, but along with that is the responsibility to use the best educated people in our areas to maintain them. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I consume.

Mr. Chairman, I have to reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment. I do not believe we should prejudge on an individual basis the outcome of these competitive sourcing studies.

As the gentleman knows, I have included language in this bill which directs the agencies to complete all ongoing studies and report to the committee before taking any specific actions. We did this for several reasons. We are concerned that 50 percent of the National Park Service jobs are rated commercial in nature. We are also concerned that the agencies have been spending money without reprogramming to the committee for approval.

While the Department of Interior seems to be doing a good job, we must insist that they follow the congressional rules because we are not a potted plant. We are here to maintain the Department and do our duty.

I would ask the gentleman, however, to consider withdrawing his amendment and assure him that we will try to work with him on this, if possible.

I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.

I would assure the gentleman that nothing has gone too far that could not be corrected. I ask again if the gentleman would withdraw his amendment. Otherwise, I will have to reluctantly oppose it.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.

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

My amendment prohibits the use of funds by the Bureau of Land Management to use the recordable disclaimer regulations with regard to any lands within a designated national monument, wilderness study area, National Park Service unit, National Wildlife Refuge System unit, or lands within the national wilderness preservation system. This should resolve once and for all the concerns of the environmental community.

In developing these regulations, the Bureau of Land Management considered over 17,000 public comments before finalizing the rule. This rule is very important because it allows landowners to petition the BLM to issue a determination that the Federal Government does not have any property interest in privately owned land where ownership is not clear.

The disclaimer process is welcomed by most western States as a means of bringing certainty to the ownership of real property and allowing economic development to take place without having to resort to litigation.

I also want to make it absolutely clear that the Department of the Interior's new recordable disclaimers of interest in land regulations were never put in place to build roads in national parks, wildlife refuges, national monuments, wilderness areas, or wilderness study areas.

I urge my colleagues to support this perfecting amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment imposes additional duties.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2691, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

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

Mr. Chairman, today we bring before the House for fiscal year 2004 appropriations a bill for the Department of the Interior and related agencies. This is a good bill that balances many competing needs and stays within the 302(b) allocations for budget authority.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is fiscally responsible, providing about $100 million more than the budget request but nearly $200 million less than the fiscal year 2003 level. The bill takes care of our public lands, the national parks, wildlife refuges, forests, and lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management. It has been increased not as much as some would like; and I pledge that in conference, we will try to increase that as much as possible.

The bill focuses on conservation initiatives, including operation and maintenance of Federal lands, stateside grants for land preservation and recreation, State wildlife grants, habitat improvements on both public and private lands, eradication of invasive species, and protection of endangered species.

We hear arguments that we are not doing enough for the conservation program in this bill. I disagree. There is nearly $1 billion in the bill for programs in the conservation spending category. But more to the point, there are a great number of critically important conservation programs in this bill that have never been included in the conservation spending category but are equally important.

We provide increases of $73 million for national parks, $30 million for national wildlife refuges, and $93 million for wildlife restoration and forest health. I would argue that most of the funding in this bill is for conservation activities.

Some Members will argue that we need to buy more Federal lands. What we really need is to do a better job of taking care of lands we have and this bill does that.

Fire fighting needs are addressed in this bill. In addition to providing the necessary funding for suppressing wildfires, we continue support for the National Fire Plan with the investment of $2.5 billion. We support preparedness activities so that we have the people and equipment in place to handle wildfires. We provide funding increases for hazardous fuels reduction, State fire assistance, and forest health programs. I am proud of the balance we have achieved in these critical programs that are important to all Americans.

The bill ensures that energy research programs are adequately funded and that we maintain a proper mix between research on improvements to existing technologies and longer-term higher-risk research on new technologies. We need to keep all of our options open and not fall into the trap of picking winners and losers.

When it comes to energy research, ultimately the consumer and not the government will determine what energy technologies will be successful in the marketplace.

The bill provides for the continued construction of critically needed schools and hospitals for the American Indians and Alaskan Natives. It is included in a resolution to the contentious litigation between the United States and the American Indians dealing with the individual Indian trust monies. This bill provides prompt, fair, and reasonable resolution of those long-standing claims. This lawsuit has been diverting scarce resources away from critical programs that benefit the Indian people. We need to stop spending hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, on litigation support and redirect those funds to Indian education, health, wildlife, law enforcement and other important Indian programs.

My good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), chairman of the Committee on Resources, will move to strike this provision on jurisdictional grounds. He has committed to resolving this conflict through the authorizing process. Mr. Chairman, if we do not do this, we will literally be spending perhaps $2.4 billion in continuous accounting measures that will do nothing to solve this problem. It will be taken away from Indian health and education.

Finally, the bill takes care of our cultural agencies and provides the funding needed to ensure that the Smithsonian Institution maintains its responsibility for providing quality visitor services and world- renowned research. It provides the administration's request for the National Gallery of Art and for the National Endowment for the Arts.

The Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004 is a bill that I believe strikes an appropriate balance among competing funding needs, and I ask for support for the bill.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JY03.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JY03.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JY03.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JY03.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JY03.005

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood), a valued member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) former chairman and valued member of the subcommittee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman, as usual, is correct in his assessment of the situation. It has been restored.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his leadership on this program. The Hackensack Meadowlands are indeed an important resource and a reasonable priority for the service.

I am advised that the unanticipated budgetary delays have hindered the prompt hiring of the personnel the gentleman mentioned. I will look forward to working with the gentleman as we move forward towards conference to ensure that the service has the resources it needs to continue its consultative role on the Army Corps' meadowlands ecosystem restoration study.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentlewoman from Kentucky that I know she has worked long and hard on this project, and it will be my intent to see that it is funded, working with her and the Senate.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I wish to assure the gentleman that I agree with his assessment of the situation. I am not sure that the interior bill is the appropriate place to provide this funding, but I will work with the gentleman to address these needs in future appropriations bills.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I was a member of the Subcommittee on the Interior, was not a member of this agreement that Members are talking about being made. No Congress can bind another Congress to an agreement because each Congress changes.

I would point out that given our funds, we have done a great deal in the area of conservation spending. We are putting in more than $1 billion in this program. In addition, we have spending categories that were not even established in 2001, and there are many billions of dollars in this bill that address conservation. Neither this administration nor this committee has failed in our effort to address the question of conservation. We have, however, tried to balance the bill given the fact that we have a deficit this year.

I am sure the gentleman will soon be addressing us and criticizing us in a few months about the deficit. This is the only time we can address it in our appropriations area.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) for a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his interest in the Chesapeake Bay and his leadership in addressing the threat posed by invasive species to our public. The committee intends that the funds appropriated for the Nutria Eradication and Control Project in Maryland be applied to the eradication strategy, as authorized, and not to be limited to activities within the boundaries of the refuge.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Let me assure the gentleman that I will convey his concerns to the Department of the Interior. I agree with his assessment of the situation relating to access to private inholdings.

Within the current budget constraints we will do our best to address the gentleman's concerns.

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

We have a lot of concerns about all legislation that comes before Congress. There is never enough money, we feel, to spend all the money for all the needs that we have. This year we have a deficit. We have a balanced bill in this Interior bill. We think it addresses adequately all concerns within our ability to spend. I want to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and the committee, both the majority and the minority, for the work that they have done on this.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 92, line 14, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman raises a legitimate point. The Indian trust settlement language is an authorizing issue, but before I concede the point of order, let me point out the rationale behind this important provision.

Last year, this House debated a provision limiting funding for the historical accounting of the individual Indian money accounts. During debate over this provision, both the majority and the minority members of the authorizing committee assured us that legislation would be developed forthwith to address the Indian trust issues. This did not happen.

However, this year, the new chairman of the Committee on Resources, which is the legislative committee of jurisdiction for Native American issues, has held a hearing on this critical issue and has informed me of his intention to develop legislation to resolve the Indian trust issue this year. I am convinced that, without intervention by the Congress, this issue will continue to drag on for years at the expense of other important programs in the Interior bill.

The committee proposed what I believe is a prompt, fair and reasonable resolution of these long-standing claims. To date, hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on lawyers and accountants and not a single dollar has gone to Indian country.

Mr. Chairman, if this contentious litigation continues, we will be forced to redirect resources away from Indian education, health, wildlife, law enforcement and other important Indian programs.

Let me point out a few facts for Members to keep in mind as legislation is developed to resolve this litigation. Of the approximately 260,000 individual Indian accounts, 68 percent have balances of less than $100. Thousands of accounts have less than $1 and often less than one penny. Since 1909, a total of $13 billion has flowed through these accounts, with the majority of the money deposited after 1970. This is a far cry from the $137 billion claimed by the litigants.

Today, there are 4 million different owners of the 10 million acres of individually-owned trust lands, which makes the management of trust assets very difficult. It is important that we finally tackle this issue. I pledge my help in crafting a legislative solution.

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the bill maintains the largest increases to NEA and NEH since 2002 and provides small increases for fixed costs this year. We also provide a $10 million increase for the NEH American History initiative.

Mr. Chairman, this bill must take care of our huge responsibilities for

managing Federal lands. Now, this amendment reduces administrative costs, and I would remind my colleagues that over the past 10 years we have reduced the number of personnel in departmental management by 40 percent. I would like to cut overhead further, but this amendment would damage the government's ability to properly manage our lands and programs.

This amendment would impair on-the-ground operations for environmental protection and Indian programs. It would reduce the Department's funding, including hearings and appeals in support for Indian trust reform.

My committee is watching carefully the use of funding for travel and other excessive administrative costs, and my colleagues can count on our oversight, but this amendment will not help. The bill strikes a fair balance between the needs of the arts and humanities programs and our responsibility to land management, Indian programs, and industry bills. I ask my colleagues to join me in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the T.C. Roberson High School Future Farmers of America organization and their teacher, Lonnie Johnson. The organization was recently recognized in the November/December 2002 issue of New Horizons magazine for their efforts to help poor and elderly individuals by participating in MANNA FoodBank's Plant a Row for the Hungry project. Through their hard work, these outstanding high school students provided hundreds of pounds of fresh vegetables to needy individuals throughout western North Carolina. The T.C. Roberson High School Future Farmers of America organization was also recognized in a July 8, 2002 editorial and a July 5, 2002 article in the Asheville-Citizen Times, which I am happy to share with my colleagues.

[From the Asheville Citizen-Times, July 5, 2002]

Future Farmers Raise Crops for Those in Need

(By Barbara Blake)

Skyland.--Lonnie Johnson can almost see the smiles on the

faces of the elderly people who will soon be eating fresh

corn, beans, tomatoes, squash and peppers his horticulture

students are growing out at Roberson High School.

And thinking about the pleasure these nutritious vegetables

will bring to those senior citizens and others who live on

the edge of hunger brings a smile to Johnson's face.

``Elderly people go crazy with fresh produce,'' he said.

``A lot of these people don't get much fresh, and we're going

to be giving them hundreds of pounds all the way up into

September and October. And we won't stop then--in the fall,

we'll plant our fall garden with greens and cabbage and

turnips and broccoli, and we'll keep it coming.''

Those are sweet words to the staff at MANNA FoodBank, which

will receive the vegetables from the Roberson students and

immediately distribute them to the poor and hungry in Western

North Carolina as part of the nonprofit's Plant a Row for the

Hungry project.

Johnson, who formerly was the horticulture teacher at the

Swannanoa Valley Youth Academy, started the Plant a Row

project on that campus two years ago, providing MANNA with

nearly 2,000 pounds of produce.

Early in the spring, Johnson found his Future Farmers of

America students at Roberson equally interested in

participating. So they worked together to plant more than one

row for the hungry after clearing brush to make beds, working

the soil and carefully planting seeds--all while learning

about all things gardening and horticulture.

Throughout their summer vacation, students have come one,

two or 10 at a time to replant, weed, water and, now, harvest

the vegetables of their labor.

``It's fun--I like to work with my hands,'' said rising

sophomore Levi Dowdle, peering into a bushy hill of squash

loaded with yellow flowers and tiny fruits. ``I like seeing

how much stuff has grown, and how fast it grows, and how much

time different things take.

``And,'' he said, ``I like helping people.''

This produce will defintely help people, according to Kitty

Schaller, director of development at MANNA, which netted more

than 15,000 pounds of donated produce from local gardens last

year.

``Lots of times during the year, we're able to access

produce because it's not in great condition. But this puts

the freshest stuff in the hands of the agencies that need

it--and the need is great,'' Schaller said.

``This is first-quality stuff, and as soon as it comes in,

it goes out.''

Schaller said the Youth Academy and the Roberson FFA kids

are the only two schools formally involved with the Plant a

Row for the Hungry project, and said she hopes other schools

will take part.

``We love having children do this, because it establishes a

pattern for them--making a connection with the soil, making a

connection with hungry people,'' Schaller said. ``We're

grateful to the folks at Roberson for taking this on, and we

hope other schools will decide to do it as well.''

Schaller said MANNA also is grateful for more informal

donations of fresh vegetables, ideally between 8 a.m. and

3:30 p.m., weekdays.

``But if someone needs to come on Saturday, they can call

and we'll make special arrangements,'' she said.

``While we emphasize the `plant a row' concept, we also are

very, very welcoming of people's excess produce, even if it's

just excess,'' Schaller said. ``It's a lot of people doing a

little amount that really makes a difference--and a few

people doing extraordinary stuff.''

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the hard work and professionalism of Mr. Gary Bradley, a constituent of mine from Asheville, North Carolina.

Mr. Bradley, who drives a tractor-trailer truck for the Roadways Express terminal in Asheville, North Carolina, was recently recognized for an outstanding achievement; driving one million accident free miles. Mr. Bradley is the head of the Roadways Express terminal's Injury Prevention Information program, which focuses on teaching defensive driving skills, which can prevent often fatal accidents. Gary's recent milestone proves that he certainly practices what he preaches.

Bradley has earned the plaudits of several of his colleagues. Asheville terminal manager Joel Pressley said ``It's very rare when one of our drivers hit that mark. And the fact that he is an inner-city driver and why he drove a million miles is why we think it is so significant. I would consider him one of our best drivers.''

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the 11th Congressional District of North Carolina, I want to thank Gary Bradley for his commitment to safety. He makes our highways safer and getting to our final destination a lot easier.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the life and achievements of one Western North Carolina's finest people, Mr. Joel Kaminer.

Born in New York City on February 22, 1937, the son of the late Abraham and Betty Kaminer, Joel David Kaminer graduated from New York University in 1958 with a degree in Business. He worked as a salesman in New York City for several years and then entered the United States Marine Corps. He received his honorable discharge in 1964, having served as a member of the elite Presidential Honor Guard. A member of the Marine Corps traveling football squad, Joel played games in Okinawa and Tokyo in front of large crowds of servicemen.

After leaving the Marine Corps, he briefly lived in Dallas, Texas and then moved to Miami, Florida where he entered the securities and investment industry. He lived in Miami for the next twenty-five years. Joel became an active member of his community in Miami, serving on the executive board of the Leukemia Society of South Florida and coaching youth league football.

An avid golfer, Joel and his wife Margaret moved to live permanently in Cashiers, North Carolina in 1991 where he was an active supporter of the community, supporting community improvement plans and local charities. He became a member of Cedar Creek Racquet Club and the Country Club of Sapphire Valley. His move to the mountains rekindled an old interest in politics, which began when he was involved in the 1972 presidential campaign of George McGovern. He became actively involved in the Republican Party of Western North Carolina. He loved talking about politics and the future of America. He also enjoyed attending live sporting events and spending quiet moments at home with his family.

His wife, Margaret Hart Kempner and son, Michael Kaminer reside in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. His daughter and son-in-law Tracy and Bill Kruckenberger live in Cashiers, North Carolina. He leaves three nieces, two nephews, two grand-nieces, and five grand-nephews, all of Florida.

Joel David Kaminer of Cashiers, North Carolina died Sunday, April 21, 2002. He is sorely missed by his family, his friends and his community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the public service of North Carolina State Representative Larry Justus.

After graduating from Dana High School, Larry T. Justus entered the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill where he pursued and received a degree in Radio and Television Writing and Production.

Larry Justus married Carolyn who is a native of Transylvania County, North Carolina. They have four sons: Scott, Ron, Christ and Seth. He is remembered as a loving father and kind husband.

Larry served his country bravely and retired from the United States Air Force as a Lt. Colonel after serving in the Korean and Vietnam Wars. He served as a Squadron Commander, Executive officer, disaster preparedness officer, information and public relations officer and a protocol officer.

Larry continued his role in our armed forces by being involved in the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the Western North Carolina Retiree Officers Association.

Larry was committed to the principles of the Republican Party and worked diligently on behalf of the party. He served as a National Delegate to the 1980 Republican National Convention, a former member of the State Republican Central Committee, a member of the State Republican Executive Committee and was named ``Outstanding North Carolina Republican'' in 1974. He also served as the Henderson County Republican Chairman.

Larry will best be remembered for his unfailing service to North Carolina. Justus served Henderson County in the North Carolina House of Representatives from 1985 until his death in October of 2002 at the age of 70. He was known as an open, friendly, and accessible legislator and was the model for integrity in public service.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my colleagues will join me in praising the life and work of Representative Larry Justus.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a gentleman who was devoted to his community and to civic service, Dan Waddell of Hendersonville, North Carolina.

Dan Waddell was born in Commerce, Georgia, on June 3, 1921. He was the son of John Daniel Waddell Sr. and Lillian Marie Vollrath. They moved their family to Hendersonville, North Carolina in 1930.

Dan attended Hendersonville city schools, graduating from Hendersonville High School in 1938. He attended Brevard Junior College and became a member of the football team. John transferred to East Carolina University and in 1941 quarterbacked the team, leading it to an undefeated season. When Dan died, on October 19, 2001, he was headed to the team's Special 60th Reunion Ceremony for the 1941 team.

Following graduation from East Carolina University, he entered the U.S. Army, becoming a B-17 pilot in the Army Air Corps. He flew 31 missions and was shot down over Belgium. For his service to America and in defense of freedom in World War II, he received the Distinguished Flying Cross and the Purple Heart.

After the war, he returned to Hendersonville and started a grading business, which he operated for more than 40 years. In 1960, he became president of Rasben Oil Company and he founded the Triangle Stop Food Stores in 1974. Also, he was the former president of Southern Burglar Alarm Company, which he purchased in 1977. He became president of the North Carolina Petroleum Marketers Association in 1981 and in 1989 received the Will Parker award, the most prestigious award in the petroleum industry in North Carolina.

Active in community affairs in Hendersonville, Dan became a member of the First United Methodist Church, where he attended the Roy Johnson Bible Class. Dan also served his church as chairman of the board of trustees and finance committee member. He was also a member of the board of directors of Pardee Hospital. Dan held many other offices including the following: Exalted Ruler of the Elks Club, president and board member of the Hendersonville Country Club, chairman of the Tree Board, member of the Hendersonville County Environmental Advisory Committee, member and board member of the Greater Hendersonville Chamber of Commerce, member of the Merchants Association, president of the Partners for Economic Progress, member of the Kiwanis Club, and cofounder and member of the Hendersonville High School Alumni Association. Dan ran for City Council in 1999, and fought diligently and fairly for many customers and as an advocate for local business interests.

Dan was married to the former Claire Reaben of Hendersonville, who passed away in 1995. The former Jan Rouse of Hendersonville, North Carolina became John's second wife. His son, Hall and his wife Sonja live in Hendersonville, North Carolina. John's daughter, Sharon Johnson and her husband, Steve live in Hendersonville, North Carolina. John has four grandchildren, Christa Waddell, Beau Waddell, and Emily Johnson, all of Hendersonville, North Carolina, and Erin Johnson of Atlanta, Georgia. Dr. William J. Waddell, his brother, lives in Prospect, Kentucky. His sister Cynthia Armstrong of Waxhaw along with three stepsons, Chuck, Turner, and Randy Rouse and their families live in Hendersonville, North Carolina. In addition to his several nieces, nephews, and cousins.

Dan Waddell served his family, his community and his Nation. Dan Waddell--truly a member of the ``Greatest Generation.''