Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, here we go again; another nail in the coffin of energy independence. Another nail, in fact, adding to the unemployment rate.

If this bill was to become law, mines will be shut down. They will be shut down. And what bothers me the most is we had a bipartisan bill, actually it was passed in 2006, I believe, or 2007, that improved the 1977 Mine Safety Health Act. It was supported by everybody, that side and this side, the administration. And we have not given the time, that's less than a year and a half, given the time for the operators of these mines to even reach that requirement that we said was the right thing to do.

Now, it always amazes me. I don't think there's much coal mining in Vallejo or in the Bay Area or in Point Reyes. And I do respect the gentleman from West Virginia because he does have mining. And I've heard from his operators in that area that there's a very difficult thought process going forth with this bill. Can they operate? Because in this bill, they stop the ability for belt air, which, in fact, was put in for safety purposes, supported by the people who understand this, for diluting methane and dust levels, and this bill prohibits that. How is that improving the life of our miners? It is not.

And more than that, I want to remind people. As bad as it may appear, as very much, you know, heart wrenching when there is a death in a mine, we still have the safest mining industry in the world. China lost 6,000 people, that we know of last year in their coal mines; building one new coal fired plant a week.

And here we are, with this bill, if it was to become law, again, adding another nail in our coffin for energy independence. Coal is a solution to this terrible dependence that we have on foreign oil.

I was a little disappointed today when I saw the President ask the OPEC countries to produce more oil so we can lower the price.

Our fault in this country is we're not producing oil on our lands, which we have, and we're not producing the coal, which we have an abundance of. And I believe, when saying this under the guise of helping the miner out, we are jeopardizing their jobs, jeopardizing

the economy in this country, and driving us further into the depression which may occur.

If that does happen, I want to compliment that side of the aisle, because you haven't addressed the issue of energy. And I'm a little bit disappointed. I watched all the Presidential debates. Not even on my side, let alone that side, has anybody talked about solving the energy problem in this country. We must address that issue because our economy is based on energy that can move product. Every ship is fossilly driven. Every train is fossilly driven. Every truck is fossilly driven. Every car, everything you eat and everything you consume is delivered to you by fossil fuels.

Now, we can improve nuclear power to give us fixed power, and we can burn coal, and we can use solar, and we can use hydro. We can do all these things. But there's fixed power. And we, as a Nation, and this Congress have not got to the point where we understand if we don't do something, we keep sending the dollars abroad, there's a great possibility that this whole economy we have will implode.

I'm saying, wake up, Mr. and Mrs. America. Start asking your Members of Congress, let's do something about energy. You can't conserve yourself into a prosperity position. You've got to have new energy, new production. Yes, drilling. Offshore in California, shame on you. Offshore in Florida, shame on Florida. Offshore in Alaska, shame on Alaska. We must start developing our fossil fuels in the Rocky Mountains. We must start at the Roan Plateau, which you took off the table. The Roan Plateau, have that developed. We have to start doing what is necessary to make sure we're no longer dependent on those foreign countries that are not our friends.

So I urge a ``no'' on this bill because it's another nail in the coffin that creates in this country more weaknesses and not the ability to provide for the future generations.

My good friend from California, he is my good friend, you have to recognize that we have not done anything. When you were in the majority you did nothing. You in fact had President Clinton veto opening of new oil discoveries in Alaska.

Ten years ago. Again, everybody tells me we can do it at a later date. And what we're doing is nothing. I ask each one of you in this room that's sitting here today, I'm asking you, are we going to sit until this whole country comes to a collapse because we're not addressing the energy policy? The energy bill we passed here has produced no energy at all.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Daniel V. Kish and the 28 years of service he has provided to the State of Alaska and the Nation.

In the summer of 1978, a young long-haired college student dressed in muddy work boots wandered into my office looking for an internship. Why he chose my office in particular, I do not know, though I suspect it had something to do with an attractive young lady working at the front desk, but he appeared willing and eager to work. Thus, after telling him to get a haircut and a pair of loafers, I put him to work.

My staff and I were immediately impressed by Dan's strong work ethic, his innate understanding of even the most complex issues, and his natural ability to communicate to my constituents--both in writing and in spoken word--the practical impacts of the various legislative proposals before the Congress.

In fact, when Dan returned to Indiana's Wabash College at the end of that summer to finish his studies, he left our office with an unexpected void to fill. The following year Dan had completed his undergraduate degree, and we had an open position to fill. Thanks to the good judgment and recommendation of the young woman who drew Dan into our office the previous summer, I tracked him down and asked him to come to work for me full-time. In the years since then, Dan has earned himself a well-deserved reputation as one of the most talented, dedicated, and knowledgeable staffers on the Hill.

Dan has stuck with me through thick and thin. He has always kept my best interests, and the best interests of the State of Alaska, at heart. His devotion to me, the State of Alaska, and the Nation has been unparalleled. Dan's unwavering commitment to and understanding of strong Republican ideals, free market policies, and responsible development of our Nation's resources have been an inspiration to hundreds of Hill staffers and Members alike, and he has served as the moral compass by which the Resources Committee has sailed throughout his tenure.

Dan's writing throughout the years has been equally inspiring. He is by far the single most impressive writer I've come across in 35 years. His talent and ability to get to the root of an issue in two or three eloquent sentences is unmatched. While Dan's use of words has always been powerful, it has often been humorous as well. A strong supporter of a free market economy, Dan once wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury recommending that the $1 coin bear the likeness of Dolly Arthur--the owner of a historic bordello in Ketchikan, Alaska-- suggesting that unlike Susan B. Anthony, she ``was truly a woman who knew the value of a dollar.'' This unique sense of humor has brought smiles to my face and many others for nearly three decades.

But most of all, Dan Kish will be remembered for the genuine respect and appreciation he has always had for what he called ``the Working Man.'' Although his mind was often occupied in debates over esoteric federal policies, his heart has always belonged to the

fight for the working men and women of America who get dirt under their fingernails rather than paper cuts on their pinkies. Dan tirelessly reminded us that American prosperity, national defense, and world leadership depend on the working men and women who operate the drill rigs, mine metals and minerals, harvest trees and crops, raise livestock, and pull the levers and press the buttons that control the dams responsible for irrigating the land and powering our communities.

God has blessed our country with a bounty of resources, and Dan was always ready with a sermon to remind us that His gifts are there for us to use wisely. Dan's wise words will not be forgotten.

While hiring Dan was one of the best decisions I've made in my 35 years in Washington, I think Dan would agree that coming to work for me was the most important decision of his life. After all, it's where he met his beautiful wife, Pam, the young lady who lured the long-haired college student into my office 29 years ago. I would be remiss if I did not also thank Pam Kish for everything she has done over the years, not only as a former staffer, but as a loving wife.

The State of Alaska and the Nation as a whole owe a debt of gratitude to Dan Kish for his 29 years of service, and this House is a better place because of his good work. Ronald Reagan once wrote, ``Some people work an entire lifetime and wonder if they've ever made a difference.'' I know I speak for many in this body when I say there is no question that Dan Kish has made a tremendous difference during his tenure and will be sorely missed.

While Dan is moving on, his impact on and contribution to our work in Congress is timeless. I can think of no one who is more widely respected and admired for his intrinsic understanding of and devotion to the things that make this Nation so great.

I am forever grateful that Dan's path crossed with mine that day, 29 years ago so, while I stand here today honoring Daniel V. Kish for his years of service, his departure is bittersweet. Words cannot express my personal gratitude to Dan for his work, his counsel, and most importantly, his friendship. Thank you, Dan. I wish you and Pam the best in the next chapter of your life together.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 2764, which provides, among other things, $500 million for the Commanders Emergency Response Program (CERP). Our continued support for this program is vital for winning the war on terror and ensuring stability in Iraq and Afghanistan. General Petraeus himself recently described it as ``a critical tool with which to prosecute the counterinsurgency campaign.''

Our continued support for CERP will be especially important for achieving long term success in Iraq. The Iraqi people must be convinced that their lives are getting better and that their future is one of peace and prosperity, rather than violence and sectarian strife. As David Ignatius pointed out this morning in the Washington Post, ``the success of the U.S. troop surge seems to be bolstering, ever so slightly, the advocates of conciliation and weakening the partisans of sectarian war.'' However, ``[t]he recent progress in Iraq has resulted from bottom-up efforts to build trust, neighborhood by neighborhood.'' CERP has proven to be one of the key tools in this effort.

CERP allows our military commanders and civil affairs officers on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan to respond to urgent humanitarian relief and reconstruction requirements within their areas of responsibility by carrying out programs that will immediately assist the indigenous population. The funding is allocated to brigade commanders to support a wide variety of small-scale relief and reconstruction projects, including reconstruction of water and sanitation facilities, school repair, restoring power stations, lines and generators, providing humanitarian relief, renovating cultural centers, museums and libraries, and repairing telecommunications infrastructure.

Most importantly, CERP grants can be dispensed quickly and applied directly to local needs, rather than slowed down by the bureaucratic process in Washington and watered down by foreign contractors and subcontractors. As Secretary Gates recently explained in his testimony before Congress, ``. . .by building trust and confidence in Coalition forces, these CERP projects increase the flow of intelligence to commanders in the field and help turn local Iraqis and Afghans against insurgents and terrorists.''

CERP could also serve to be a key component in helping to normalize the more than 2 million internally displaced Iraqis and provide a stable environment for the more than 2 million externally displaced in neighboring countries to return home.

The Iraqi Red Crescent Organization (IRCO), for example, has recently proposed a one-year plan to normalize up to 600,000 internally displaced residents of Baghdad into 120 self sustaining neighborhood units. The IRCO Neighborhood Reconstruction Program (NRP) could help provide unemployed IDPs with the opportunity to construct and service approximately 100,000 homes, 440 schools, 132 mobile health clinics, 60 water treatment plants, and 44 electrical generators. With the financial support of CERP and the Government of Iraq, this program would be coordinated through IRCO's existing 44 offices in Baghdad and, within a year, these formerly displaced people would have the opportunity live in homes with electricity and water, within neighborhoods that have access to nearby healthcare, schools, and jobs.

We have an obligation to continue funding CERP so that the Iraqi and Afghan people can build peaceful and prosperous societies for themselves. The sooner this occurs, the quicker our troops can come home.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Renewable and Hydro-electric Energy for Alaska's Tomorrow Act, the Renewable HEAT Act. The purpose of this legislation is to authorize the Department of Energy to provide grants for carrying out renewable energy and hydroelectric projects.

Similar, yet more restrictive, language was included in the Senate- passed energy bill, H.R. 6. The bill, written in secret behind closed doors by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, is hardly an energy bill. More accurately described as the ``Energy Suicide Act,'' this bill will do nothing to reduce our dependence on hostile foreign nations, nor will it bring relief to Americans suffering from rising energy costs. In fact, it will do the opposite. The only positive aspect of this bill is the provision providing grants for renewable energy, and more importantly, Alaska small hydroelectric projects.

Madam Speaker, I cannot in good conscience vote for a bill that tries to fool the American people into thinking we are going to be able to lower their energy prices. How can we lower costs and become energy independent if there is no production? Essentially, it is economic terrorism. And who is dictating the terms of this bill? The environmental groups funded by millionaires who don't lose any sleep wondering how they are going to heat their homes, as temperatures drop. We are approaching a state of crisis, where oil is trading for $90 a barrel.

As I stated earlier, the only real energy provided for in the deceptive H.R. 6 is for hydroelectric power in Alaska. My colleagues seem to think that water is the only resource needed to keep a world power running. Since I cannot vote for this bill in its entirety, I have introduced this legislation to provide grant money for hydropower to my State of Alaska. Hydroelectric power is the Nation's largest renewable energy source and accounts for seven percent of America's electricity supply. Even though Alaska is one-sixth the size of the entire Nation, it is home to about 40 percent of the country's free- flowing freshwater.

Rural Alaskan communities have the highest utility rates in America, paying up to six times the national average, while also suffering the lowest per capita incomes. Currently, heating oil costs between $3 and $5 a gallon. The diesel-fired electricity so many Alaskan communities rely upon is not only expensive, it's dirty. The generators are old, unreliable, and release pollutants into the air, and in order to conserve money, are usually turned off at night. The grants this bill provides will assist these areas in the transition to clean, more affordable energy by giving them the funding to harvest the natural flow of water that surrounds them.

It has become clear to me that the United States Congress has no intention of taking care of the American people by making sure

they can heat their homes and put food on their plates. Therefore, I must make sure my Alaskans are taken care of, while they endure some of the coldest temperatures in the country.

My friends, it's not very hard to understand why our country is facing an energy crisis; in fact, it's very simple. America needs more oil, gas, coal, nuclear and hydropower. We need more wind power. But Congress has refused to unlock these resources. This bill does nothing to release those resources allowed to provide us with the energy. It concentrates on corn, switchgrass, and a few hybrid cars.

My friends, oil, gas, coal, nuclear and hydropower are the backbone of this country. They supply more than 90 percent of our energy needs to fuel the world's number one economy. I would add that developing them does not raise the price of food, such as corn. There's no shortage of these energy resources in America. There is a shortage of the will to develop them. In fact, the majority leadership of this body, the last two Democrat Presidents and their allies in the environmental movement have created a false energy shortage through their constant attempts to lock up homegrown energy.

Let me give you a few examples. They want to ban all offshore oil and gas development. They oppose U.S. oil production of North America's largest onshore prospect. They stopped oil and shale development in the omnibus spending bill. They opposed coal, and even applauded when President Clinton locked up millions of tons of clean fuel in Utah. They want the tens of trillions of cubic feet of clean-burning natural gas in the Rocky Mountains locked up forever. They oppose nuclear power plants; they, being the majority party. They oppose hydroelectric power. They even want to tear down nonpolluting hydroelectric dams in the Northwest.

They want to impose high taxes on the use of energy, driving energy prices paid by your constituents to even higher than they are today. They even oppose using biomass of overgrown, unhealthy forests as a renewable fuel supply. In particular, the biofuel mandate in this bill is a direction to burn down forests and close more mills in the West.

More than half of Alaska's Federal land, and we have enormous potential for a biofuels industry; this bill stops all of that. This bill will hold Alaska to the highest standards. Alaskans would be forced to purchase the most efficient, read the most expensive, appliances. The residents of the wealthy district in San Francisco have money to buy the most efficient, expensive furnaces and air conditioners, and I would bet most of them are inclined to spend their money on them. Many Alaskans, however, cannot afford to spend the extra $200, $300, $400 for the most efficient furnaces. Under this bill, they will have to. In a survey of 100 Alaskan communities, the average price of gas is $5 a gallon.

The majority leader is playing Russian roulette with the economy. This year, every bill we've passed concerning energy is another bullet in the chamber of a gun staring point-blank at America's head, and by my count, it's already fully loaded.

This is a bad bill. It's a charade. It's a disgrace for this body to vote ``yes'' for this bill. I am urging us to vote ``no.''

Madam Speaker, it was with a deep sense of loss that I learned that my dear friend and committee colleague Jim Saxton will retire at the end of the 110th Congress. Jim has served the Third Congressional District of New Jersey with the highest distinction for the past 23 years.

Jim and I have not always been on the same side on a number of environmental issues; however, there is no question that he always articulates his views with passion and conviction. When I became chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee on January 3, 1995, I was honored to appoint Jim Saxton as the first chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans. He served as chairman of that subcommittee during the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses.

He was a superb subcommittee chairman and sponsored a number of important conservation measures that became law during the Clinton administration. This included the Asian Elephant Conservation Act of 1997. This landmark law, which has been extended several time, created the Asian Elephant Conservation Fund to assist this highly endangered species whose population had been decimated to less than 40,000 elephants living in the wild. As a result of his law, in the past decade the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved 183 grant proposals to assist Asian elephants. There is no question that these projects halted this species' slide toward extinction.

A second bill was the National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998. This measure, Public Law 105-242, statutorily created the framework for volunteer activities within the National Wildlife Refuge System. In the past 10 years, this Act allowed the number of volunteers to dramatically increase to nearly 40,000 Americans who contributed more than 1.5 million hours of service last year. The value of the volunteer work has been estimated in excess of $26 million and it represents 20 percent of all staff work done in the National Wildlife Refuge System. At a time when the Fish and Wildlife Service is suffering an operations funding crisis within the refuge system, it is difficult to imagine how this system would function without the valuable contributions of volunteers.

A third measure was the Rhino and Tiger Product Labeling Act of 1998. The fundamental goal of P.L. 105-312 was to eliminate the U.S. market for illegally obtained rhino and tiger products, and therefore, the incentives to kill these magnificent animals. Under this law, if a label on a product says that it contains rhinoceros and tiger parts, then we accept the manufacturer's claim and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for stopping its sale, confiscating any products, and persecuting the illegal importers.

A fourth measure sponsored by Chairman Jim Saxton was the Arctic Tundra Habitat Conservation Act of 1999. This legislation allowed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to undertake various conservation and management steps to reduce the exploding population of mid-continent light geese. These geese were systematically destroying the fragile arctic tundra in the Hudson Bay Region which is essential to the survival of millions of migratory birds. By all accounts, the implementation of this measure has been responsible for saving thousands of acres of vital wetland habitat.

A fifth proposal which was signed into law was the Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Act of 2000. This legislation, P.L. 106-555, established a small grant program to fund the rescue and rehabilitation of marine mammals, it encouraged scientific work associated with live and dead marine mammals and it provided a small amount of financial assistance to marine mammal rescue centers. Federal agencies frequently ask marine mammal rescue centers to provide around-the-clock monitoring and veterinarian care to injured animals without giving them any financial assistance. This measure established a humanitarian partnership between Federal and non-federal entities.

A sixth proposal was Jim Saxton's sponsorship of the Coral Reef Conservation and Partnership Act of 2000. Coral reefs are among the world's most productive ecosystems and they are often referred to as the ``rainforests'' of the oceans. These reefs are critical to the survival of thousands of fish species. Sadly, about 40 percent of all coral reefs are either degraded beyond recovery or in critical condition. This legislation was designed as a lifeline for our coral reef ecosystems by providing a limited amount of Federal funding to finance coral reef grants to assist in their protection and recovery.

Finally, I am proud that Jim Saxton joined with me as an original co- sponsor of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. On October 9, 2007, we celebrated the 10th anniversary of this act which is Public Law 105-57. This landmark law established for the first time an ``organic'' statute for our 96 million acre national wildlife refuge system. It defined the term ``wildlife-dependent recreation'' to include hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and environmental education. It also established a ``conservation mission'' for the system and required the completion of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for each refuge unit. The act gave wildlife dependent recreation priority consideration in refuge planning, management and funding. Finally, it required the Fish and Wildlife Service to evaluate the likelihood of ongoing historic uses on private lands prior to their inclusion within the system. Jim Saxton authored this important provision.

This is far from an exhaustive list of Jim Saxton's legislative accomplishments in the resources arena. It is representative only of the 6-year period that he served as chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans. Nevertheless, it clearly demonstrates his dedication and commitment to wildlife conservation which he exemplified throughout his congressional career. His constituents living in Cherry Hill, Mount Holly, and Toms River, New Jersey, will miss Jim Saxton and his lifelong advocacy of Theodore Roosevelt's vision and principles. I look forward to working with Jim through the 110th Congress. I wish him calm sailing seas in the days beyond Congress. ``May the wind always be on your back and the sun shine upon your face!''

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today the Wildlife Without Borders Authorization Act.

The Wildlife Without Borders Program was created administratively by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1983. The mission of this program is to develop wildlife management and conservation efforts to maintain global species diversity.

While the Congress has already created Multinational Species Conservation Funds to assist highly imperiled African and Asian elephants, Rhinoceros and Tigers, Great Apes and Marine Turtles, this program has provided a funding lifeline to a number of additional endangered species that are not currently eligible for funding, are not considered a megafauna or a flagship species and frankly lack the public attention necessary to generate private financial assistance.

The first conservation grants issued under this program were awarded to the Wildlife Without Borders Program for Latin America and the Caribbean Initiative. Since that time, additional grants have been allocated for projects in Mexico, India, China and the Russian Federation. In fact, in the past two decades, the International Affairs Office within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has approved 583 conservation projects at a cost of $13 million in taxpayer money. These funds have been matched by $43.7 million in private non-federal money which is a remarkable 3 to 1 matching ratio.

Among the conservation projects that have been approved are funds for the Winged Ambassadors Program to stop the killing of Swainsons' hawks, a project to restore and conserve the forest habitat for monarch butterflies, jaguar conservation in the Yucatan region, the restoration of the California condor in Baja California, Mexico and the purchase of essential equipment for law enforcement personnel to protect imperiled Far Eastern leopards, Amur tigers and snow leopards.

A fundamental goal of this program has been to build conservation capacity and establish ecosystem management regimes by allocating a small amount of U.S. taxpayer money. It is no exaggeration to state that these are the only funds available to assist these highly endangered international species and without this investment these species may become extinct in the wild. In addition, this program has complemented the activities of the Multinational Species Conservation Funds.

By establishing a Congressional authorization for the Wildlife Without Borders Program we will send a positive message to the international community that the United States is committed to its international wildlife treaty obligations and we recognize the long- term importance of this program by enacting it into law.

I urge my colleagues to support this important conservation legislation and want to thank my distinguished colleague from New Jersey, Congressman Jim Saxton for joining with me in this effort.

I want to thank the ranking member, Mr. Mica, and congratulate him on his good work on this legislation.

This is a good bill. I want to thank Mr. Oberstar and Ms. Johnson for the work that you've done on this bill.

This bill has been passed out of this House approximately three times, two times while I was chairman, and now Mr. Mica and Mr. Oberstar have got the bill to the President's desk. All the previous speakers are not here to beat up the President. I am here to say this bill should be passed; we should override the President's veto because it's right for America.

It is an investment, and we are way behind in this investment. Some have said, well, we started out with a certain amount of money on the House side, the Senate had a certain amount, and we came out with more. Frankly, I think it should be about $40 billion. And I say this from a little bit of experience. We did the same thing in the Highway bill, it should have been $375 billion, not $285 billion, because it is an investment in the future and the infrastructure to provide the economy for this country that creates the jobs and makes us competitive worldwide.

Without this bill, we will lose. Without this bill, we will not be able to achieve those goals. We will not save people's lives. But more than that, the next crisis we will face in this country is our water, the use of our water, the water to be used correctly, for transportation, for recreation and for the good of man.

This bill is right. Let's override the President. Let's do something for America.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to what could have been responsible bipartisan legislation. I have a great deal of respect for the chairman of the committee; he is a good friend of mine. But this is a bad bill.

As the gentleman on our side, the ranking member, Mr. Pearce, has done an outstanding job, he mentioned in his statement to listen to the chairman of the committee and those who are promoting this bill that the mining industry has no regulations, no laws, they just run rampant, which is pure nonsense. We are not really addressing an 1872 mining law here. It is not about the royalty. They offered the chairman if he would strike title III, we might be able to work a bill, and he turned it down.

This is about driving our industry, our mining industry overseas and away from our shores. This bill will do it. Just as I have heard in the past about legislation from that side of the aisle when you were in power that we are not trying to stop the logging industry in Alaska, we are just trying to make sure that we get our fair share. We went from 15,000 jobs down to less than 300 jobs. That was from the previous chairman.

I also heard all the time about how when they were in power, how we were going to be energy independent. And now we are paying $93 a barrel for oil, $93 a barrel, because you have not acted and we didn't do also. But we didn't try to stop the mining industry in this country as this bill will do.

This is not just about mining; this is about national security. Where do you think the metals come from to build our airplanes? Right now we are probably importing most of it. And I guarantee you, we will import all of it under this bill. We know, Mr. Rahall, this doesn't affect West Virginia. It doesn't affect his coal mines or any of the east coast States. But it does affect public lands in the West where our minerals are derived from.

I say wake up, Mr. and Mrs. America and my colleagues. Wake up. China has gone into Chile now, and they control the copper that we must have for our hybrid cars.

Yes, all of you, as I watch my good friend there working his BlackBerry, where do you think the metals and minerals came from for this? As we vote electronically today, the metals and minerals make that electronic system work.

We are not talking about the royalty, here; although, I do think it is unconstitutional as the bill came out of committee because you rewrote the contract under the bill. It will be taken to court and that part of the bill will be struck. It will be struck. I tried to say that. But no, again this is not a bipartisan bill. This is a bill that was written primarily by the leadership of this House that in reality takes away the ability for the western States to produce the minerals that are needed. That is what this bill does.

It does affect my State probably more than any other bill that has come out other than the Alaskan National Lands Act that put 147 million acres of land off limits. What remaining BLM land we have where we are trying to develop a mining industry will be precluded, taking away the benefit of the mining industry in the State of Alaska as it does in the western States. But it affects my State more, probably.

Yes, we probably could have written a bill that would have recovered the dollars necessary to straighten out hardrock mining. But no, we have a bill that stops the ability of this Nation to be self-sufficient in minerals. Later on you will see a display about just how dependent we have become.

I am hoping that this bill will be killed in the Senate, as most bills will be killed from the House side because no one wants to work with the Republicans at all. That is why you have an 11 percent rating of favorability. No ability to work across the aisle and say what will work and what are we trying to achieve. What are we trying to achieve?

If you were looking for money from royalties, we could have talked about that; prospective, not retroactive, because that will go to court. But that didn't happen, and you left title III in, which requires so much impossibility of achieving a mining claim that they will go abroad. They will go abroad, and that's not right for this country.

I have said all along, and I am going to be around here a lot longer than most people expect, and most of you probably don't like that, but I will be here just to say ``I told you so'' like I have done with the logging, what you did in my State and the logging industry and the west coast and on public lands. There is no timber industry. We are now importing our timber with no regulations. We have private timber in the eastern States, but not in the western States.

I listen to you. We just voted on a bill yesterday to help out people who are going to be displaced because of losing jobs overseas, and you voted for that. And that is what this bill does. It will drive the industry out of the United States of America and we will be dependent upon China and Russia and all of the other countries for the metals and minerals we must have in our Nation to make sure we are economically strong, and then we cannot become strong.

So as much as I love you, Mr. Chairman, this is a bad piece of legislation. I have been told don't worry about it, we will take care of it later on down the line. Well, I have been down that road before, too.

So I am asking my colleagues on my side of the aisle and anybody that is thinking on that side of the aisle to vote against this legislation if you believe in this Nation. If you believe in this Nation being strong, if you believe in jobs in our country and not abroad, then you will vote ``no'' for this bill.

If you don't believe that, then vote ``yes'' for the bill. And then go home and say, ``I repealed the 1872 mining law. Look what I did for you, Mr. Backpacker.'' But think of our country and our Nation. Think of our future. Vote ``no'' on this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor 586 members of the Alaska Army National Guard's 3rd Battalion, 297th Infantry who recently returned from their yearlong deployment to southern Iraq and Kuwait. The guardsmen have been successfully serving as security forces in northern Kuwait and southern Iraq since October 2006, guarding camps and convoys heading into Iraq. The guardsmen come from all over my State, with members of the unit hailing from 80 different communities across Alaska including Anchorage, Fairbanks, Kodiak, Soldotna, Kenai, Nome, and many native villages. The unit also included National Guardsmen from New York, Mississippi, Illinois, Georgia, and Puerto Rico.

This was the largest deployment of the Alaska National Guard since World War II and thankfully all 586 guardsmen who were deployed overseas returned home safely. Many of these guardsmen had never left Alaska prior to joining the National Guard, but none hesitated to serve their country.

As I told the National Guardsmen at their welcome home ceremony at Camp Shelby, Mississippi, ``You can't support the troops unless you respect them. And I humbly respect you because you have done your job as you were charged to do so, and as volunteers. You left your families and you went forth and accomplished what you were taught to do.''

I truly believe that the importance of the National Guard to our country cannot be overstated, which is why it is important that we honor these citizen-soldiers. For this reason I am introducing the following resolution to honor these Guardsmen for their outstanding service to our country.

H. Con. Res. 240

Whereas the 3rd Battalion, 297th Infantry of the Alaska

Army National Guard deployment of almost 600 Alaskans was the

largest deployment of the Alaska National Guard since World

War II;

Whereas the Alaskans of the 3rd Battalion, 297th Infantry

came from 80 different communities across Alaska;

Whereas the 3rd Battalion, 297th Infantry included 75

soldiers from New York, Mississippi, Illinois, Georgia and

Puerto Rico;

Whereas the 586 soldiers of the 3rd Battalion, 297th

Infantry were mobilized in July of 2006 and deployed to Camp

Shelby, Mississippi;

Whereas the 3rd Battalion, 297th Infantry was deployed to

Camp Navstar and Camp Buehring in Northern Kuwait;

Whereas the 3rd Battalion, 297th Infantry courageously

performed route and perimeter security missions, mounted

combat patrols and inspections and searches of vehicles going

into Iraq from Kuwait, among other assignments;

Whereas the 3rd Battalion, 297th Infantry, over the course

of 15 months in Kuwait and Iraq, inspected and searched over

30,000 semi-trucks;

Whereas the 3rd Battalion, 297th Infantry designed all

force protection plans in northern Kuwait;

Whereas the families of the members of the 3rd Battalion,

297th Infantry have provided unwavering support while waiting

patiently for their loved ones to return;

Whereas the employers of members and family members of the

3rd Battalion, 297th Infantry have displayed patriotism over

profit, by keeping positions saved for the returning soldiers

and supporting the families during the difficult days of this

long deployment, and these employers are great corporate

citizens through their support of members of the Armed Forces

and their family members;

Whereas the 3rd Battalion, 297th Infantry has performed

admirably and courageously; gaining the gratitude and respect

of Alaskans and all Americans; and

Whereas members of the 3rd Battalion, 297th Infantry

received 7 Bronze Stars, 23 Meritorious Service Medals, 142

Army Commendations and more than 200 Army Achievement Medals

for their outstanding service: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

concurring), That Congress--

(1) commends the 3rd Battalion, 297th Infantry of the

Alaska Army National Guard upon its completion of deployment

and brave service to the Commonwealth of Alaska and the

citizens of the United States; and

(2) directs the Clerk of the House of Representatives to

transmit a copy of this resolution to the Adjutant General of

the Alaska National Guard for appropriate display.

Mr. Speaker, I have several concerns with H.R. 1483. While I may support several subtitles within this bill, changes have been made that harm the positive intent of the legislation.

An unexpected and unrequested increase, from $10 million to $15 million, in the authorization for new Heritage Areas was inserted by the Majority. No hearings have been held to discuss this change and we do not understand why it is warranted. The cost of this bill has ballooned to over $135 million.

I have further reservations because the closed rule does not provide two Members of the House the opportunity to adequately represent their districts. Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Goode have expressed concerns that they do not want to be included in these Heritage Areas and would prefer to be removed. I believe a Member has the right to represent his district and decide which Federal designations will be created over his constituents.

The committee has heard concerns that this bill would exacerbate the problem of Heritage Areas and their inability to operate without Federal funds. Heritage Areas are supposed to become self-sufficient: they were designed with that goal and that intent. This simply delivers more money to those heritage areas that have run through their authorization. The National Park Service testified that no National Heritage Area has succeeded in becoming self-sufficient.

We have seen evidence that the National Park Service and some Heritage Areas are violating public law by using Federal funds for lobbying. They go so far as to instruct other groups on how to start new Heritage Areas and further this problem.

In committee we sought to strengthen the private property rights protections. My Democrat colleagues believe this is the cure to a problem that does not exist. I urge them to reconsider and adopt real property protections that allow owners to withdraw from Heritage Area boundaries. This protection has been given to the last twelve Heritage Areas and should not be denied any new Heritage Areas.

Finally, the committee has learned that Heritage Area boundaries may be used to impede the placement of critical energy transmission lines. At a time when the national grid is already heavily taxed and the threat of blackouts loom, we should not build obstacles to providing Americans with reliable energy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support H.R. 505, and I do so in recognition

of the long-standing ties between Native Hawaiians and Alaska Natives, who themselves underwent a struggle to be recognized for the purpose of settling their aboriginal land claims. H.R. 505 concerns a struggle involving Native Hawaiians, who are seeking to formalize a kind of relationship among the Federal government, the State of Hawaii, and Hawaii's aboriginal peoples based on the powers of the Congress to regulate Indian affairs. I have been proud to work with my good friend, the Gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), to work on passing this bill for all the years we have served together. I want to recognize and congratulate the Gentleman for his iron commitment to this legislation and to the well-being of Hawaii and the nation.

This Congress has passed several laws of unique application to Native Hawaiians, invoking the authority of the so-called Indian Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. An important example of these laws is when Congress conveyed lands in Hawaii for the purpose of benefiting the Natives. This has been supplemented with additional benefits and services exclusively for Natives based on their status as Natives.

But there is a shortcoming in these laws: Congress has not yet authorized the Natives to organize a governing entity. At some point, we the Congress have to provide a means for the Native Hawaiians to administer these benefits in accordance with our current policy of promoting self-determination among Native American people in general. Native Hawaiians have largely stayed intact as a distinct community and we would be doing a great disservice to them if we did not set up a process for their recognition as a governing entity. The governing entity will be the vehicle they use to advance their economies, and preserve and pass on their special heritage and language to future generations.

I understand that some Members have a problem with this bill. It has been said many times already but it's worth emphasizing again: H.R. 505 has the endorsement of the Governor, the Congressional Delegation and the State Legislature of Hawaii. It does not cut into programs for American Indians and Alaska Natives. Enrollment to the governing entity is elective.

We can trace the genesis of this bill, embodying the hope of an indigenous people to control their own fate, all the way back to the overthrow of 1893. It has been a long road. I believe how we treat our native indigenous people reflects our values and who we are. Clearly, there is much in the history of our interactions with the native people of what is now the United States that makes us less than proud. But one of the great attributes of America has always been the ability to look objectively at our history, learn from it, and where possible make amends.

Native Hawaiians, like American Indians and Alaska Natives, have an inherent sovereignty based on their status as indigenous, native people. They desire the right to exercise management over their own affairs and land. By law, a portion of income from the former crown lands of the Kingdom of Hawai`i (also called ceded lands) is allocated to benefit the native Hawaiian people. At present, that income is managed by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, a state agency. Management of this income and Hawaiian lands should be done by a Native Hawaiian governing entity now that the trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs are elected by all the residents of the State of Hawai'i and not just Native Hawaiians.

As has already been mentioned today, this legislation is supported by the great majority of Hawai`i's people, by its Republican governor, by our State Legislature, and by dozens of organizations, including the Congress of American Indians and the Alaska Federation of Natives.

This legislation primarily affects the State of Hawai`i. Our state motto, which is the same as that of the Kingdom of Hawai`i, is ``Ua man ke ea o ka aina i ka pono,'' which means ``the life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness.'' This is a historic vote and one that helps to perpetuate righteousness by righting a historic wrong. I ask that you stand with the people of Hawai`i and oppose the Flake amendment, oppose the motion to recommit, and support passage of the bill.

Mahalo nui loa (thank you very much).

For these reasons, we owe a great deal of deference to the judgment of the elected representatives of the State of Hawaii. They are the ones who are accountable for this legislation on their islands. The Delegation of Hawaii understands best that Native Hawaiians have struggled for decades to achieve a status that adequately promotes their self-determination.

Let's keep in mind that Congress has recognized Native Americans for various purposes over the years. We are not limited by a strict set of criteria such as those set forth in the Interior Department's Federal acknowledgment regulations. While these criteria are sensible to apply in some cases, a quick look at some of the Indian statutes passed in the early days of our republic make it clear that Congress viewed its powers to deal with Indians in a very broad sense.

Opponents often say that Native Hawaiians are not a tribe and that Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution limits Congress to recognize only tribes in the contiguous 48 States.

The meaning of ``tribes'' in Article I, Section 8--commonly called the Indian Commerce Clause--is broad in scope. There is nothing that limits Congress to recognizing only the aboriginal people of the Lower 48 States. In fact, Congress was recognizing Indians for special reasons when they were in lands that were not part of the United States. And Congress has authorized the reorganization of reservations that were broken up and tribes that were terminated. Again, Congress has broad, plenary authority to recognize Native peoples.

H.R. 505 is a good bill and it is a first, critical step for Native Hawaiians to deal with Hawaii and the Federal government in a fashion befitting their special status as a distinct Native community. In their wisdom, the Representatives from Hawaii have left issues regarding benefits, services, and lands to future negotiations with the newly organized governing entity. We can deal with these issues in a deliberative, careful fashion with the Native governing entity when it is organized.

I'm pleased to support H.R. 505 and to advance a process for recognizing a Native Hawaiian entity.

Mr. Speaker, I come from a State which has more of its land locked up in wilderness than any other State, 58 million acres. This is larger than the entire State of New York and accounts for 56 percent of all the wilderness in the United States, so I think I know wilderness. I know that a lot of wilderness in Alaska is designated for reasons that have little to do with the stated goals of the Wilderness Act.

The designations have blocked vital uses of these lands and blocked access to State and private resources that we Alaskans were promised when we entered statehood. There have been and still are major consequences for what Congress did in 1980. In the East, where most of you come from, that is not always the case.

All I can say is that if this is what Mr. Boucher and his constituents want in Virginia, then good luck. I can guess that one day, I think that one day they will regret this action. Given Virginia's population growth, the severe risk of forest fires, such as they are in California today, caused by sustained drought, I believe all but two counties have been declared disaster areas by the Governor last week, problems with gypsy moths and other agricultural threats to this area and the dampening effect that wilderness restrictions can have on the development of adjacent areas, you may wonder why you have brought this upon yourself. We should be looking to give the Forest Service more tools to manage our lands, not taking them away, which is exactly what wilderness does.

Once this bill becomes law, our constituents, your constituents, may find that they may not be able to burn wood in their fireplaces that keep them warm in the winter because their quality of wilderness must be protected, or that a new school or hospital can't be built because the view shed for the wilderness could be affected. People are even talking about ``smellscapes'' when it comes to wilderness areas, so enjoy your Weber grill right now while you can.

The committee should also know that H.R. 1011 designates nearly 27,000 acres of wilderness above what was recommended by the Forest Service. This is contrary to the recently revised Jefferson National Forest Plan, which took 11 years, millions of dollars, and extensive public involvement to create. We asked for this study. They followed the rules, but now we are ignoring the professional land managers.

In addition, H.R. 1011 will endanger citizens living near this proposed wilderness area by tying the hands of the Forest Service, who need to perform proactive treatments that could reduce the risk of wildfires. Wildfires, I keep stressing that because we are seeing what is happening in California. If they cleared off those forests around those homes, they would not be burning today, but that was prohibited.

Nonqualifying areas are now being actively managed for endangered threatened species protection, and this could come to an end.

The amendment filed by Mr. Goodlatte helps mitigate some of these issues, and I will strongly support the amendment. Most notably, the amendment will remove 26 acres which contain a power line and remove 1,263 acres from the proposed designation to allow continued use of the Barton Gap Motorized trail and Wildlife Habitat Management in key areas.

I could go on and on about this. I just want to warn people, it is not the area we are talking about; it is the Wilderness Act itself, and it should be upgraded. I encourage my chairman to do so so that we can address those problems that can occur from the designation of wilderness, taking care of gypsy moths, taking care of the fires, taking care of the ability to access and to have the availability of the area for public use. If we do not do that, then I think we are doing ourselves a great mistake.

I do not live in this area. I am not affected by it. That's why, very frankly, I am not raising some of the objections that I should have raised to it.

I think you will learn, though, in the long run, you are not doing yourselves a favor. The Forest Service themselves can manage this land in a manner that will take and provide for the people. It

does not have to be designated as a wilderness area.

Again, it has already been done. We have moved it out of committee, and I will say, again, may I not be on this floor when you come back to say we have to revise it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman that just spoke and his presentation. I just, again, wish that people would understand it's not the wilderness itself; it's how the act has been written. And if you think you're going to make a living off of coffee shops and tourism, these are low-grade paying jobs. I've seen it happen. I've seen my town of Ketchikan. We created a forest that we can't harvest and we took $80,000 jobs now down to the minimum wage. That will happen too. So I just, and it's too late, it's your district. You believe in what you say, and I commend you for it. But this is not the economy which I see, serving those that come from the larger urban areas, the elitists, as I call it.

And this area, by the way, was farmed at one time, as you know, and timbered and mined. People had jobs that provided and produced. We are rapidly becoming a Nation of consumption and of no production, of pleasure and no sweat.

Having said that, I have no other speakers, and yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

And I do thank both the gentlemen from Virginia. This is a good amendment. I urge the passage of this amendment. It does help the bill somewhat, and I think my colleagues would be wise to vote for it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee for allowing this legislation to come to the floor of the House.

As a sponsor of H.R. 830 and of the Alaska Railroad Transfer Act of 1982, I am pleased we are considering this legislation today. Although it is small, the land exchange provided by H.R. 830 will improve the ability of the Alaska Railroad Corporation to serve its customers who wish to visit Denali National Park. The construction of a turnaround track will increase scheduling frequency and flexibility. This not only reduces overcrowding of Denali at any one time, it makes the Park Service's job of managing visitation much smoother.

This is a noncontroversial bill and enjoys the support of the National Park Service, the State of Alaska which owns the railroad, and the National Parks Conservation Association.

For anyone who has not traveled on the Alaska Railroad, it is a journey you should not miss. For those who have had an opportunity to enjoy the splendor of Alaska's scenery aboard the train, I am sure you will agree it is a first-class experience.

You may not know, but Alaska Railroad was once owned by the Federal Government; but Congress in its wisdom passed bipartisan legislation in 1982 to transfer the railroad to the State of Alaska. As Congress faces immense backlogs in caring for Federal assets, perhaps there is a lesson to be learned here. We might consider transferring more of these assets to the States. Alaska has proven it can take a Federal asset like the Alaska Railroad and manage it for the benefit of everyone who uses it. I believe this is a fine piece of legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I, along with my distinguished colleagues, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Abercrombie and Mr. Faleomavaega, introduce today the Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization Act. This legislation will redress the inequitable treatment of the Native Regional Corporation for Southeast Alaska--Sealaska Corporation--by allowing it to select its remaining land entitlement under Section 14 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, ANCSA, from designated Federal land in Southeast Alaska.

Congress enacted ANCSA in 1971 to recognize and settle the aboriginal claims of Alaska Natives to the lands that Alaska Natives had used since time immemorial for traditional, cultural, and spiritual purposes. ANCSA allocated 44 million acres and nearly $1 billion to Alaska's Native people, to be managed by the 12 Regional Corporations, including Sealaska, and more than 200 Village Corporations. While Sealaska is one of the Regional Corporations with the largest number of Native shareholders, with 21 percent of all original Native shareholders, Sealaska received the smallest Regional Corporation land settlement--less than 1 percent of the total of all ANCSA lands.

ANCSA declared that the land settlement ``should be accomplished rapidly, with certainty [and] in conformity with the real economic and social needs of [Alaska] Natives . . .'' However, after more than 35 years since the passage of ANSCA, Sealaska has still not received conveyance of its full land entitlement. As a result of its small land entitlement, it is critical that Sealaska complete its remaining land entitlement under ANCSA in order to continue to meet the economic, social and cultural needs of its Native shareholders, and of the Native community throughout Alaska.

The Bureau of Land Management projects that Sealaska is entitled to receive between 355,000 and 375,000 acres pursuant to ANCSA. To date, 35+ years after ANCSA's enactment, Sealaska has secured conveyance of 290,000 acres. Accordingly, there are up to 85,000 acres remaining to be conveyed. ANCSA, however, limits Sealaska land selections to withdrawal areas surrounding certain Native villages in Southeast Alaska. The problem is that there are no lands remaining in these withdrawal areas that meet Sealaska's traditional, cultural, historic, or socioeconomic needs, and certain of those lands should more appropriately remain in public ownership. The selection limitations preclude Sealaska from to using any of its remaining ANCSA land settlement to select places of sacred, cultural, traditional, and historic significance located outside the withdrawal areas that are critical to facilitate the perpetuation and preservation of Alaska Native culture and history. Moreover, selection from the withdrawal areas would not allow Sealaska to meet the purposes of ANCSA--to create continued economic opportunities for the Native people of Southeast Alaska. Further, more than 40 percent of the original withdrawal areas are salt water and, therefore, not available for selection.

Despite the small land base in comparison to all other Regional Corporations, Sealaska has provided significant economic benefits to not only Sealaska Native shareholders, but also to the other Native Corporations throughout Alaska. Pursuant to a revenue sharing provision in ANCSA, Sealaska distributes considerable revenues derived from its development of its natural resources--more than $300 million between 1971 and 2005--to the other Native Corporations. Unless it is allowed to select land outside of the designated withdrawal areas, Sealaska will not be able to select land that would allow it to maintain its existing resource development and management operations, or provide continued economic opportunities for the Native people of Southeast Alaska and economic benefits to the broader Alaska Native community through the revenue sharing requirements under ANCSA.

The legislation presents a solution that would allow Sealaska to complete the conveyance of its land entitlement and enable the Federal Government to complete its statutory obligation to the Natives of Southeast Alaska, as promised under ANCSA. The elements of the legislation include the following:

Sealaska would be authorized to select its remaining ANCSA land entitlement from a pool of land outside the existing withdrawal areas established in ANCSA, a majority of which is on existing forest service roads which has second-growth timber land.

Sealaska would be authorized to use a majority of its remaining entitlement for economic development opportunities that would benefit its shareholders, the Southeast Alaska economy, and Native shareholders throughout Alaska.

The legislation would also allow Sealaska to use a portion of its remaining entitlement for sites with sacred, cultural, traditional, or historic significance and for remote Native Enterprise sites with traditional and recreational use value.

The legislation would allow the lands remaining in the withdrawal areas to remain in public ownership, almost all of which are roadless areas, old-growth timber lands, or land with important public interest value.

I thank my colleagues and urge your support for this important legislation for the Native people of Southeast Alaska.