Floor Statements

Madam 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.)

Madam Speaker, I compliment the chairman of the committee, Mr. Rahall. As many of my colleagues know, I have long supported the efforts of the Lumbee Tribe to be federally recognized.

I have had discussions with the sponsor of the bill who represents them, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre). I have studied their case for many years when I served as ranking member and chairman of the Committee on Resources.

The Lumbee's quest for recognition has been going for more than 100 years, which seems to be longer than almost any other tribe currently in the recognition process. During this time, the Lumbees have been put under a microscope and subjected to intensive debate by the State of North Carolina, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Congress, historians, and other Indian tribes.

In my judgment and that of the committee, this is clearly a distinct community of Indian people who meet the definition of ``tribe'' under article I, section 8 of Constitution; and the fact that more than 200 Members of this body have cosponsored H.R. 65 attests to the tribe's legitimacy.

Here are some of the facts about the Lumbee tribe. It is a State- recognized tribe. It has submitted huge amounts of documentation to prove that it is an autonomous Indian community that can trace links to a historic tribe. Even the Act of 1956, which terminated the tribe, helps to prove their case.

The reason for this is that, in order to be terminated by Congress, you first must be recognized. The fact that Congress had to identify the Lumbees before terminating them is a clear indication that Congress considered them to be a distinct Indian community within the meaning of the Constitution. Why else would Congress feel a need to prohibit benefits for this community if, as the opposition alleges, they were not eligible for the benefits in the first place?

Ask anyone who has traveled to Robeson County, and they will report that the county is largely governed by the Lumbee people already. In one sense, this bill merely puts a Federal endorsement on the fact that an independent, self-governing tribe exists in North Carolina.

But this is a tribe that still lacks the status of all the other federally recognized tribes. And in lacking the benefits, immunities and the responsibilities accorded to other tribes, the Lumbees are second-class citizens within the Indian world. This is not right.

H.R. 65 corrects this historic injustice, and I urge my colleagues to pass this bill as soon as possible.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield whatever time he may consume to Mr. Hayes from North Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to compliment Mr. McIntyre. He was very concise in his presentation about why we should act on this legislation.

And Eni, I'm glad you brought up the fact that it has passed the House twice, died in the Senate. Congressman Rose came to me, and that's when I got interested in this legislation. And it's long overdue.

Now, I know there will be a motion to recommit which I will not offer and will not support. But I want to remind people that motion is a motion to actually have them go through, the Lumbee, the process. And I heard much about the process.

Now, I've been involved in this business now 34 years, and the process of recognition is at the will and the whim of a bureau that, in fact, supported, and the Solicitor General said, no, you have to go back to Congress, and, in fact, we will not recognize you. If you go through the process, just forget it.

We've already gone through the process, in reality. In fact, we had a hearing a while back, including the assistant secretary of the BIA, and I asked him, when was the last time the process worked? When was the last tribe recognized through the process? And he stuttered and stammered, and I think he had one in the last 10 years. That's the process?

And we've been waiting 51 years for this recognition, 51 years. The Congress did act, twice. The Congress set up the original act, and now we're being asked, through a motion to recommit, to use the process? And I'm saying, nonsense.

Let's do what is right today. Let's recognize this tribe as they should. Let's make sure that, in fact, they can go forth.

And those that oppose this, let's not kid yourself. It's not about policy. It's really about cutting the pie up. We have been told by a study, this is going to cost $400 million more. And then the other side says, no, it's to come out of the pot. This is not about the money because the money is in the formula. If we don't appropriate any more dollars, then it doesn't cost any more money. But if they're recognized, they do have a right to participate in those programs as they should, as a recognized tribe.

And so I'm suggesting that this is long overdue. Again, congratulations to the chairman and to the Congressman who represents that district. And I hope he remembers that, when I have an issue on Alaska, that Members that represent the districts ought to be listened to. And I do respect that representation.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Just a little history, Mr. Speaker. There are 561 total recognized tribes. We have recognized 16 of those through action of Congress, and 31 were recognized by the Department of the Interior.

And about the motion to recommit saying go back and follow the process, in the last 10 years, and the fact is longer than 10 years, I think 15 years or longer than that, 1978 was the last one, the so- called system worked and with a Bureau that, in fact, has suggested that they are not recognized. Well, what chance would the Lumbees ever have of being recognized? It wouldn't happen. So what this motion to recommit does is say, all right, we are just not recognizing them. It is really not a motion that says they have to follow the process.

And we do have the authority. The Congress has the ultimate authority. Like I said, we have already done 16 these, and it says right here that the Supreme Court ruled in the United States v. Sandoval that the Congress cannot arbitrarily recognize a group of Indians as a tribe, but its powers are very broad. All Congress has to do is determine that, one, the group has ancestors who lived in what is now the USA by the time of European discovery and, two, the group be a ``people distinct from others.'' And that is what the Lumbees are.

So this is a motion to really stop the recognition, let's not kid ourselves, because they will never be recognized through the process.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 94. I want to thank Chairwoman Bordallo and Chairman Rahall for their efforts on this resolution.

I know the issue of harmful foreign fishing subsidies is one of the key concerns of the West Virginia fishing fleet and I congratulate Mr. Rahall on his interest in this resolution.

All kidding aside, this issue is a global concern. Harmful foreign fishing subsidies that threaten the sustainability of legitimate fisheries and threaten the economic viability and international competitiveness of the U.S. fishing industry must be identified and eliminated.

Some foreign fishing fleets have been heavily subsidized by their governments and this has led to over exploitation of some important fish species.

Harmful subsidies not only put legitimately prosecuted fisheries in jeopardy of overfishing, but also put U.S. fishermen at an economic disadvantage in the global fish market.

However, we need to be careful when discussing subsidies because some subsidies are actually beneficial. Government programs which help fishermen reduce unnecessary bycatch, which aid efforts to develop ``clean'' fishing gear, which aid governments in monitoring or enforcing the fisheries, or which

make the fishery safer for fishermen are all legitimate and beneficial governmental programs.

Harmful subsidies that increase the size and harvesting capabilities of fishing fleets beyond the capacity needed to sustainably harvest the quotas in a fishery can be harmful environmentally and economically.

While I support the main concept of this resolution--to place the House of Representatives on the record opposing harmful fishing subsidies by foreign governments--one statistic used in this resolution is misleading even though it is often quoted. The resolution uses the statistic that ``75 percent of the world's fish populations are currently fully exploited, over exploited, significantly depleted or recovering from overexploitation.'' Full exploitation of fisheries is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, the full utilization of our Nation's fisheries is a key purpose of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Admitedly, fully exploited fisheries need to be carefully managed, monitored, and enforced to keep them from becoming over exploited.

If you remove ``fully exploited'' from this statistic, the figure drops to approximately 25 percent. This figure, while much less dramatic, is still a concern that we need to address. Foreign subsidies that contribute to this figure need to be addressed.

The United States has already taken a leading role in addressing IUU fisheries and in addressing harmful foreign subsidies. I support these efforts and urge support of efforts to continue to reduce harmful foreign fishing subsidies.

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, as the gentleman from West Virginia said, I do support H.R. 1294. This bill and prior versions have been in the works over the last several Congresses. This bill is long overdue.

We have heard arguments saying that we should let the tribes undergo the Federal acknowledgment process at the Department of the Interior. This would be a reasonable argument except for the fact that the Department's process is not specifically authorized by Congress. The intentions behind the creation of the process in 1978 were honorable enough, and perhaps compelling tribes to use this process is appropriate in certain cases.

But it is a fact that the Department has not always abided by its own process in extending the recognition, or failing to extend recognition, to some legitimate tribes. It is a fact that the administrative process is bogged down

with hundreds of petitions, many of which are not filed by tribes that can demonstrate the history of the six Virginia tribes.

In the hearings held on this bill, the committee has heard convincing testimony describing the rich but sometimes sad history of the six Virginia tribes. I do not need to repeat the detailed history starting with Pocahontas and Captain John Smith. We have heard a lot of that recently.

What matters is whether or not the evidence presented to the Congress demonstrates a continuous existence of a distinct Indian community from the time of European contact to the present. And in this, the six group petitioners in H.R. 1294 pass the test with flying colors.

This legislation enjoys broad support throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia. I would specifically point to the efforts of the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis) who has been an untiring advocate for recognizing the Rappahannock tribe, which is in her district. She is the sponsor of H.R. 106, a bill to recognize this tribe. She is also cosponsoring the bill before us today.

Her support, as well as the support of the elected officials of Virginia, is critical. Local knowledge and interaction with the tribes is a key consideration. We are obligated to weigh this very heavily in our deliberations over this bill. We have an obligation to defer to the judgment of the Members when bills affecting their constituents are at stake.

One of the few points of opposition to H.R. 1294 concerns the issue of gaming. The bill contains a strict prohibition on any gaming in Virginia. I do not think it is fair to limit tribal sovereignty in this way. It is unfair to view recognition through the prism of Indian gaming.

However, the committee made its decision to defer to some Members of the Virginia delegation on this issue, and I reluctantly supported an amendment to add the gaming measure.

Therefore, I trust that H.R. 1294 will pass the House with a strong majority today, and I urge my colleagues to give their Virginia tribes their due.

I would like to also recognize Mr. Moran who has done an outstanding job on this issue and has been a great promoter. I always admire those, although not in his district, that have stepped forth and carried this torch on that side of the aisle, and I do compliment him on that effort.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the chairman of the committee, Mrs. Napolitano from California, for bringing this bill up with Mr. Rahall.

This bill seeks to expand Alaska's water supply system and reduce flood threats. My State's combined water bodies comprise one-third of all the fresh water in the United States, but communities are struggling to provide drinking water due to the outdated water distribution system and lack of information on groundwater resources. For this reason, this bill will include a survey of potential water supplies in the City of Anchorage, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, the City of Fairbanks and Fairbanks Northstar Borough.

The bill also improves streamflow information to improve flood forecasting, resource extraction and fire management. Streamflow information in the form of USGS streamgaging stations is insufficient in Alaska compared to other States. In fact, Alaska has only 100 streamgage stations, which is less than 10 percent of the information available in many other States. This bill will help alleviate that situation.

Again, I want to thank Mr. Rahall and Mrs. Napolitano of California for bringing this bill, and I urge passage of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am so happy today we are talking about water, water in California, water in Alaska, water in Nebraska. Water is going to be our next big crisis that we are going to be faced with in this Nation, it is energy now, and we must do something. We have to learn how to use water better, how to impound water, and how to deliver water so we have that which supports our life, and that is water.

Madam Speaker, today I wish to honor Brigadier General William J. Sharrow--a truly great American. Bill has tirelessly served this country for many years, managing some of our country's important military programs. Most recently, Bill served as my State Director, where he dedicated himself to tirelessly working for the people of Alaska.

Born in Witherbee, New York on August 19, 1932, Bill entered the Army in 1952. He served with the 867th AAA Battalion at Fort Richardson, Alaska until his discharge in November 1954. He returned home to New York and joined an Army Reserve Unit. However, he realized his heart was back in Alaska and returned a short time later to make Alaska his permanent home. Bill joined the Alaskan Army National Guard where he served as First Sergeant of Company D, 207th Infantry Battalion until he was commissioned in November 1956.

Some of Bill's many roles in the National Guard include: radio repairman, supply officer, administrative assistant, personnel officer and Command Administrative Assistant to the Adjutant General. His military assignments range from platoon leader to battalion commander. He served as Chief of Staff for the Alaska Army National Guard from 1972 to 1974 and was appointed as Assistant Adjutant General on February 7, 1974. Bill's dedication to our Nation was federally recognized on June 25, 1974 when he was promoted to Brigadier General.

During his 20 plus years of service to Alaska and to his country, Bill remained a strong leader who set an example of achievement that was unmatched. He represented the United States with honor and dignity and continuously strove for excellence. The loss to the United States the day Bill left his post, was a great gain to me and to all Alaskans.

Bill worked for me for 24 years as my State Director. When I was unable to attend an important function or meeting, it was Bill that I always be trusted to represent me. We share a common love of Alaska and its people and it was comforting for me to know that when work forced me to remain in Washington, Bill would always be there to listen to the Alaskan people and keep them informed of our work.

Bill has been happily married to Margaret for 52 years and is the father of 3 sons: David who lives in Anchorage, AK; Phillip who lives in Auckland, New Zealand; and Steven who lives in Fairbanks, AK. He is also the grandfather to 6 grandchildren. I know that Bill is looking forward to spending more time with his family and traveling around the world with the love of his life, Marg.

Bill has always provided sage advice to colleagues and staff and done so with quick wit and much humor. Bill was an invaluable employee and he will be sorely missed but he continues to be a dear friend and confidant. I will miss his daily leadership and guidance but know that our friendship will endure. My wife Lu and I wish him and Marg all the best as they embark on this new chapter of their lives.

Madam Speaker, today I wish to honor Grant Ainsworth Thompson who has recently left the world of politics to follow his calling in the Church. Grant served as my Communications Director for the last 5 years. Prior to that, he worked as a Legislative Assistant in my office focusing on Veterans Affairs and Postal issues.

Grant Ainsworth Thompson was born June 9, 1962 here in Washington, DC and was educated in the DC public school system. After graduating from Cardozo High School in 1981, he spent a number of years working in the private sector as both a substance abuse counselor and for United Airlines. He then chose to pursue a higher education and attended the University of the District of Columbia from 1991 to 1995, majoring in Mass Media and Television Production. Grant has been happily married to Margaret for 22 years and is the father of 2 sons: Justin, 21 and Jeremy, 17.

Grant used his skills in communications and management to help me better serve the people of Alaska. He was a driving force behind my office's expansion into cutting edge media and always seemed to know what the ``next big thing'' would be. His positive personality and confidential counsel were invaluable to me and my staff; he will be sorely missed.

Grant was an integral part of my office for many years and it deeply saddens me to see him leave. We often joked that he was my ``brother,'' as we share the same birthday. I wish him all the best as he begins a new chapter in his life. Grant is now going to continue the work he started as Pastor and Founder of the Church of the Rock Praise Factory, located in Washington, DC. He will continue to be involved in many community outreach programs over the coming years, spreading the word of the Lord, and helping those in need. Grant Ainsworth Thompson is a truly great American, with a heart the size of Alaska.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor Mr. Royce O. Chapman. Mr. Chapman has been an integral part of my operations for more than a decade. He managed my Fairbanks campaign office during the 1992 election and since then Royce has run my Fairbanks District Office. He has been a truly tireless public servant, helping me, the people of Fairbanks and the whole of Alaska.

Royce was born March 4, 1951 in Glenwood Springs, Colorado. He spent his early years in the small farming community of Johnstown, Colorado and graduated from Roosevelt High School in 1969. He attended Western State College of Colorado in Gunnison, Colorado in 1969-1970. After leaving college, Royce started work for Great Western Sugar Company in Johnstown until entering the United States Air Force in April of 1971.

Royce has two brothers: Rodney who lives in Wisconsin, and David in Colorado; and a sister Jana who lives in Oregon. Royce has been married to the former Carolyn Warman since September 2, 1971. They have two adult daughters, Shannon and Stacie, and four grandchildren: Justin, age 10 and Shane, age 7 who live in Seattle, Washington; and Meghan, age 7 and Ryan, age 4 who live in Tok, Alaska,

Royce's public service started in the Air Force. He spent the majority of his time in the Air Force as a Public Affairs Specialist and Technician working in the community relations, internal information, and public information sections. He was also the editor of several base newspapers; along with this he wrote many articles for publication in civilian newspapers and magazines.

Royce served for 20 years with assignments in Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota; Davis-

Monthan AFB, Arizona; Zaragoza Air Base in Zaragoza, Spain; Vance Air Force Base, Oklahoma; and Williams Air Force Base, Arizona. His final assignment was Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska were he served from 1984 until retirement in 1991.

Royce is also a key figure in the community. He is a member of the Optimist Club of Fairbanks, has served on the Fairbanks North Star Borough School Board for 9 years (1997-2006) and is currently sitting on the Fairbanks ``Kids Voting'' Board of Directors.

Royce has been an integral part of my ``Alaska team'' for many years and it saddens me to see him leave. He has used his skills in communication and management to help me better serve the people of Alaska. His outgoing personality, confidential counsel and comprehensive evaluation of situations, have allowed him to do his job to the fullest and for the benefit of all Alaskans.

Royce is a Great Alaskan. I wish him and Carolyn all the best and continued good health as they embark on the next chapter of their lives.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for bringing this bill forth, and Mr. Oberstar, the chairman of the full committee. This was our bill. We worked on this jointly. Some people say, Why do you need a technical corrections bill?

If you remember, every highway bill we have ever passed has gone through a series of technical correction adjustments because when we write a bill, sometimes it is misinterpreted by highway departments and municipalities. This is purely a technical corrections bill. It adds nothing; it takes nothing away.

Again, we passed a good piece of legislation 2 years ago. It has been implemented, but it will be implemented in a better way with these corrections.

I have talked with the gentleman from Oregon and all he has to say is ``yes'' or ``no.'' Regarding Providence Hospital of Anchorage, we are looking for a solution to a problem. I agree that we shouldn't be paying for something that is already done, but I would like to have those moneys available to improve the transportation to the center hub of health care in the city of Anchorage. It is my understanding that the gentleman has agreed to work with me in conference to try to solve that problem.

I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

I thank the gentleman, and I look forward to working with the gentleman and the chairman of the full committee on the new highway bill.

I believe that the adjustments in this bill for the commission are set up for finding ways to fund, and it is crucially important to make sure that they have enough time to do that job. We are right in the process of not only finishing up SAFETEA-LU, but now we are in the process of beginning to write another bill which has to address the issue of transportation in this country.

As you know how strong I supported the funding and the methods of funding previously was not successful, I think this Congress has a responsibility to provide the transportation for the Nation as a whole that can do the job.

Madam Speaker, I made a statement on the House floor as part of my participation in the debate on the War on Terror and House Concurrent Resolution 63. In that statement, I repeated a quote I had read as part of an article from the Washington Times, that I believed at the time was attributed to Abraham Lincoln, because it was cited as such. I have since learned that it was not true Abraham Lincoln quote, and even though the Times never corrected the mistake, I retract my attribution. I do stand by the sentiment however, which is that in wartime, Americans, especially America's elected leaders, should not take actions that damage the morale of our soldiers and military--and that is exactly what the non-binding resolution does. I could never in good conscience support H. Con. Res. 63. Instead, I choose to support our men and women in the military.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to this debate on both sides of the aisle for the last 2 days, the third day in fact, and probably will listen to it tomorrow.

I rise in opposition to H. Con. Res. 63, and I would like to make a quote: ``Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged,'' Abraham Lincoln, who had the same problem this President had with a very unpopular war. The same problem with people trying to redirect the Commander in Chief; the same problem, if they had been successful, we would not have had the freedom of the people in this country.

What I say today is for my daughters, my Joanie, my Dawn; my grandkids, Wyatt, Guy, James Duffy, Katie, Jessie, Don, Niky, Dougy and Don, Eric and all the rest of them I missed and I apologize, because what we are about to do tomorrow in voting for this resolution is beginning a slippery slope down the slide of not being able to provide the freedom and the position in this world this country has done for the last 90 years, beginning in 1916, 1917, in World War I, which my father fought in; in World War II, where five of my cousins were shot numerous times for freedom of the people and freedom of this country; and, yes, the Korean War, the time in which I was drafted.

Fortunately or unfortunately, I did not serve, but my colleagues did. Each time we went there to make freedom, never once did the Congress in that role undermine the military or the Commander in Chief.

Then we came to Vietnam, and we began to fight a war by the media, a war without allowing the troops to do the job they should have done, and in fact, we lost that war. And immediately after withdrawing, we saw what happened. Khymer Rouge killed 2 million people. People forget that. Two million heads were laying around, lolling around Cambodia. And then we had Grenada, which was very short and very sweet, and of the course, the Gulf War was 110 days. And now we come to the Afghanistan war and the Iraq war.

I suggest to you this resolution will undermine and cause a morale disruption to our troops. Nowhere can you be in the field and understand the Congress of the United States now is not going to support them when they say they do, when they say they are going to cut their funding in the future.

It is a slippery slope down this slide of not being the leaders of this Nation for freedom, and this is what I thought this country is about, freedom for each individual in this world and in our country. And to have this occur tomorrow on the 16th is a disservice to the future generations, the generations of Americans who will not have the opportunity to be in the greatest country in the world because of the action of this Congress.

I urge a very, very strong ``no'' on H. Con. Res. 63.

Madam Speaker, I am introducing legislation to amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act, MMPA, to remove the requirement in the act for commercial fisheries ``to further reduce the incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals to an insignificant level approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate,'' which is commonly referred to as the ``Zero Mortality Rate Goal.''

Congress enacted the MMPA in 1972, in part, to address the high mortality rate of marine mammals occurring in the yellowfin tuna purse seine fishery in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. In response to these high mortality levels, Congress created a zero mortality rate goal for this fishery. At the time, Congress was very specific in how this goal should be applied to the fishery. The goal was not to shut down fisheries, but reduce the incidental mortality and serious injury rate of marine mammals. In this case, once the Secretary of Commerce was satisfied that the tuna fishermen were using the best available technology to assure minimal hazards to marine mammal populations, the goal of a reduced mortality rate was met. This standard also allowed the Secretary to take into account the economic and technological practicability of the best available technology.

In the 1980s, Congress reaffirmed the intent of zero mortality rate goal. Congress recognized the progress made by the purse seine fishery to reduce its mortality rates and maintained the technology standard for this fishery. The 1981 House Report stated zero mortality rate goal ``is satisfied . . . by a continuation of the application of the best marine mammal safety techniques and equipment that are economically and technologically practicable.''

It wasn't until the 1990s that Congress applied dolphin mortality limits to the yellowfin tuna purse seine fishery. These limits were based on the International Dolphin Conservation Act of 1992 and the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act of 1997. It is important to note that the mortality limits established in the 1992 act were based on reductions that could be achieved by the gear currently being used in the fishery.

For other fisheries, Congress maintained the zero mortality rate goal as a means to promote new technology to reduce the incidental taking of marine mammals. In the 1994 Marine Mammal Protection Act amendments, Congress created a new fishery regime which authorized limited incidental takes of marine mammals in commercial fisheries and retained the economic and technological practicability finding. In section 118, which guides the take reduction plan process, it specifically states ``The long-term goal of the plan shall be to reduce, within 5 years of its implementation, the incidental mortality or serious injury of marine mammals incidentally taken in the course of commercial fishing operations to insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate, taking into account the economics of the fishery, the availability of existing technology and existing state or regional fishery management plans.''

In 2002, the National Marine Fisheries Service, NMFS, was sued by a number of environmental groups for not complying with the requirements of section 118, and as part of the settlement NMFS was required to define the zero mortality rate goal. NMFS established a threshold level for mortality and serious injury that would meet this requirement. NMFS defined an Insignificance Threshold in regulations and estimated this threshold level as 10 percent of the ``Potential Biological Removal (PBR) level.''

The MMP A has a number of guiding principles to assist in the protection of marine mammals. The overall goal of the Act is to maintain or restore marine mammal populations to their Optimum Sustainable Population. Another is the potential biological removal level, PBR, for a marine mammal stock which is defined as the ``maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population.'' When calculating PBR the agency takes into account all activities with incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals. However, the fishing industry is the only industry required to take on the burden of reducing the incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals through a take reduction team process.

Commercial fisherman do not want to kill marine mammals. They want to harvest fish. Fisherman have been willing participants and in some cases leaders in the research and development of gear to reduce interactions with marine mammals. In addition, the take reduction team process, with the help of commercial fishermen, has been successful in reducing interactions between fisheries and marine mammals. However, I believe the requirement for commercial fisheries to reduce their level of interactions with marine mammals to a level of 10 percent of PBR is overly burdensome.

For that reason, I am proposing this legislation which will remove the zero mortality rate goal from the act. It will retain the requirement for commercial vessel owners or operators to report all incidental mortality and injury of marine mammals during the course of a commercial fishery. Fisheries will continue to be listed as category I, II, or III based on the level of marine mammal mortality and injury occurring in the fishery. The Secretary will still be required to establish take reduction teams and develop take reduction plans to reduce the level of marine mammal mortality and serious injury to levels below PBR in commercial fisheries around the Nation.

This is common sense conservation legislation that should be enacted by this Congress.

Madam Speaker, Congressman Henry Brown (R-SC) and I are introducing legislation today that will extend the John H. Prescott Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Grant Program. The program was first authorized in 2000 to address the funding needs of facilities assisting the National Marine Fisheries Service with the recovery and rehabilitation of stranded marine mammals. The Prescott Grant Program has been very successful in supporting facilities around the nation volunteering facility space and staff time to rehabilitate marine mammals and return many of them to the wild. For those animals that cannot be returned to the wild, due to illness or other factors, the facilities have taken on the responsibility of caring for those marine mammals.

This legislation will increase the funding for the Department of Commerce from $4.0 million up to $6.0 million a year. The bill will cap administrative costs and roll over any unused funds into the grant program to be issued as grants in the following fiscal year. The Administration is authorized to enter into cooperative agreements to respond at-sea to marine mammals entangled in floating debris. It will create an emergency assistance process through which the agency will be able to enter into cooperative agreements with stranding facilities to facilitate the movement of funds to facilities responding to stranding events. In addition, the legislation will reauthorize funding for the Marine Mammal Unusual Mortality Event Fund, which allows the agency to respond to mass stranding events and reimburse facilities that have assisted in the response activity.

I applaud the public display facilities and marine mammal research institutions that have dedicated resources and time toward recovering and rehabilitating marine mammals. This legislation will allow the National Marine Fisheries Service and the stranding facilities to continue their important efforts in the future. I urge support for this important conservation measure.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a great Alaskan, Mr. Gary Kurpius, who was recently elected Commander-in- Chief of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Nation's largest association of combat veterans. Gary Kurpius was elected to his position on August 31, 2006, at the VFW's 10th National Convention, in Reno, Nevada. Gary Kurpius is the first Alaskan to hold this tremendously important position.

During the Vietnam War Gary Kurpius served with the Army's 541st Transportation Company providing vital convoy security throughout the central highlands, an extremely treacherous area. He was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal with four bronze service stars and the Republic of Vietnam Service Medal, for his endeavors during the conflict. In addition to the medals received during Vietnam, Gary Kurpius was selected Vietnam Veteran of the Year for St. Louis County, Minnesota by President Jimmy Carter.

After the war, Gary Kurpius continued his unremitting passion for public service. This led him to join VFW Post 1539 in Babbitt, Minnesota in 1970, where he became a life member. He earned the title of All American Post Commander in 1977 and in 1983 was named All American District Commander. Gary then transferred to VFW Post 9785 in Eagle River, Alaska in 1985. Currently Gary is a Life Member of VFW Post 9365 in Wasilla, Alaska, near to where he currently resides with his wife Nancy, in the beautiful city of Anchorage.

Gary has served diligently in the Department of Alaska service office for the last 19 years and as Department Adjutant for the past 17 years. Then in 2001, Gary was elected Department Commander and earned All- American Department Commander status. Most recently Gary completed a two-year term as Governor Tony Knowles' appointee to the Alaska Veterans Advisory Council.

Commander-in-Chief of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Gary Kurpius, is also a member of the Military Order of the Cootie, American Legion and Vietnam Veterans of America. In 1999, he received the Alaska Community Service Medal. Few men have had such a dedicated and lengthy history of service and I know that Gary Kurpius will continue to serve with the same dedication and fortitude, meeting all the challenges he is presented with.

On behalf of The United States of America, I extend my thanks and appreciation to Commander-in-Chief Gary Kurpius, for his dedication and service to American Servicemen, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and to the people of the Great State of Alaska.

Madam Speaker, I rise to thank my distinguished colleague from Maryland, the majority leader, for introducing this resolution, but I am forced to oppose it.

The voting rights we are considering today are so limited in scope that they are merely symbolic, which has been said. Under the gentleman's resolution, the Delegates and Resident Commissioner will never be able to cast a vote to determine the final outcome of a vote, because if it were to be decisive, there would be an automatic revote on which they could not participate. As odd as it may seem, when it doesn't count, it counts. And when it counts, it doesn't count, as my good friend from California said.

Madam Speaker, this proposal falls far short from what we should be doing to address the way our Nation currently deals with its insular areas, and that is why I am unable to support this legislation. As chairman of the Resources Committee in the mid- to late 1990s, we led an effort, we, this side, not that side, led an effort that would have specifically addressed the question of political status of the 4 million American citizens that reside in Puerto Rico. That bill did pass this House by one vote, but the Senate failed to act on it.

In the last Congress, my good friend and colleague from Puerto Rico, the ranking member of the Insular Affairs Subcommittee, Resident Commissioner Luis Fortuno, revived this effort after 5 years of inaction. He introduced a bipartisan legislation that was followed with the recommendations set forth by the White House Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status Report to Congress.

Puerto Rico has been a U.S. territory with an unresolved political status since our Nation acquired the island in 1898. Puerto Ricans have been citizens and have honorably served in our Nation's Armed Forces since 1917. Close to 60 of them have already paid the ultimate sacrifice in our Nation's war against terror in Iraq and Afghanistan.

These 4 million U.S. citizens deserve more than just symbolism. They deserve a permanent resolution to the question of their political status.

Madam Speaker, I say respectfully, it is time we act honorably and give them the right to vote as a State.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my dear colleagues, just about 100 hours ago you stood in this House and raised your hand and you followed this quote with an ``I do'': ``Do you solemnly swear you will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.''

This bill, and I am wearing this red shirt today, is the color of the bill that we are debating, communist red. It is a taking. And regardless of what one says, it will go to court, and it should be decided in court. It should be decided there.

My biggest concern, it is often said the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and this is a great example. The good intentions of this bill are a pursuit of new forms of energy to replace our dependency. We all support that.

But even The Washington Post, which is not my favorite newspaper, says this is a low-wattage bill and it fits the realm of Russia and Putin, and it fits Bolivia and Venezuela. And if there is anything this bill will do, in fact it will increase the competitive edge of foreign oil imported to this country. That is what this bill does.

I ask my colleagues, if the problem is foreign oil, and it is, why increase taxes and make it harder to produce American oil and gas? That makes no sense to me.

I had a motion to recommit and I cannot offer it, but I wanted to take and strike everything after the enacting clause and insert taxes on all foreign oil imported. That would raise your money for renewable resources.

But what we are doing here today is taxing our domestic oil. We are raising dollars supposedly for renewable resources, yet we are still burning fossil fuels.

This is really a San Francisco energy policy, and America is not San Francisco.

My State gets 85 percent of its budget from oil production. I am proud of it and I hope we get more. The pipeline we want to build for gas to deliver the oil to the lower 48 will cost $20 billion, and this, by increasing taxes and taking away the incentives, which this bill does, raises the question of whether we can finance this pipeline, which we all need.

We talk about Joe Blow and all the rest of these people in the smaller income brackets and get the big old oil companies. The reality is if this bill was to become law gas would go to $5 a gallon.

Everybody talks about Big Oil and how much profit they made. These international companies are making that profit overseas shipping the oil to the United States.

If you want to do this right, then let us tax the foreign oil. Let us not tax the American oil. Let us not hurt our little companies, which this bill does. Let us not discourage what I call the frontier areas. Let us help American oil to deliver oil to the American people and quit paying the money to the foreign oil companies, and that is what you are doing.