Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for offering this amendment.

Madam Chair, we would strongly support this amendment. As he is well aware of--and as, I think, most of the Nation is--the young men and women who have joined the Armed Forces over the last 8 or 9 years left this country to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere in the trouble spots of the world. Many of them left as high school graduates, some of them not high school graduates. They even left an economy that is very different today than it was when they left their homes to serve this Nation. Clearly, we want to make sure that they have the opportunities to integrate back into the economy after leaving the service on terms that are helpful to them, to their families and to their local communities.

So thank you very much for offering this amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. It's a good amendment and it's important.

These agencies have a track record in helping students and in helping the taxpayers with default diversion activities; but also, we look forward to their having an expanded role in financial literacy and in helping students as they contemplate going to college and, while they're in college, helping them manage their debt and helping them make decisions about whether they need all of that debt or not and also as they leave, because this Congress, on a bipartisan basis, has passed a number of loan forgiveness programs and the income determinant repayment program.

So the students really can start to see how they can manage the debt and make career choices at the same time. Unfortunately, many students don't realize it until they graduate; they really would have liked to have done something else, but they didn't think they could have that career and manage their debt. So these agencies are going to take on an even more important role for young people as they start and progress through college.

I want to thank the gentleman for yielding and thank the gentleman from Ohio. This is obviously a very important component of this legislation.

His amendment substantially improves it, because the whole Nation is aware of the needs of dislocated workers, and certainly in the Midwest,

where workers are leaving one generation of technology and seeking jobs in communities or seeking the next generation of manufacturing and technology. This is very important that they be included in these State plans.

Will the gentleman yield?

I realize that the BRAC process has a multitude of consequences for local communities, both those facing base closures and those dealing with base expansions. As we move forward, we can take a look at how we might assist these communities under existing avenues as well as in conference on this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of turn for 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, it is now time, as the Chair has noted, to move to amendment No. 22 by Mr. Souder. My understanding is that Mr. Souder will not be offering that amendment and that he and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) have had discussions around this amendment, and they have agreed that we should work this out in the conference committee. I have agreed to their discussions, and they are pursuing those at this time.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

I thank the gentleman.

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

Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Flake

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, my colleague on the other side of the aisle said that this legislation is the wrong way and the wrong place to make this investment. He has got it exactly backwards. This is the exact way to make this investment--to take the savings by cutting the subsidies to the lenders and recycling those on behalf of families, students and our community institutions so that we can expand the educational opportunities in this country.

We cannot continue just to wring our hands about our competitive place in the world, about the need for new engineers, new scientists, new mathematicians, a skilled and technologically fit workforce in this country. We must do something about it.

What the Obama administration has said under the leadership of the President and the Secretary of Education is that we're going to do something about it now, and we're going to provide additional money for Pell Grants, that we're going to provide additional money for community colleges, that we're going to provide additional money for early childhood education, and that we're going to provide additional opportunities for access and completion of that educational opportunity. It's not enough that young people start college. It's important that they finish college.

We've got to do better at that, and we're going to do it in a fiscally sound manner. We're going to pay for it, because there is enough money in those exorbitant subsidies that we pay decade after decade that were first raised to the consciousness of this Congress by President Bush's Office of Management and Budget. They kept showing us the comparison. If you ran the Direct Loan Program, you would save a huge amount of money for the taxpayers.

Finally, this Congress, under this administration, is taking the leadership to take that money and to recycle it on behalf of our families and students.

I just want to say, this is the right time, the right place, and the right way to do this. I thank him for his support in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion, although I will not oppose the motion.

Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I want to begin by thanking so many Members of the House that have supported this bill today on this floor. The bipartisan support we had for so many of the amendments, the debate and the dialogue that we had, thank you so very much.

When the President talked about the future of the American economy, he made it very clear that if we were going to be competitive in the rest of the world, if we were going to emerge in that top competitive position in the next generation of the globalized economy, where so many more countries are now able to educate young people, provide world-class organizations, universities, research facilities, that we had to change our education system, that we had to make a major investment, that we no longer could just think about how much money we put into education. We had to start thinking about the outcomes and whether we were getting the results for young people all across this country, were we getting the results for businesses across this country, were we getting the results for families.

He made that very clear with the Race to the Top fund that is getting such wide reception and acceptance from Governors all over the country, from school districts, from unions, from families and organizations to see that change. He has extended that to the colleges and universities.

It is not enough that a student enters a college, that he or she is eligible to go to college. The question is, Will they graduate from that college? And what he has put in this legislation is a discussion and a requirement that we understand how many people who enter college obtain that certificate for a career, that AA degree in a 2-year college, their ability to go on to a 4-year college. That's the first time we've ever asked that question.

But it's terribly important, when two-thirds of the people going to college today are borrowing money, when they're borrowing money, we need to know that the colleges are providing the right kind of educational experience and the opportunity to succeed. That's what you've been voting for all day long, and I want to thank you because it will change the direction, it will change the direction in which we are going in this Nation. And I think it will dramatically enhance our possibilities of remaining the top competitive country in the world.

That's why the Business Roundtable spoke to the issue of the community college provisions in this bill, how important they were so that the community colleges could become a catalyst for economic revitalization, for retooling, for dislocation, so that communities that are welcoming a new industry or communities that are losing an old one and thinking about where to go in the future, to make the community colleges the center of that training and education that so many American workers and families are seeking out today. That's what you voted to do in this bill.

I want to thank you very much.

I will not yield. I want to thank you very much.

As to this amendment, ACORN gets, I believe, no money under this bill, but that's not the issue. The issue is that I will support the gentleman's motion to instruct. We have a world-class bill here. We have a bill of opportunity for families, for students, for employers, for our country, and for our economy. I hope you will support it. Vote for the motion to instruct. Vote for this bill on final passage.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House in the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 3221, back to the House with an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the staffs of the Education and Labor Committee on both sides of the aisle for all of their hard work, and I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 3221, to include corrections in spelling, punctuation, section numbering and cross-referencing, and the assertion of appropriate headings.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the Rules Committee for reporting this legislation to the floor with the amendments that have been made in order. And I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado for his strong support for this legislation not only in the Rules Committee but in our committee, the Education and Labor Committee, where he led a number of efforts to improve this legislation.

This rule will allow for the proper input and amendments from Members from both sides of the aisle on legislation that will be transformative for our students, families, and taxpayers.

The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act will allow us to invest $87 billion to make college more affordable, to build a world-class community college system, and to improve the opportunities to help our youngest students succeed. This represents the single largest investment in Federal college aid in history. We will be able to do this at absolutely no cost to the taxpayers by undertaking long overdue student loan reforms.

The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act is a win-win. It's a win for students. They'll have dependable access to Federal college aid, and it will make these programs more effective and efficient for families and for taxpayers. It will help rebuild our economy that is cutting edge, innovative, and it will help again regain our global leadership in both competitiveness and in college graduation rates.

I would like to especially make clear that this bill is, in fact, fiscally responsible. Not only will we be able to take and substitute the subsidies that we now pay out for institutions to lend the government's money to the students for the government to buy back, we will take those subsidies and we will invest that money on behalf of students and their families and institutions to improve the education that they will receive, to improve the access, to try to improve the retention rates so that students that, in fact, take out and borrow money end up with a degree and not as a dropout with a lot of debt, and we will also return about $10 billion to the Treasury to help reduce deficit spending.

Every aspect of this bill speaks to the future, to the future of our economy, to the future strength of our families, to the future needs of students who seek to acquire and are fully qualified to benefit from a college education.

Again I thank the Rules Committee, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation when we debate it on the floor later today and tomorrow.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 3221.

Madam Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), the Chair of the Subcommittee on Higher Education.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield myself 30 seconds. I appreciate that the gentleman wants to make this comparison between a public option and the private sector. Let's run down what happened over the last 10 years.

The private sector took $100 billion in subsidies, and as they became the most profitable sector of the American economy, they couldn't give back any of those subsidies. While they were getting the $100 billion in subsidies, they were engaged in price-fixing, anti-competitive practices, briberies, conflicts of interest, improper disclosure. And, at the end of that, they needed a bailout.

Sound familiar? Want to invest again?

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. Or, you can look at the public option here. The public option offered a product of equal value, very low cost, easy to administer, attractive to the people who used it. Major universities have used it for years with any problems, very complimentary about it, and it is in fact saving the loan industry at this very time because the private system has collapsed.

I yield 4 minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono) who has put an awful lot of work into the early childhood education section of this legislation.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu), the newest member of our committee.

I just want 10 seconds to say that I'm glad the gentleman mentioned the California EdFund. The EdFund supports this legislation.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack), who was very involved in writing this legislation.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), a member of the committee.

If the gentleman would yield, yes, I do agree with the intent of that language.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare), a vigorous member of the committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for his attention to this issue. I recognize that the Bank of North Dakota is an important institution in North Dakota and is different from any other lending institution in the country.

If the gentleman will yield, yes, I will work with you, as this legislation moves to conference, to ensure that State banks have a continued role in the Federal student lending program.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), a member of the committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our Speaker.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a member of the committee.

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

Madam Chair, I believe that many of those facts just cited are in dispute but I just want to say this: We got off to a rather fast start this afternoon, and I want to take a moment just to thank all of the members of the committee who worked so hard on this legislation, and I want to thank the Rules Committee for making the rule in order.

I want to thank the minority. I know they don't agree with this legislation, but I appreciate the work that they have done with us on facilitating the markup of this legislation and bringing it to the floor. I just wanted to acknowledge that. We kind of just got right into the bill.

But I wanted to say that on behalf of all of the staffs that have worked together. Again, they don't agree on the outcome or the bill in this fashion, but we still have to work together to meet our obligations as a committee to this House, and I wanted to take time to thank everybody.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

I have a manager's amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).

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

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), the distinguished Caucus Chair.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a member of the committee.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

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

Madam Chair, just to quickly run through the manager's amendment, in addition to the technical changes, my amendment would also refine provisions regarding grants authorized under title I of the bill. It ensures that services for veterans are coordinated with those existing under current law, and it provides educational financial assistance for children of public safety officers and other first responders killed in the line of duty. It creates a program to promote teacher excellence, and it requires the Secretary to consider a State's financial commitment to early learning when evaluating certain grant renewals and specifies that Tribal Colleges and Universities are eligible to receive American Graduation Initiative grants.

I would urge all the Members to support the manager's amendment.

I would also like to draw attention to one part of this legislation, and that is really the unprecedented $10 billion investment to make community colleges part of our economy's recovery.

For years, business leaders have told us that there weren't enough workers with the knowledge and the expertise for their specific industries. Community colleges do and can play an even more significant role in addressing this shortage. This bill will help us build a 21st century workforce by strengthening partnerships among community colleges, businesses, and job training programs that will align community college curricula with the needs of high-wage, high-demand industries.

It will help provide community colleges with the tools to replicate programs that are successfully educating and training students and workers for these skilled jobs. And it will fulfill an important priority for the business community, which has continually understood the value community colleges have in training highly skilled workers and meeting local employment needs as economies change and move from one kind of economy to another. That's why this historic initiative has strong support from the business community, including the Business Roundtable.

The Business Roundtable recently wrote to me and to the members of the committee, ``On behalf of the Business Roundtable, I want to commend you for inclusion of the Community College Initiative in H.R. 3221. This Community College Initiative and the President's American Graduation Initiative reflect the fact that community colleges have emerged as important institutions where acquiring skills for new jobs and new careers will take place . . . That is why the Community College Initiative is so important. For community colleges to reach their potential and become more effective, they need to increase graduation rates, adopt innovations to help them better serve their customers, and develop partnerships and closer cooperation with the private sector.''

For that reason, they support that provision of the bill, and I'm delighted we worked long and hard on both sides of this committee with the business community to try to develop a program to strengthen our community colleges.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself 2 minutes.

What this amendment would do, while the author has talked about a lot of other things he doesn't like in the bill, this amendment would strike the school construction money that is in this legislation for elementary, secondary, and for the community colleges. I think this is a very important part of this legislation. Many, many Members have supported the efforts that we have had before to try to have the Federal Government help local communities address school construction needs.

When we see now that the community colleges are under tremendous pressure because of the economic dislocation from the recession that has taken place and continues to take place in so many communities and so many families, as people are going back to the schools, we recognize the shortage of facilities that are there and what we are saying is this time we will lend a hand to those community colleges and to those K-12, elementary and secondary school districts so that they can modernize their school facilities and make the investments that will save them money.

As we see reports of schools making investments in solar and insulation and energy-efficient buildings, what we see is a dramatic drop in the ongoing operating costs of those schools in terms of the utility bills that are really quite dramatic. We ought to do what we can to facilitate. We have the opportunity with this legislation to help facilitate local school districts meeting that demand.

This also comes at an important time for these local school districts because, as you know, they are under siege from the loss of revenues in many local districts because of the economic downturn. In some cases they have had to postpone these projects even though they are desperately needed. They have had to postpone these modernizations that are desperately needed. And we know the fact that when children have the availability of a clean, well-lit place, modern facilities, they in fact do better in school. It is a statement of values and also a statement about their community and their children. I would hope we would vote against this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

We should not punish local school districts or schoolchildren because a Republican President, George Bush, broke his promise to this country, to families, and to students and teachers when he failed to deliver on his promise of 77 billion additional dollars that school districts had to make up while living under No Child Left Behind. Let's not punish our kids today because a President could not keep his promise.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in support of his amendment. I think he makes a very important point in terms of the priority that we have to give to those areas that have really received very harsh treatment in this economic dislocation.

We know and we believe and the President has made it clear that community colleges are one of the engines to change those outcomes and to reinvigorate those local economies.

So I strongly support the gentleman's amendment and thank him for offering it.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself 1 minute.

This is really sort of a redo of where we were with the previous amendment to strike the construction funds that would be available--in this case, the K-12. The gentlewoman's amendment, as it's drafted, would, if they receive those funds under the Recovery Act, of which one of the allowable costs originally started out with the line item for construction, it became an allowable cost--if they received any of those funds, they would be ineligible to receive these construction funds.

The fact of the matter is the record is starting to develop that very few if any of the school districts were able to use those funds for construction because of the fact of the cuts that took place in almost every State across the country where those funds have been used to try to mitigate the firing of teachers, to continue to try to develop a reasonable class size, and all of the other costs that were going as local school districts were really very hard hit in this economic recovery from the downturn in local revenues, in State revenues. And that's why this amendment is necessary.

The opposition to this amendment is important so that these school districts can receive these funds to build clean, modern, and energy- efficient facilities.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

It's a very clever amendment. What it says is, if you got money from the stimulus package, you cannot get money for school construction. Mind you, the money in the stimulus package did not provide for school construction. It provided it as an allowable expense. But whether you used it or didn't, under this legislation you wouldn't get it because it was an allowable expense under that legislation.

The fact of the matter is that we have far too many children in this country and every region of this country going to antiquated, outdated, unsafe schools. And the backlog for school modernization, for energy modernization, for trying to clean schools up and repair them and renovate them is as long as the road from here to the West Coast.

And the fact of the matter is that this government has the ability to help those schools to do that. So that those children that you're worried about learning, we know that they learn better if they're in a clean, well lit, warm place to learn, as opposed to a place where the rain is coming through, the lavatories don't work, the windows are broken. That sounds like that's extreme. No, that's the case in far too many schools all across this country in all different settings.

We should reject this amendment. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I want to thank the gentlewoman for offering this amendment. I know how hard she has worked on this problem and the impact that a BRAC closure can bring to all of our communities. Many of us have experienced that in the past and even again currently. I want to thank her for this amendment, and I would hope that we would accept it. We plan to accept the amendment on this side, and apparently the Republicans will accept it on their side. Thank you so much for offering this.

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

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a member of the committee.

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

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller).

Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, this amendment should be overwhelmingly rejected. Not only does it destroy the Obama administration's initiative on community colleges, but it destroys what almost every Member knows, that as much as the community colleges are doing today, as many students as they help, they're being asked to do even more. And the fact of the matter is we need them to do more, and we need them to do a better job.

We still have too many students who are starting community colleges but are not successfully completing it, either with a certificate for a career or an AA degree or transition to a 4-year school, whatever path they take. We have got to strengthen those pathways that those students take. We have got to strengthen the ability of the community colleges to make sure that they can provide that kind of opportunity. They are becoming the catalyst for economic innovation, economic change, economic revitalization and flexibility in all of our communities.

And what the Obama administration is suggesting with this initiative is that we should help them do that because we're vitally in need of their success so that people can change the careers as we move from one economy to another. As energy becomes modern and innovative and new, we need a different type of energy worker.

We must defeat this Foxx amendment. We must stick by this initiative and support the community colleges.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1043, the Deafy Glade Land Exchange Act. I want to thank Chairman Rahall and Chairman Grijalva of the Natural Resources Committee and the minority for bringing this legislation to the floor. As it was noted, this similar legislation passed on a voice vote in the last Congress.

The Fouts Springs Youth Facility has been managed by Solano County, Colusa County, and their partners for nearly 50 years. The bill before the House today guarantees that they can continue to do their good work. Fouts Springs has helped rehabilitate California's young offenders and has provided these young offenders from across the State with much-needed structure and significant vocational educational opportunities.

Presently, Solano County operates Fouts Springs on behalf of several other California counties under a special use authorization. This legislation, the Deafy Glade Land Exchange Act, will give Solano County the 82 acres that they use at Fouts Springs, and in exchange, it would give to the Mendocino National Forest 160 acres of nearby land known as Deafy Glade.

The Deafy Glade property has access to the Snow Mountain Wilderness Area, and it has been a high priority for acquisition by the Forest Service since at least the early 1990s. Last year, the Natural Resources Committee received testimony that the Deafy Glade parcels would be a key addition to the Mendocino National Forest's trail system.

Again, I want to thank the committee for its timely consideration of this legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this matter when it comes before the House.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Protect America's Wildlife (PAW) Act. This legislation is a narrowly crafted amendment to the Airborne Hunting Act, which has been on the books for decades.

Simply put, the PAW Act will stop the unnecessary and unscientific air assault on wolves and other wildlife that is occurring in Alaska, and it will prevent other states from following Alaska's lead.

In 1971, as a response to public outcry over airborne wolf hunting in Alaska, Congress took decisive action by passing the Airborne Hunting Act. The law was a direct result of the national outcry over brutal and needless wolf hunting conducted by airplane in Alaska, brought to the public's attention by a television documentary.

At the time, Congress recognized that this unsportsmanlike practice should only be used in extreme situations--as in the defense of humans, livestock, and wildlife--which is why the Airborne Hunting Act banned the practice and made narrow exceptions for those extreme situations.

The Congressional Record reflects that these exceptions, and in particular the wildlife exception, were not intended as a carte-blanche to the states. In the 92nd Congress, the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries prepared a report on ``Shooting Animals From Aircraft'' that clearly articulated that the states should not ``utilize or permit the utilization of aircraft to achieve a balance in wildlife, which should be left to nature or to other more sportsmanlike hunting practices.''

Unfortunately, the State of Alaska has spent the last several years defying congressional intent. The state is granting permits to individuals who are harassing and shooting wolves and other wildlife from planes to artificially boost game species, even though the state has no credible scientific evidence to show that the relevant prey populations are actually at risk.

Hundreds of scientists, the esteemed American Society of Mammalogists, and wildlife managers in Alaska have all spoken out against the State's airborne ``predator control'' programs as unnecessary, unscientific, and in violation of the clear objective of the Airborne Hunting Act. In addition, I recently received a letter, which I will enter into the record, from nine former Alaska Board of Game members that strongly supports the PAW Act and notes that ``Alaska's current predator control programs . . . clearly circumvent the federal Airborne Hunting Act (AHA) of 1972.''

Wolves are now being shot from airplanes on more than 60,000 square miles of Alaska, including federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management and on lands adjacent to several national parks, preserves, and national wildlife refuges. This past spring, state employees targeted wolves that were known to den inside the Yukon Charley Rivers National Preserve, and which were part of a long-term National Park Service study.

Let me be very clear: the exceptions that Congress provided in the Airborne Hunting Act gave states the right to use an extreme measure in extreme circumstances. But instead, the state of Alaska has exploited that exception and violated the intent of the law. Since 2003, more than 1,000 wolves have been killed through these practices. The state's program of hunting predators from the air has spiraled out of control; it is unscientific and goes far beyond any recognizable form of legitimate wildlife management.

Proponents of these practices will say that the state's program is run for the benefit of those who rely upon moose and caribou for food. But the reality is that the state continues to allow moose and caribou hunting by out-of-state hunters and non-local resident hunters, in the same regions they claim airborne wolf hunting is needed to boost moose and caribou populations.

One final note on the pressing need for this legislation. Now that wolves in the Northern Rockies have been removed from the endangered species list, there is a threat that other states may attempt to misuse the same exception that Alaska has misused, to hunt wolves in the lower 48 states from airplanes in order to boost game populations.

The Protect America's Wildlife Act, which I am introducing today, is carefully and narrowly crafted. It specifically addresses the ongoing misuse of the wildlife management provision as I outlined above, while maintaining the ability of states to address legitimate biological emergencies in the wild, as Congress intended.

Specifically, this legislation:

Clarifies the conditions under which states can use airplanes and helicopters to kill wolves and other predators. For example, they may still be used to address legitimate biological emergencies in prey populations;

Requires states to provide a scientific foundation for their use of the wildlife management exception as part of the report to the Department of the Interior which they are already required to submit; and

Maintains the ability of states to use aerial gunning to protect land, water, wildlife, livestock, domesticated animals, human life, or crops.

I urge my fellow Members of Congress to take a stand for wildlife and for proper use of our wildlife laws by supporting the Protect America's Wildlife Act.

July 14, 2009.

Re The Protect America's Wildlife Act

Dear Representative Miller: As former members of the Alaska

Board of Game, we endorse the modest but crucial changes to

the Federal Airborne Hunting Act (16 USC 742j1) contained in

the Protect America's Wildlife Act, which you are sponsoring

in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The Alaska Board of Game (hereafter Board) is a seven

member citizen board appointed by Alaska's governor and

confirmed by the state legislature. The Board promulgates

Alaska's hunting and trapping regulations and establishes

wildlife policies including those for predator control.

The Protect America's Wildlife Act is largely a response to

Alaska's current predator control programs, which clearly

circumvent the federal Airborne Hunting Act (AHA) of 1972.

The legislation would clarify the intent of the AHA so that

the exception that allows a state to authorize the use of

aircraft to shoot wildlife must be based on the finding of a

biological emergency and not used to increase prey

populations just to meet increasing hunter demand. It further

provides that when a state authorizes aircraft shooting under

the exception, it must be supported by adequate scientific

data and the shooting must be conducted by government

personnel only.

The Protect America's Wildlife Act is in conformance with

the laws that Alaskan voters passed by initiative in 1996 and

2000. The state legislature reversed the will of the people

both times.

Extensive wolf control is being conducted in Alaska at

present. Aerial predator control is now occurring on more

than 60,000 square miles of Alaska--the largest predator

control program since statehood. Since 2003, more than 1,000

wolves have been killed by private hunters through shooting

directly from airplanes or from the land and shoot practice.

This past spring, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game

killed 84 wolves in 5 days in eastern Alaska. In March, the

Board reauthorized aerial predator control for five more

years and has eased the regulations further by allowing

private aerial gunning teams to now use helicopters to kill

wolves.

Many Alaskans object to using state personnel for ongoing

airborne wolf control as a standard game management tool

unless there is a serious biological problem. And even more

strongly object to the use of private pilots for these

activities because of the long, well documented history of

abuses and violations of the AHA.

We also note that the long, detailed history of predator

control in Alaska and elsewhere clearly demonstrates that

control is often poorly supported by sound science, ignores

other options, and often becomes institutionalized and

perpetual. The Protect America's Wildlife Act would help curb

these problems by restricting lethal control programs to

those that are well justified and truly necessary. We are

aware that other control options are available and effective

including non-lethal control and habitat management.

In summary, we strongly support The Protect America's

Wildlife Act and believe that it would improve the management

of wildlife in Alaska as well as settle some longstanding,

controversial issues related to predator control.

Sincerely,

Former Alaska Board of Game Members

Vic Van Ballenberghe, Joel Bennett, Leo Keeler, Tom

Meacham, George Matz, R.T. Skip Wallen, Bruce Baker,

Nicole Whittington-Evans, Jack Lentfer.

I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding this time, and I rise in very strong support of H.R. 1035, which honors the life of Stewart L. Udall, a selfless public servant, by making improvements to the Morris K. Udall Foundation's programs and operations, and also adds his name to that of the name of his brother, Morris Udall, on the Foundation.

Stewart Udall was born and raised in St. John's, Arizona, along with his brother Morris, and as a young man, Stewart left his studies at the University of Arizona to pursue 2 years of work as a Mormon missionary in both New York and Pennsylvania. He also served his country in World War II as a gunner in Europe, and he traveled back to Tucson to acquire a law degree and open a successful law firm with his brother.

As was recounted already by my colleagues, he was elected to Congress in 1954 and served both on the Interior Committee and on the Committee on Education and Labor. During the 85th Congress, Stewart also served on the Joint Committee on the Navajo-Hopi Indian Administration, a conflict that lasted much longer than his term in the Congress of the United States.

I don't want to recount all of the things that my colleagues have said, but clearly during his time in Congress he was very active on these committees, and President Kennedy recognized his leadership on the issues of the environment and stewardship of our public lands and nominated him to be Secretary of the Interior, as Mr. Grijalva pointed out. He was one of our most successful Secretaries of the Interior, not just in leadership, but also in what he was able to accomplish in working with the Congress in the establishment of seashores and national monuments and lakeshores and recreational areas across our country that are so valuable to our local communities and to our local economies.

And after leaving Congress, he continued and continues today to be actively involved in public policy around environmental issues and working very hard, as does the Foundation, on environmental conflict resolution.

This is an effort by the Congress, and I think a wonderful effort by the Congress, to recognize the contributions of Stewart Udall and his brother, Morris Udall--who I served with in the Congress, was my chairman on the Resources Committee. And really, the recognition of a family that has contributed so much to public service.

And I would hope that my colleagues would give this resolution resounding support on behalf of Mo Udall, Stewart Udall, and the Udall family--and what public service means to all of us in this country.

I thank the gentleman (Mr. Grijalva) for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this legislation to help restore fiscal responsibility, and I salute President Obama and Majority Leader Hoyer for their leadership on this important issue. Listening to this debate might leave the American people confused about Republican values. Republicans regularly declare their fidelity to controlling Federal spending, and they claim also that they want to fix our broken health care system. And yet Republicans oppose our commonsense pay-as-you-go legislation, and Republicans oppose our historic health care reform bill.

My question to the Republicans is simple: when they controlled the House, the Senate and the White House, all of our government, for 8 long years, why didn't they control Federal spending? Why didn't you reform the health care system? But what you did when you got power for the first time was you made your highest priority your tax cut to the richest people in this country without paying for it. The rest of us have been paying for it forever.

In 2001, you did it, and in 2002 you did it, turning the budget surpluses into massive deficits. Why is it they added a record number of earmarks to the appropriations bill, running the deficit up even further? And why is it that in 8 years, they never ever made health care reform a priority? Not ever. Not ever in those 8 years.

Meanwhile, Americans' health care bills keep rising, the insurance companies continue denials of care, and the number of the uninsured have continued to grow. Eight years of all-Republican government, spending the taxpayers' money like a drunken sailor, and, as Ronald Reagan said, with full apologies to the sailor, raising deficits to historic levels and inaction on health care of any kind of reform. But

they have made rhetoric a priority. And they have made politics as usual a priority.

Now that they are out of power, they speak about controlling deficits and reforming health care, but they openly state that they hope our President fails. Their hope for our Nation is that our President fails. I have been a supporter for pay-as-you-go budgeting since 1982, when I introduced the first pay-as-you-go bill. When liberals and conservatives worked together with President Clinton to adopt the PAYGO rules, the Democrats reined in and erased the historic budget deficits that were left over from President Reagan and President Bush from the 1980s and the 1990s. And we recorded record budget surpluses. We ran surpluses a number of years in a row. President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress, when they gained power, they erased it. They repealed the law.

And now what we see is the interest payments on that debt crowding out the national priorities. In 2007, Democrats made PAYGO part of our rules again. Our legislation today strengthens those rules by making it part of the law so the Senate and the House will have to abide by it. Our bill says Congress could neither cut taxes nor increase entitlement spending without first deciding how you can afford to pay for these new costs. PAYGO requires difficult decisions about national priorities and how to afford them. If we can't pay for new tax cuts or entitlement spending, we can't have them. It's simple, it's common sense, and it helps reduce the deficit.

PAYGO will strengthen the economy by helping to reduce interest payments on our debt and by helping to address health care reform, modernizing energy policy and college affordability. Our health care bill, for example, will not increase the deficit one dime. It is paid for. Our new college affordability bill is not only paid for, it returns $10 billion in deficit reduction to the American people. The Democrats are working hard to ensure that, going forward, we can exercise fiscal discipline that hardworking Americans need and expect from this Congress. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on PAYGO.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the concurrent resolution to recognize the 40th anniversary of the Food and Nutrition Service of the United States Department of Agriculture. The Food and Nutrition Service has administered the Nation's nutrition assistance programs since 1969 and is the lead agency in charge of supporting the fundamental nutritional needs of children, low-income individuals, families, and communities.

Mr. Speaker, in the United States no one should face hunger, especially children. Over the past forty years, the Food and Nutrition Service has been critical to ensuring that children have access to healthful foods and nutritious meals at school, in childcare settings, and during the summer months that support their ability to succeed in and out of the classroom. The services provided by the Food and Nutrition Service encourage good nutrition and well-being that are necessary to ensure a healthy future for the country.

Through its programs, FNS actively promotes individual health and well-being for a strong and productive workforce. Through coordination with State and local governments, community organizations, and many partners, the Food and Nutrition Service provides access to healthful food, nutrition services, and education to 1 in 5 individuals at risk of hunger in the United States each day.

The programs administered by the Food and Nutrition Service are designed to respond to fluctuations in the economy and work to ensure all eligible children, individuals, and households can access nutrition benefits when they need it the most. Together, these programs form the Nation's nutrition safety net. As families, communities, and the Nation face significant economic challenges, these programs play an increasingly important role in supporting good nutrition and reducing the risk of hunger.

As the Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor with jurisdiction for many nutrition programs administered by the Food and Nutrition Service, the Committee on Education and Labor recognizes the critical food assistance and nutrition services that these programs provide to children and families. And,

we are committed to ensuring that these programs have a strong foundation, so that all eligible children and individuals can access high quality nutrition assistance with dignity and respect. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the committee on the reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Programs later this year to further strengthen the Nation's nutrition safety net and the services that these programs provide.

I commend the Food and Nutrition Service for 40 years of important service to the Nation and support the Agency's continued effort to promote food security through access to nutritious foods, to improve diet quality, and to educate individuals on the benefits of and strategies for living a healthy lifestyle.

I thank the gentlewoman and chair of the subcommittee for yielding me this time and for bringing this bill to the floor at this time.

I rise in strong support of the Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial Enhancement Act of 2009.

It is fitting that we are taking up this legislation today, as this week marks the 65th anniversary of the munitions explosion at the Port Chicago Naval Magazine facility in California, a disaster that killed more than 300 people and wounded hundreds more. Port Chicago was the site of the worst home front disaster of World War II, and it was a turning point in American history.

When sailors were ordered to resume work a few weeks, or even sooner, after the deadly explosion, white sailors were given time off to grieve and to deal with the aftermath of the explosion. Black sailors were ordered to go back to work immediately, and most of them refused to return to work to their dangerous assignments until such time as supervision, training, and working conditions could be improved and they could be told why that explosion took place.

In response, the Navy charged 50 men with conspiring to mutiny. All were convicted. The majority of the men killed at Port Chicago and all those

convicted of mutiny were African Americans.

The injustice and the legal battles that followed strongly influenced the Navy's move toward desegregation in 1945, and President Truman's 1948 executive order desegregating the Armed Forces and guaranteeing ``equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin.''

When this bill becomes law, the National Park Service will be able to budget for the memorial's needs, and an interpretive center authorized here will allow veterans, students, and other visitors to learn about Port Chicago even if they can't access the site all of the time, which is located currently within the Concord Naval Weapons Station.

This legislation was approved by the House last year as part of the National Defense Authorization Act earlier this year, and I want to thank the Committees on Natural Resources and Armed Services for helping to expedite its consideration again today.

In particular, I want to recognize Chairwoman Madeleine Bordallo for managing this legislation here today; Chairman Rahall of the Natural Resources Committee for its timely consideration and presentation to the floor; Doc Hastings, ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee; Chairman Raul Grijalva of the National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands Subcommittee, Rob Bishop, ranking member of that subcommittee; Chairman Ike Skelton of the Armed Services Committee; John McHugh, former member of Armed Services; and Buck McKeon, who now holds that position on the Armed Services Committee.

I also want to thank the staff for the two committees, including Leslie Duncan, David Watkins, and David Sienicki, and Ben Miller, my legislative director.

I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 1044.

Again, I would like to thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the career of Mr. Pope Barrow, a man with a distinguished record of service in the House Office of the Legislative Counsel. After more than 40 years, we gather here to celebrate Pope's career and wish him well in retirement.

Pope joined Legislative Counsel in 1968 as a Law Assistant after graduating from Harvard Law School. Over the years he advanced within the Office, working as Assistant Counsel and Deputy Legislative Counsel. In 1993, then Speaker Newt Gingrich appointed Pope as the sixth Legislative Counsel, where he continued under Speaker Hastert and our current Speaker.

Drawing on his broad legislative experience, Pope has led the House Office of the Legislative Counsel in fulfilling, and exceeding its mission to provide impartial and confidential assistance in legislative drafting. Legislative Counsel has consistently provided dedicated service to the Committee on Education and Labor. Whether we required help drafting a bill or amendment, Pope and his staff has always conducted themselves with the utmost professionalism.

For almost 40 years, Pope Barrow has worked with tireless dedication drafting legislation and providing impartial advice and analysis on numerous issues. During his tenure as Legislative Counsel he has remained actively involved in legislative activities, demonstrating time and again, his commitment to the House. In fact, he himself undertook the drafting of the recently passed Head Start bill when one of his staff attorneys faced a family emergency. Without such efforts, our Committee would not have been able to have put forth such high quality of legislation.

The achievements of the House Office of the Legislative Counsel under the leadership of Pope are numerous. His presence and expertise will be sorely missed, but I have no doubt that the Office will continue its record or high quality work.

Madam Speaker, I commend the many years of service of Mr. Barrow and wish him nothing but the best in retirement.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment.

At this funding level, the bill supports more than $585 million in increases for counterterrorism and intelligence programs. At the same time, the bill makes long overdue reinvestments in traditional Department of Justice missions like drug and firearms enforcement, regulation of the marketplace, protection of civil rights and liberties, support of the judicial process and State and local assistance. Specific initiatives include: $63 million for new funding to address white collar crime; $24 million in new funds to reinvigorate and expand civil rights enforcement; $71 million to improve the safety and security of inmates and guards in Federal prisons; $345 million in new funds to safeguard the Southwest border, address the Mexican cartel violence, and support activities of the Department of Homeland Security; and $3.4 billion in grant funding for State and local enforcement assistance, including $298 million to put additional police on the beat, $100 million for prisoner reentry initiatives, and $94 million for tribal law enforcement.

These investments are absolutely necessary, unlike what the gentleman has suggested that somehow they're unnecessary, that somehow this is change that can be found, and these programs can be cut. In fact, what we are doing is reinvesting in the law enforcement infrastructure of this country on the border, in our cities, and in the issues of white- collar crime.

I would hope that he would understand that this is an essential part of this legislation and that this was carefully crafted as we consulted with people across the various jurisdictions within these institutions to make sure that we could, in fact, provide them to be secure and to serve the needs of this Nation. I think this has been a good-faith effort to do that, and I would hope that we would reject this amendment.

I ask for a ``no'' vote.

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

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

I thank the chairman for yielding.

I would hope that Members would oppose this amendment. This amendment makes nothing better. I appreciate the frustration of my friends who live in the Valley and are undergoing very serious economic times. But the fact of the matter is, to suggest now to throw out this biological opinion makes nothing better.

Now you have a situation where the Bureau of Reclamation is trying to deal with these problems. We would lose this consultive agency and the Marine Fisheries Agency; and as a result of that, they could not go forward with another biological opinion, which you may or may not want. But what we would be is we would be stymied, as was suggested in this opinion and by the court, in the ability to look for other mechanisms that we could use instead of just turning to the idea that you're going to reduce the pumping. But that goes out the door now because you will not have the scientific credibility enabling the bureau to go forward. So the bureau will fumble around now for a number of months, trying to figure out how to handle this problem. And eventually, for legal reasons, they're going to have to go back to the Marine Fisheries, and the Marine Fisheries are going to tell them that Congress barred them from consultations. The consultations will not take place; and as a result of that, we have lost a year, 18 months, 2 years, whatever time it takes instead of going forward on this biological opinion which allow for some additional alternatives, some additional investigations within the delta and elsewhere in this system.

This builds on a whole series of reports that have come out by the past administration's Office of Management and Budget, saying that the failure here is not to look at the water system, the CVP, on a system- wide basis. We keep chopping it up in little increments. We chop it up based upon the Valley, based upon the south, based upon the north, based upon the delta. We thought that with good science, we would have the opportunity to start to overcome that and to broaden this discussion. But this amendment will collapse it all back again, we'll start all over again, and we'll just waste a lot of time. And the problems in the Central Valley will get worse for agriculture; they will get worse for the economy; they'll get worse in Southern California; they'll get worse in the delta; we'll have more endangered species lawsuits; and we'll have more complications. And we'll accomplish nothing.

It's bold in its approach. It's destructive in its results.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, you know we're here in this situation because a court ruled after the last administration trampled through the

Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Ocean Service, and altered scientific findings, studies, and opinions that we could no longer conduct the business of the Central Valley Project. I didn't see my friends on the other side of the aisle raise one objection at the time that those actions were taking place, at the time that criminal behavior was taking place.

I didn't see them raise one objection when the northern rivers were destroyed and fishery seasons have been closed for years and families have lost their businesses, lost their livelihood--whether they were going to seed the fish or they were small businesses on the north coast or small businesses on the Oregon border--and those political decisions were made, and they devastated the salmon runs. I didn't see that happen.

We have seen now, as the environment has deteriorated in the San Francisco Delta and bay area, small businesses have closed up, many people have lost their livelihoods; and, yes, it's very intense in the Central Valley.

But I don't see some of my colleagues on the other side who represent areas that have a hundred percent of the water. In fact, some of the valley farmers have 70 percent of their allocation in this drought year.

Somehow to blame this on this moment, this administration that's been in office for 5 or 6 months, when in fact for 8 years there was a design to exploit this system by opening up the pumps, devastate the system, and now those chickens have come home to roost and those illegalities have been found out.

The court has asked for direction. This administration put together a biological opinion. It was peer reviewed, and they've offered that up to begin the discussions of how we settle some of these problems in the delta, south of the delta, and north of the delta. That now is going to be thrown into chaos if this amendment succeeds to become law because then we will not have those tools available to us.

So we'll go into another year that may be a drought and we will not have the system-wide approach to dealing with that to help the families in the Central Valley, in southern California, in northern California. These are all of the same families. These are all the same people who are looking for work, looking for jobs. But the fact of the matter is, if you devastate this water system, they all pay the price.

So now we're trying to recover from 8 years of mismanagement, from 8 years of illegal activity, from 8 years of throwing science out the door, and now we're left with that wreckage. There's a lot of cleanup to do after this Bush administration, and this is one of those projects. And this project now has to be rehabilitated, this project has to be brought together so that the Central Valley Project can serve its clients, can serve the needs of the whole State of California. And if it doesn't happen that way, it's not going to work politically, it's not going to work environmentally, it's not going to work scientifically, and it's not going to work economically.

We've just been through 8 years where people tried to segment this state-wide project into little bits of pieces for their advantages, and if they had enough politics on their side, they took that advantage whether it was supported by the law or not. And this is the carnage that has been left behind because we missed 8 years of opportunity to rebuild this system so that it could serve the needs for which it was designed.

That's the tragedy of what has taken place here. That's the tragedy that we're trying to overcome. That's the tragedy that will be compounded by the Nunes amendment if it's adopted because it will set all of this back many, many months--if not years--in this effort to rebuild the Central Valley Project of California so it can meet the demands of which are put upon it.

Madam Speaker, on Monday, June 8, 2009, I was unavoidably absent for three rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted for the International Science and Technology Cooperation Act of 2009, the STEM Education Coordination Act of 2009, and H. Res. 420--Celebrating the symbol of the United States flag and supporting the goals and ideals of Flag Day.

Madam Speaker, I rise with sadness today to honor Albin Gruhn of San Anselmo, California, who passed away March 18 at the age of 94. Mr. Gruhn was a respected and beloved labor leader and consumer rights activist whose calling was the welfare of the working people of California. His 36 years as president of the California Labor Federation and his role as a founder of the Association of California Consumers were at the heart of a remarkable career.

Mr. Gruhn was born in Eureka, California, in 1915. At the age of 19 he began working for the Hammond Lumber Co. where he joined the Sawmill and Loggers Federal Union. A strike shortly afterwards resulted in the deaths of three union picketers and deeply affected him, resulting in a life-long commitment to the labor movement.

He was also blacklisted as a result of his participation in the strike but soon found employment in construction, joining the Laborers Local where his membership continued for over 60 years. At the age of 22, he became secretary of the Central Labor Council of Humboldt and Del Norte Counties and led that council for over 20 years.

In 1940 Mr. Gruhn was first elected to what is now the California Labor Federation as district vice president and became its president in 1960. He led with skill, enthusiasm, and passion until his retirement in 1996. He helped build the organization into a strong and effective advocacy group for the rights of workers, inspiring several generations of political and labor leaders along the way.

During the 1960s, Mr. Gruhn was also a founder of the Association of California Consumers, California's first consumer group, and later became a founding officer and then president emeritus of the Consumer Federation of California. He also devoted some of his considerable energies to the California Apprenticeship Council and the California Constitution Revision Commission as well as serving on various state commissions. These were appointments over the decades by five California governors and covered a variety of issues from fair housing to air pollution. One of the commissions dealt with children and youth, reflecting his deep involvement in the annual scholarship program established by the California Labor Federation.

Mr. Gruhn was always politically active as a means of supporting the causes he believed in. From campaigning for Franklin Roosevelt at the age of 17 to serving as an Adlai Stevenson delegate in 1956, he stayed engaged in the process. In 1944, he founded the Northern California AFL Political League.

Mr. Gruhn was married to the former Dorothy Coon for over 37 years. Dorothy predeceased him in 2005, and the couple are survived by a large family of eight children, 14 grandchildren, and 17 great grandchildren.

Madam Speaker, Albin Gruhn was proud to fight for working people, and all those with whom he came in contact--from family and friends to political leaders and co-workers--drew inspiration from his commitment. It is fitting in honoring him today to remember the remarks he always used to conclude his labor speeches: ``In unity there is strength. United we stand, divided we fall. An injury to one is an injury to all.''