Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my friend from Washington State not really discussing the merits of the bill, but discuss atmosphere and perception, and that is fine, as if families struggling to make ends meet are spoiled children to be indulged; as if somehow at this point in time, with 2-year terms, allowing Americans to keep more of their money is somehow ill advised or worse still, a political stunt.

Mr. Speaker, our Founders, very exceptional people, gave us 2-year terms. This is overdue, to extend opportunities. Indeed, devoid from this debate until this point, Mr. Speaker, is the acknowledgement of the fact that this country was suddenly, violently and brutally attacked on September 11, 2001. Indeed, I hear laughter from the other side, Mr. Speaker. Laughter about an attack that killed 3,000 Americans. I mention this not to wave the bloody shirt, but to talk, in essence, of what we do in this legislation.

I am sorry my friend, the ranking member, is not here who apparently is against the bill. We have authority to issue New York Liberty Zone Bonds, extend that to 2009 to rebuild Ground Zero to bring back the New York economy. We advance refunding the Liberty Zone Bonds. We have tax incentive for the District of Columbia.

We have already chronicled out, we reached out with the earned income credit for families of our combat soldiers in harm's way. And yet we hear bemused chuckles and poor analogies

somehow claiming that American families keeping more of their own money are spoiled children. The contrast could not be clearer.

It is sad when those for whatever reason want to launch into diatribe or to somehow compare hard-working Americans to spoiled children, but the fact is nobody has talked about what the bill does. So apart from the election-year rhetoric and the endless class warfare diatribes and the cynical chuckles about people dying in the wake of terrorists attack, there is merit to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I recommend a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, in the nearly 10 years that I have been honored to serve in the House, I have welcomed many constituents from Arizona to our Nation's capital, but one visit stands out in particular. It was in my first term. The gentleman visiting me was a Vietnam veteran. He was a White Mountain Apache, and he came to my office late in the day and he said, Congressman, I have seen all the monuments, I have seen so many statues, but where is the Indian?

It was not a rhetorical question; but now, for that constituent, and Mr. Speaker, for all Americans, the rightful place of honor of the first Americans is realized. As my colleague from Michigan mentioned earlier, today we celebrate on our National Mall the opening of the National Museum of the American Indian.

Mr. Speaker, I was honored when I first came to this House that nearly one out of every four of my constituents was Native American, and I think the challenge we can confront is that, though we may divide between political parties, there are really only two types of people who serve in the Congress of the United States, those who represent what we now call Indian Country and those who represent what was once Indian Country.

Mr. Speaker, it is my sad duty to inform this House and the people of Arizona of the passing of the Veterans Affairs Coordinator for the people of the Fifth Congressional District of Arizona, Ben Jefferson. Ben lost his battle with leukemia at 1 o'clock a.m. Arizona time Monday. Mary and I were privileged to be with Ben Sunday afternoon prior to his passing, and we reflect back on a remarkable life of service.

Mr. Speaker, too often what we do is described as public service. That is an honor and an accolade, but ultimately it is somewhat inaccurate, for what we are involved in is public office. But public service is a dimension that does not require election to office; it instead requires a spirit of servanthood, and that spirit of service sums up the life of Ben Jefferson.

Ben moved to Phoenix as a very young boy from Louisiana. He saw Phoenix grow, and, as he grew, so too did that responsibility of service, made manifest by a career in the Navy, a career which saw him as a medical corpsman in Korea, which saw him again answer the call to duty in Vietnam, which literally took him around the world, even for a year's duty at the research station at the South Pole.

Ben had a heart for people. And how fortunate I was, and, indeed, Mr. Speaker, those of us who serve here are honored by one of the gratifying mysteries of running for public office, which is that good people cross your path, and, more amazingly, those good people are willing to donate their time and their energy and their enthusiasm, first to campaigns and then as support staff.

So it was for Ben Jefferson. After a career in the Navy, after a career in business, stepping forward first in a campaign, and then assuming a role that he prepared for throughout his life, that of service to our Nation's veterans and the important role that the military plays, not only for retirees, but for those young people who aspire to attend a service academy.

It was Ben Jefferson who put together the groups for the Army and the Navy and the Air Force, who would review the candidates and candidacies of those who aspire to attend our Nation's academies. Ben Jefferson would be along my side when I would have one of the most gratifying experiences any Member of this House can have, when you call a young person and their family to inform them that they have been accepted at one of our military academies.

The same Ben Jefferson would take calls from veterans who had questions about their benefits, veterans who needed help at the hospital, veterans who had fallen on hard times, and always Ben Jefferson was willing to help.

We celebrate his life, even as we mourn his passing, his wife, Bette, his children, his relatives who will gather in Arizona later this week to remember this remarkable man.

At one point in his life he thought he would be called into the ministry. But it turned out his ministry was not from the pulpit, it was not as a pastor per se. Instead, in the spirit of James in the New Testament, it was not wrapped up in talk and good wishes, it was service and action and stepping forward to help people. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, on what became his deathbed, Ben Jefferson spoke about constituents in need and friends who faced similar challenges of disease, always in a spirit of what can I do to help?

In those last minutes when Mary and I were with Ben and with his wife Bette and with other loved ones, I could not help but reflect on the words I think he has heard by now: ``Well done, good and faithful servant.''

Ben Jefferson: Veteran, leader, citizen. We will always remember you and all you did for the people of Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this morning, I came to this well reflecting on the difference between holding public office and being engaged in public service. Public office is not a prerequisite for public service. Neither, Mr. Speaker, is public office a prerequisite for holding the public trust.

It is in that spirit that I again come to the well to cite apparently falsified documents utilized by CBS News in portraying the service record in the Texas Air National Guard of our Commander in Chief.

Mr. Speaker, two questions need to be answered: What did Dan Rather know, and when did he know it?

Understand, we believe in the first amendment; Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press. All we ask, Mr. Speaker, is that Dan Rather answer those two questions.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, in May of 2004, the National Labor Relations Board overturned 30 years of its own precedent and ruled that it has jurisdiction over tribal government enterprises located on tribes' own sovereign lands. Where tribal law has governed relations between tribes and their employees, the National Labor Relations Board seeks to replace that law with its regulatory authority in this area. This decision by the NLRB is a frontal assault on tribal sovereign rights.

The National Labor Relations Act expressly exempts States, cities, and local governments from its coverage; and the NLRB has ruled that territorial governments, such as Puerto Rico and Guam, are also exempt from its jurisdiction. But the National Labor Relations Board incorrectly decided that it should exercise its own jurisdiction over tribal governments on their own lands. If this unfair decision stands, the only governments that will be subject to NLRB jurisdiction will be tribal governments.

There is a basic misunderstanding here, Mr. Chairman. The NLRB misunderstands that tribal governments, like State governments, rely upon government-owned enterprises to generate revenue to support governmental purposes, such as reservation law enforcement and fire services, and programs for the health, education and welfare benefit of tribal members. Consistent with the policy behind the NLRA exemptions for governments, private parties such as labor unions should not be able to hold government-owned enterprises hostage where disagreements arise.

Ironically, the NLRB specifically ruled against the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, a tribe based in Southern California, that has enacted into its tribal law a tribal labor relations ordinance with greater, let me repeat this, with greater labor union rights than the National Labor Relations Act. In fact, the tribe has a collective bargaining agreement with the Communication Workers of America. The heavy-handed, activist NLRB overlaid an incompatible legal regime where a tribal one, agreed to on a government-to-government basis with the State of California, was in place and was, in fact, working. Now, San Manuel and other tribes have conflicting laws and great uncertainty about which law applies.

I strongly support the tribes in their efforts to protect their sovereign rights. Congress should reaffirm these rights and make clear that tribes are exempt from the NLRA, which was the view of the National Labor Relations Board until this misguided decision was promulgated.

There are certainly sound policy reasons for such a fix. Tribes are sovereign governments that exercise jurisdiction over their own territory. Although some Federal laws compel tribes to deal with other sovereigns, such as States, on a government-to-government basis, this NLRB decision would force tribes to deal with private entities, labor unions, for the first time, contrary to long-established Federal Indian policy.

But until Congress can consider a permanent solution to this problem, this amendment, Mr. Chairman, would have the effect of calling a temporary time out to allow this body to more thoroughly consider a more substantive solution, to avoid additional confusion among the tribes and to limit unnecessary conflict between tribes and labor unions.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment enjoys broad-based support from across the width and breadth of Indian Country. The National Congress of American Indians, the oldest and largest intertribal organization in the United States, and the National Indian Gaming Association strongly support this amendment. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, along with many other tribes, also have weighed in with strong support for this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is a question of sovereignty. We dare not equivocate nor abdicate the role of Congress in dealing with government-to-government relationships and the sovereignty that tribes enjoy. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I would urge all to vote in favor of this amendment because it is a vote that supports sovereignty for Indian nations and a vote for the fundamental rights of the first Americans to

maintain their status of sovereignty and their rights as sovereign governments.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague from Michigan, and it is an honor to cochair with my colleague the Native American Caucus in this body, and listening to his rationale in response, quite candidly, is a bit confusing because on more than one occasion we have stood united on this basic point, that sovereignty is nonnegotiable. Yet the foundation of his argument is that an amicable relationship exists between some in this House and some in organized labor and some in the tribes; and if they only have the time, they can work this out. Mr. Chairman, I find that rationale one that just does not pass muster.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), my friend.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding, and this would make the point. In terms of the negotiations in California, were they not, in fact, conducted on a government-to-government basis?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my friend, the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield to me for that purpose.

The gentleman talked about the California situation and the negotiations that went on in the gentleman's home State. I would just simply ask: Were not those negotiations conducted with sovereign tribal entities negotiating with the State of California on a government-to- government basis?

Which is exactly my point.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, and I would simply make the point in response that what we are dealing with here today, contrary to the comments of my friend from Rhode Island, sovereignty was not created in the wake of IGRA. Indeed, a part of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was a government-to-government negotiation between sovereign tribes and the respective States.

Now, with reference to what has gone on and what has been described as productive negotiations, yes, indeed, tribes met with several union officials in attempts to negotiate. Our understanding is essentially the negotiations went nowhere. And, Mr. Chairman, the tribes are in no position to negotiate because of this NLRB ruling. This amendment is an immediate solution for now, and it will fix this problem, offering a time out, until a final solution can be crafted.

Sovereignty is not conditional. We cannot accept it in some instances, but then, when it somehow is politically inconvenient, ignore it in others. That is why this amendment should be passed, and I ask my colleagues to join me in this.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

It is interesting to listen to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), try to characterize this amendment, when I think more accurately we would characterize this as a choice. And this is the choice to make in this Chamber, and, Mr. Chairman, especially for those who say time and again they are friends of sovereignty.

Are we, in fact, going to respect the provisions in Article I, section 8 of our Constitution that grants sovereign rights and sovereign immunity to Indian tribes in that document of limited and specified powers, or are we going to make a change for political convenience, for political alliances?

And I understand it may be very uncomfortable for some in this Chamber, but are we basically going to say, Mr. Chairman, that the rights of union negotiations supersede the rights of sovereignty?

Make no mistake, Mr. Chairman, in this Chamber, at this time, this decision will be made. And I would offer for

all to note that we should never suborn sovereignty for political convenience. We dare not make that mistake. Support this amendment.

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

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

It is very simple at the end of day. I listened with interest to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), who would not let me answer a question. It had nothing to do with my advocacy of any policy, simply the notion that negotiations take place on a government-to- government basis.

Now, much has been made of the National Labor Relations Act and the National Labor Relations Board; but many in this Chamber, friends who unfortunately line up on the other side of this issue today, often cite the document that trumps all of these organizations, the United States Constitution, article 1, section 8, that Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States and with the Indian tribes.

Sovereignty is not situational. The Constitution of the United States trumps the National Labor Relations Act. It trumps any treaty, and tribes, as sovereign governments, should have the freedom to determine if this should go forward. Support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I recognize the broad scope of this bill and how difficult it is to meet the challenges of funding on all the important programs.

Let me take time to commend the chairman of the subcommittee and his expert and able staff.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment regarding the Social Security totalization agreement signed on June 29 by the Social Security Commissioner and her Mexican counterpart. Totalization agreements are bilateral agreements between the United States and another country to coordinate Social Security programs. Essentially, a totalization agreement eliminates the need to pay Social Security taxes in both countries when U.S. companies send workers to the other country and vice versa and it protects benefit eligibilities for workers who divide their careers between the two countries.

In a general concept, totalization agreements are desirable, but I would ask my colleagues to carefully review what is at stake in this recent decision and agreement involving Mexico.

By every account, Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, the Social Security Administration tried to slip Mexico totalization under the radar without coming to Congress, as the Social Security Administration had promised. This is a problem; and, therefore, it requires a response from this House.

I personally met with Social Security Commissioner Barnhart. I believe she is very capable and, on balance, has done a fine job. But following our discussions, I continue to believe that serious problems remain with this totalization agreement with Mexico.

The principal problem with the agreement is that our Social Security Administration assumes that only 50,000, only 50,000, Mexican workers will apply for Social Security benefits. But with estimates of over 4 million Mexican workers here illegally, I think the number in fact will be significantly higher.

To be clear, Mr. Chairman, this is not an immigration issue. This is a Social Security solvency issue; and if a mere 25 percent above that estimate of 50,000 apply, and I will do the math for you, that would mean 60,000 people actually take up benefits, the GAO has found it will be a financially significant drain on the trust fund.

Now, for purposes of full disclosure, obviously not every Mexican national working here illegally will suddenly qualify for Social Security. We passed and the President signed into law H.R. 743, the Social Security Protection Act, which keeps many illegal workers from assessing benefits. But, Mr. Chairman, a significant new population, perhaps hundreds of thousands, would have access to Social Security under this Mexico totalization agreement.

Specifically, it would be three groups: number one, workers who were illegal at one time, such as those with temporary work visas, who have fallen into illegal worker status by overstaying their visas; number two, the dependents of these once legal workers; and, number three, these Mexican workers who have worked more than six quarters in the United States and less than 40.

The 50,000 estimate that Social Security assumes will take advantage of these benefits are Mexicans working legally in the United States, and it does not account for these three groups I have detailed.

Now, to give an idea of how large a group are unaccounted for here, according to Citizenship and Immigration Services' most recent data in 2002, 166,000 Mexicans changed their status to permanent resident from a variety of other classifications, for example, visitor, temporary worker, no status, et cetera. Again, Mr. Chairman, that is 166,000 in 1 year.

The Social Security Administration assumes only 50,000 are here, when three times that received permanent resident status in 2002 alone; and that 50,000 will only grow at the rate of general population growth when hundreds of thousands more will move in and out of legal status each and every year. To assume that hundreds of thousands of these workers would pass up benefits is unrealistic.

Mr. Chairman, let me make this very clear. If only fully legal workers were to collect benefits under this totalization plan, I would not oppose it. But, Mr. Chairman, I have serious doubts that this would be the case.

The Social Security trust fund will begin spending more than it receives in the year 2018. In 2042, the trust fund will have spent up the surpluses it has built up. It will be totally bankrupt. Opening the floodgates to hundreds of thousands of illegal workers can only hasten the coming funding crisis facing Social Security.

I urge support for this amendment.

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

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

I listened with interest to the comments of my subcommittee Chair, and I think it is worth noting in this debate, if there could be guarantees that a resolution of disapproval would be allowed to come to the floor, and one of my friends, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) has drafted it, there would be no need for this amendment, and we could withdraw it. We have made that clear. But that guarantee has not been forthcoming. Therefore, the appropriations process is our opportunity for a floor vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Chairman, I would note again for my friend from Illinois this is not an immigration issue, it is a solvency of Social Security issue.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).

Mr. Chairman, to further demonstrate that this issue transcends normal partisanship, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), my friend from the other side of the aisle.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Chairman, to close out advocacy on this amendment, I yield the remaining minute to my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding me this time.

I listened with great interest to my friend from Indiana, and I rise asking this House to reject this motion to instruct because when we take a closer look at what is transpiring here, we do see really a distillation, a distinction, of two different philosophies. One is the notion that the highest and best use of the taxpayers' money is here by government. And that is fine. That is an intellectually defensible position; but those who offer that tonight, I believe, need to make very clear to the American public what, in fact, transpires if we embrace this motion to instruct.

Essentially what will transpire, despite the best efforts of my friends on the other side, if this body fails to act to maintain the rate of tax relief, next year the $1,000 child tax credit shrinks. It shrinks to $700 per child.

If we want to provide tax relief for working families, the desired goal that we hear from our friends here, we do not want, in essence, to increase taxes. But that will be what will happen. We will see the marriage penalty provision reduced.

And it is fine to have a disagreement. My friends on the other side view this as a fundamental cost to government. Again, that is fine, and I will leave that position for them to stake out, and we could go back through a litany of history in deficit spending that in previous Congresses it seemed to matter not a whit. But we welcome this adherence that my friends now say they have for fiscal accountability, responsibility. We welcome it from any quarter.

But the question becomes, What is the best way really long term to reduce deficits? And this argument, incidentally, is nothing really new. It has been part and parcel of our constitutional Republic since the Federalist Papers. Hamilton and others said, why do we not embrace a policy of growth? When we reduce taxation across the board, when we maintain the $1,000-per-child tax credit, when we maintain the alleviation of the marriage penalty that we have incorporated into current law, we actually grow the economy because people have more of their hard-earned money to spend.

And so it is important to maintain the tax relief that we have already established, not to come back and fill under the notion that somehow by doing so, we are being more fiscally accountable and responsible. No, we are not to the families who depend on the tax relief. And if we reject across-the-board tax relief, we are hurting the very people who produce in our economy.

Good people can disagree. And we appreciate the motion to instruct, and we appreciate the lectures that will be forthcoming, to be sure, on fiscal responsibility. But at the end of the day when we maintain a reduction of taxation across the board, we grow our economy. We have seen that happen. It is not partisan. Many of my friends on this side and, indeed, throughout the Chamber and across this country, Mr. Speaker, remember with great reverence Jack Kennedy's Presidency, remember his argument that a rising tide lifts all the boats, that when we cut taxes across the board, we invigorate the economy.

We saw that happen, though, sadly, President Kennedy did not live to see the result. We saw it happen in the Presidency of Ronald Reagan. We have seen a reinvigoration of our economy through the across-the-board tax relief that we have offered now that should be made permanent because that is the very thing that has gotten us out of the economic doldrums in the wake of 9/11.

So, respectfully, not doubting the sincerity of my friend from Indiana, nor the speakers who will follow, we just have two different paths we need to follow. Either embrace pro-growth notions that in the fullness of time we know that long term we actually increase revenues to the government for more economic activity. And despite the best efforts of my friend, I do not want to see the per-child tax credit watered down to $700 a year. I do not want to see a decrease in the benefits we have offered married couples. I do not want to see an abridgement in what, in essence, in the long term will actually increase revenues to the government through increased economic activity.

But two different points of view: either the money belongs to the folks, or it belongs to the government. If we vote ``yes'' on the motion to instruct, what we are doing is saying the highest and best use of the people's money, Mr. Speaker, is here in Washington, D.C. I believe it is exactly the opposite. I believe the highest and best use of the money is not to ignore our obligations, but to understand the money belongs to the people. When the people keep more of it, when the families with children keep more of it, when married couples keep more of it, when small business owners have more of their money to save, spend, and invest, we indeed ignite the engines of economic prosperity.

And in the long term, Mr. Speaker, we will see more revenue to the government, not through the heavy hand of castor oil economics, but through the real proven success, whether in the Kennedy years or in the Reagan years or more recently this Congress working with this President, we fire the engines of economic activity.

So with all due respect to my friends on the other side, reject this motion to instruct. Stay the course. In the long term it will mean more economic prosperity and the very revenues to the government my friends on the other side purport to want to see.

Offered By: Mr. Hayworth

Amendment No. 6: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, in front of the grand edifice known as our National Archives, where this Nation's records and a good bit of its written history is kept, are these words: ``What is past is prologue.'' And yet today, in the wake of last night's wire service and subsequent press reports, perhaps that should be amended to read, ``What is past is purloined'' or ``What is secret is stolen.''

Mr. Speaker, press accounts today indicate that former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger is the focus of a criminal investigation dealing with the theft of classified documents in the care of our National Archives. It seems that former National Security Adviser Berger, at the direction of former President Clinton, was sent to the National Archives to review documents that might be germane to the mission of the bipartisan 9/ll Commission examining the events of 9/11 and the security situation and intelligence situation which our country confronts.

Mr. Speaker, according to press accounts, former National Security Adviser Berger took copies of some documents. By some accounts he stuffed them into his pants, into his pants pockets, and he left the National Archives with secret material.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in a rather pathetic effort at defense, Mr. Berger's attorney said that his client's actions were inadvertent. I thank my colleague from Kansas for handing me the unabridged dictionary of the English language from which I will read today: ``Inadvertent: Unintentional, not attentive, heedless of, pertaining to, or characterized by a lack of attention.'' Inadvertent.

That is curious. The former National Security Adviser inadvertently putting classified documents into his pockets; inadvertently leaving the archives with classified material? Oh yes, his legal counsel went on to say that our former National Security Adviser was sloppy. Sloppy? Inadvertent? No, Mr. Speaker, there was a purpose to what Mr. Berger did. What was Mr. Berger, Mr. Speaker, trying to keep from the American people and from the 9/11 Commission?

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, before any report is released, we should find out exactly what documents were taken and exactly what those documents indicated. This is not an inadvertent act. This is not an act of sloppiness. It is an act that is criminal, and it carries with it not only consequences for Mr. Berger, I daresay it carries with it, sadly, perhaps even deadly consequences for the United States.

It is not sloppiness that led to a lack of security. It is not an inadvertent act. There are purposes behind those who would attempt to shield the truth, and those purposes need to be determined and the American people need to be aware of what action was taken or what action was not taken by those who served in positions of trust, by those who purport to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

And, even at this time of year, where inevitably the call from the left will be that this is some effort to politicize what has transpired, Mr. Speaker, this is too important for politics. This is national survival.

No, what is past is prologue. And, Mr. Speaker, I pray it is not prologue to yet another attack.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome many of the comments from my colleague from Texas. Homeland security and our national security, indeed, the survival and the continued success of the American people is what is at stake as we find ourselves engaged in this new type of warfare, this war on terror.

I believe it is important, despite this time of year and the pending political season, to understand that it is important not to politicize but at the same time to point out genuine differences of opinion that may exist because, after all, that is the purpose of the House of Representatives.

But, Mr. Speaker, to those who might misinterpret abroad, to those who perhaps fail to understand our tradition of vigorous debate and honest disagreement, Mr. Speaker, at this time in this place in the well of the people's House, let us reaffirm as a Nation our resolve to do, in the words of my constituents from the Fifth Congressional District of Arizona, ``whatever it takes'' to protect our homeland and to ensure that the American Nation not only survives but thrives.

Good people can disagree; but on this point there should be no disagreement.

There are those who are tempted to strike the homeland; severe consequences will follow those actions.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4115) to amend the Act of November 2, 1966 (80 Stat. 1112), to allow binding arbitration clauses to be included in all contracts affecting the land within the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Reservation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4115.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4115 is a bill I have sponsored along with my friend and colleague, the gentleman from the State of Arizona (Mr. Flake), to resolve a problem affecting an Indian tribe in my district.

It is basically a technical correction to a provision in existing law pertaining to leases and contracts on the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Reservation which is located in the Phoenix metropolitan area.

The Committee on Resources ordered the bill reported by unanimous consent on May 19, 2004.

The need for this bill originates in the Act of November 2, 1966, and in subsequent amendments to related leasing laws affecting Indian lands. The Act of November 2, 1966, authorizes the Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian community to put binding arbitration clauses into leases and contracts for business development on its reservation.

Without such binding arbitration clauses, many investors would not be interested in doing business with the tribe because there would be no means of enforcing contracts. Unfortunately, an amendment to a related provision of law has made it unclear whether the tribe may put the binding arbitration clauses into all of its contracts and leases. This bill clarifies that the tribe may include binding arbitration clauses in all contracts for business developments on its reservation.

There are sometimes concerns expressed over passing bills that affect tribal land rights without securing the consent of the affected tribe. In this case, H.R. 4115 was specifically requested by the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian community which has informed me and my colleagues who join me on the Committee on Resources that it stands to lose major economic development opportunities on its reservation unless this bill is enacted. According to the tribe's attorneys, the language of the bill will solve the tribe's problem.

The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian community should be applauded for its aggressive pursuits of economic development and diversification. It is taking advantage of its location in a major metropolitan area to attract investors and create jobs and prosperity for the tribe, its members, and also for the surrounding communities.

Enacting H.R. 4115 enables the tribe to execute leasing contracts that will benefit the tribe and its members far into the future.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation may seem like just a minor fix to a technical leasing issue, but in fact there is much at stake for the tribe's economic future in the passage of the bill. I urge adoption of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4492) to amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to extend the authorization for certain national heritage areas, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4492, the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4492, introduced by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), would amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to extend the authorization for certain National Heritage Areas, and for other purposes.

The bill was subsequently amended by the Committee on Resources where five additional titles were added. As amended, Title I would extend the existing authorities of six established National Heritage Areas. Titles II and VI would establish the National Aviation Heritage Area in Ohio and the Oil Region National Heritage Area in northwestern Pennsylvania, respectively. Titles III, IV, and V would make technical changes to two existing National Heritage Areas and one Heritage Trail Route.

The existing Heritage Areas seek to transition their management authority to a nonprofit organization, which is in line with more recent Heritage Area management, and the Trail Route seeks to produce an economic feasibility plan in an effort to move away from Federal appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4492 is supported by the majority and minority of the committee.

I urge adoption of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3874) to convey for public purposes certain Federal lands in Riverside County, California, that have been identified for disposal, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3874, the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3874, introduced by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono), as amended by the Committee on Resources, would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey 44 acres of Federal land identified for disposal in Riverside County, California, to Father Joe's Villages, a successful nonprofit organization that assists the homeless in California. Father Joe's plans to develop a comprehensive operation that will address both housing and training needs for the homeless in the greater Coachella Valley.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3874 is supported by the majority and minority of the Committee on Resources and by the administration.

I urge adoption of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1156) to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to increase the ceiling on the Federal share of the costs of phase I of the Orange County, California, Regional Water Reclamation Project.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1156, the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1156, introduced by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), increases the authorized Federal cost ceiling of the phase I Regional Water Reclamation Project in Orange County, California, by $60 million.

Local project sponsors have expressed a desire to expand the groundwater replenishment system, which injects highly treated wastewater blended with other sources of water into the local groundwater aquifer. This project will provide an additional water supply for future use and create a freshwater barrier to prevent seawater intrusion.

The project reduces the region's dependency on imported water supplies and provides drought-proofing safeguards.

I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers; I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2831) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey the Newlands Project Headquarters and Maintenance Yard Facility to the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2831, the bill under consideration.

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

H.R. 2831, authored by the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), our distinguished Committee on Resources vice chairman, directs the Secretary of the Interior to transfer 35 acres to the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District as soon as practicable. This transfer, which includes the Newlands Projects headquarters and maintenance yard facility, would occur after adjustments for the lease and sale of other project lands have been included in the valuation process.

The bill also stipulates that environmental analyses, including those under the National Environmental Policy Act, must be completed prior to the transfer.

I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1014) to require Federal land managers to support, and to communicate, coordinate, and cooperate with, designated gateway communities, to improve the ability of gateway communities to participate in Federal land management planning conducted by the Forest Service and agencies of the Department of the Interior, and to respond to the impacts of the public use of the Federal lands administered by these agencies, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1014, introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich), would facilitate better communication between the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior and those designated communities located adjacent to our Federal lands which have come to be known as gateway communities. These gateway communities have and continue to be impacted by decisions made by managers of our public lands and oftentimes fulfill an integral part in the mission of these Federal lands by providing necessary services such as schools, roads, search and rescue, emergency and medical support, drinking water and sanitary systems, to name just a few. It would improve the relationship among Federal land managers, elected officials, and residents of gateway communities, enhance facilities and services available to visitors to our Federal lands, and improve the coordination of land use planning and decisions made by Federal land managers.

In addition, this legislation would make grants available to eligible gateway communities to participate in the Federal land planning process, further giving these communities a place at the table when decisions are being made.

H.R. 1014 is supported by the majority and the minority of the committee. I urge adoption of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich), the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Land.

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