Floor Statements

It is so true that slavery was an abomination and is even today an abomination. It was a blight on this country's collective soul, and we can thank God that it has been eliminated.

Emancipation Hall, it does have a great ring to it. It sounds beautiful and it sounds like it's high time that such a hall were so named, and it does sound like an appropriate hall.

As I go back, though, and think through the comments and the speeches of those who were able to get rid of this abomination in this country, I think about the reasoning they had. Some have said that if there is no universal standard of right and wrong, if there is no force in the universe beyond ourselves that is unwavering as to right and wrong, then people can treat others the way they wish. If we are each god in our own way, then we can treat each other as we wish.

But I believe, as those who fought so hard to eliminate slavery, that there is a universal standard of right and wrong, and that is the God that's referenced ``In God We Trust.''

But as we look throughout the Congressional Visitor Center, we find the Emancipation Hall will be a great addition, but there ought to be a basis, some reference, so people know why the emancipation was so important.

Yet, as I understand it, the term ``Creator,'' ``we are endowed by a Creator with certain inalienable rights,'' that's nowhere in the hall; that's been eliminated. There is no reference to the Lord. The Constitution is dated in the year of our Lord in 1787. We find out a couple of weeks ago that ``Laus Deo'' that's on the capstone of the Washington Monument, meaning ``praise be to God'' has been obliterated and changed from the display so that people don't know what's up there. And the capstone itself, the monument replica, is turned where people can't see it.

We are categorically removing God and references to Creator, to God, to Lord, from all of these things. And Lincoln, in his addresses, repeatedly said we pray to the same God, it's in his second inaugural address, and yet the efforts these days are to eliminate that.

John Quincy Adams' eloquent speeches on the floor of Statuary Hall over and over and over demanding an end to this abomination, that God will judge America harshly if we don't eliminate it, Lincoln said, after he became President, wasn't much happening during those 2 years he was in the House except for those ``great sermons from that dear man Adams.''

So I hope that not only can we move forward with naming the hall more appropriately Emancipation Hall, I think that's wonderful, but I think that we ought to restore to the plans God, who made it all possible.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I ask to manage the time on behalf of the opposition since I am opposed to the bill in its current form.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure glad my friend, the chairman of Judiciary, sought time for people to revise and extend their remarks, because they are going to need it. This thing keeps changing. I mean, I reviewed this bill last week. I spent a long time going line by line, only to find yesterday there's still a new version, and today I was provided a 98-page bill. I can't tell you the pages of the issues that I am most concerned about because the version keeps changing.

Now, this bill includes $330 million in authorizations. Normally, suspensions

are noncontroversial, but the fact that this bill keeps changing is absolute evidence that this is not noncontroversial. It keeps changing because people can't figure out what is the best thing to do.

I would submit there is a good reason for that. The bill that this seeks to renew and programs that are sought to be renewed are ones we don't have information on how successful they were, and that was the original purpose of this bill. Back when it expired in 2005, we still did not have the information on what worked and what didn't.

I can tell you from my days as a judge, there was some anecdotal evidence that it looked like faith-based programs did a better job of dramatically reducing recidivism. In one case I was shown results from a prison in Texas where it dropped down to about 8 percent from over 80 percent because of faith-based programs and mentoring.

This new version, I haven't even been through it. I haven't had time to go through it. But the one that I saw and reviewed on Friday, it included reentry programs allowing payment for housing and health care. I know our military members who are leaving after less than 20 years in the service with honorable discharges would love to have that kind of help reentering.

There are some provisions that allow for too much administration, in my opinion; 11 percent at one point, 15 percent at another. That is not going to help people. That is going to build a bigger bureaucracy.

Dismissing all charges if someone completes drug rehab under another provision I think is outrageous. You are going to remove the hammer that would allow you to keep people in line? It is one thing to say we are going to remove you and not have you go to prison and instead send you to drug rehab, and then if you get through there, before you have a chance to go out and do cocaine again, we are going to drop all charges so we have no hammer over your head. I don't know if this is in the final bill. It was in there last I saw on Friday.

There is a provision that allows payments through the Department of Labor for support. There are military members, and I went to another funeral Saturday, a gentleman who was not killed in Iraq, he was killed during surgery, but I know his family would love to have the kind of support being provided in here for felons.

We also have a provision in here, we are going to pay people through these grants to teach inmates how they can go about getting the most welfare before they leave prison and go out on their own. There is also a provision that moves inmates to home detention without approval of the judge who sentenced the individual.

In this bill, the elderly, for purposes of moving to home detention, is defined as 65. I guess apparently under this bill, without any underlying evidence or research to support it, we have arbitrarily picked 65 as deciding that is when people are harmless. But I know from my own experience around this Chamber, there are people in Congress that are 65 or older that are certainly not harmless. In any event, I think that is a little bit too young to classify people as harmless.

There is a provision that assistance will be provided by the United States probation system and it ``shall'' be done. I don't know, I can't find from the bill what kind of assistance that will be. But I think we have all got the same goal. I think one of the worst atrocities in the justice system has been our lack of rehabilitating and educating and preparing people to go out into the world and become productive citizens and finally reach the God-given potential that every one of them has. I couldn't agree more with the proposition, and I know that is the heart of my colleagues across the aisle. But we don't have the information on which programs are successful and which aren't.

I want to work together on a program. I've kind of been cut out of this process. The National Summit on Prisoner Reentry is coming up in Los Angeles on November 27 and 28, but we are going to rush this through on a suspension bill for $330 million without even having a chance to really review the most recent document.

Yes, I will be glad to yield, and if you can show that we have gotten the recent version----

Claiming back my time, I am not yielding for you to criticize me.

I appreciate yielding to the gentlelady to come down and call me outrageous. But what is outrageous is this process, this process of taking something so important and rushing it in here without having the proper input and the proper information. The National Institute of Justice has got their biggest study program in its history ongoing, and we don't have the results, and yet my colleagues want to rush in and throw $330 million at a process that is unproven and untried.

I just don't think that is the way to go. We have got honest people involved in the process, but the process itself here has not been honest.

With that, I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for a question?

Was there no version of the bill filed today? Was there no version of the Second Chance Act filed today?

Thank you.

May I inquire how much time I've got.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Nothing would please me more than to be involved in the process of constructively working on these issues. When I think about the gentlelady saying that my comments were outrageous, everything that I have said is documented. Everything I have said comes from reading through this bill, as well as my own experience from my days of being a judge.

I wholeheartedly agree, we should do a better job of rehabilitating and educating. In fact, I just get concerned when we get so anxious to try to do something good that we end up throwing money at a problem just so we can say we worked on it, something had to be done.

But it was the National Institute of Justice Award to RTI International, a nonprofit research organization, to evaluate the programs funded by the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative. This is one of the largest evaluation studies funded by the NIJ, and it is doing this research. The Urban Institute, a nonpartisan economic and social policy research organization in D.C., is the collaborator on the project. I am really looking forward to getting that information. I am wondering why we throw more money at a situation before we get the information that tells me how and tells us how to be most effective?

When my good friend the chairman, and I do think the world of him, talks about comity and goodwill, that is what I would love to have. But when we have such trouble getting copies of the latest versions, and then the chairman says, gee, I had the latest version on Friday, I was notified by the committee staff that there was a new version as of yesterday and then the new version was filed today. So, I didn't have everything Friday. That has been one of the problems here. This is too important of an issue to just be throwing good money after bad.

I would also point out that in the interests of comity and goodwill, the bills that follow this, H.R. 3845, PROTECT Our Children Act of 2007, I indicated before that sounded like something I would want to be part of and helping with, but we never did get a final version that we could say, yes, I want to cosponsor that.

Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act of 2007 sounds like another good bill, but we haven't seen it. And talking to the Judiciary staff, that and the Effective Child Pornography Prosecution Act, H.R. 4120, that follows that, we are still trying to get updated versions of those things. So that doesn't sound to me like comity and goodwill, when we are struggling over here to even get copies.

We don't know what requests had been granted. There were things requested by the Department of Justice, in the interest of justice, please get these provisions put in this bill. We don't know what was put in and what wasn't. That, to me, does not indicate comity and goodwill. It creates all kinds of problems.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

I am not sure which four things the chairman is referring to.

I thank the chairman.

Reclaiming my time, I have been over here in the 20 minutes or so before I came up to speak talking to Judiciary staff who, unless they are changing their story now, have not been able to get the latest information on this bill. Well, they have got it on this bill. We have the final copy. I haven't had a chance to review it since it has been filed today. Most of us were out doing what we should have been doing yesterday, paying tribute to veterans all over our districts. But these subsequent bills, these are still a problem that I have been having with the Second Chance Act, getting the latest information on this.

My dear friend, Mr. Coble, we serve together on the Judiciary, had asked for time, and at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We heard moments ago that there are 212 organizations supporting the bill. I have talked to many of them over the course of our discussions on the Second Chance Act, great, noble, wonderful organizations. I couldn't find but one out of numerous ones that I talked to that actually read the bill. They all have the same goals. They all want to see adequate education and rehabilitation, cutting down on recidivism. We all want to see that. I want to see that. I think we have got to do that as a civilized society. There are many that support this goal. But, again, many haven't seen the bill.

And I have checked with the staff in the interim. For example, H.R. 719 is file-stamped November 13 at 1:11 today, and the Judiciary got it for the first time just before 3 p.m. so that you know.

But if we really want to help the situation, doesn't it make sense to get the information on one of the biggest-funded programs NIJ has ever had so we put the money where it works and take it away from where it doesn't work?

Mr. Speaker, in responding to the chairman's comment, I would have to say I noticed in reviewing the bill on Friday, it is a better bill than it was, in my opinion; but we still have a little ways to go. That is why I just think this is a bill in its present form, as it continues to morph, that should not be on the Suspension Calendar, but should come up under a regular rule where we have a chance to work on these other issues.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time so the gentleman from Michigan has the time to respond.

I appreciate the chairman yielding. I think we are getting closer, actually.

I would like to see the information that is being prepared to come forth on November 27 and 28, the newest information that is being brought to bear, all of these groups coming together. I would think then by December we ought to be able to have something.

Might I inquire, I don't have any other speakers, if I can find out where the chairman is with regard to additional speakers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate Mrs. Tubbs Jones' comments. And I guess calling me or my comments outrageous was somewhat offensive, but as an old judge I was used to that. In fact, I have been called all kinds of names.

And, yes, even 2 days ago when I was buying some potting soil back home, I had a guy come up to me with his father and said if it were not for me, he would never have straightened his life up.

Those are not uncommon comments. And what it came from was being fair, but also having tough love. Because, as those who have been involved in dealing with people who have been addicted to drugs or alcohol, it does take tough love. And you do want to help them get out of the cycle rather than becoming an enabler. And that is my number one concern, is that we do not want to be enablers.

And when we talk about Scripture, absolutely, there are all kinds of verses that apply to us for those that believe the teachings of Jesus as I do. They are entirely appropriate. Those are directed to individuals. If you get over to Romans 13, that is directed to the government. And where it says if you do evil, you need to be afraid, because God does not give the government the sword in vain, that is part of the role of government; if you do evil, then there are consequences.

But it is a worthy goal to want to try to stop the cycle of recidivism. We all, I think, want that. No, I don't think; I know, we all want that same goal. But I am very concerned that we may be enabling by throwing money at a problem.

One of the saddest words and lines I ever heard came at a hearing when the wealthiest people in my home county, they had the courtroom packed so that they were hoping that I would put her on probation yet again, and they knew she had had it too many times and it wasn't going to happen under me. And it didn't. And it turns out she had a huge trust fund every month. She never had to work, she never had to study, and she had spent all her money on drugs. And the last thing she said before I sentenced her was, ``I wish somebody had told me `no' before today and meant it.''

She has now gotten out. Her mother, when I was walking neighborhoods, I went up to her door and her mother said, ``Come in and sit down.'' She said, ``You know, my husband and I just hated you at one point, but you saved our daughter's life.''

Sometimes it is the tough love things that turn things around. We want the same goal. I don't want to throw good money after bad in renewed programs that shouldn't be. And I hope that if this fails on suspension, we can get the new data that is going to be forthcoming and work toward the same goal with additional, more helpful information.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Chairman, my time is short. I'll get right to some of these issues. I just have a copy of the bill here.

Under the definition of ``religious organization,'' it actually excludes by definition schools, institutions that have been started by churches in which they set up their own boards, because it requires that the institution has to be in whole or in substantial part controlled, managed, owned or supported by the religion. So free- standing educational institutions, bookstores, things like that, would be opened up. Because there is so much language, I think while the Boy Scouts felt they were safe by the past litigation, but this opens up that whole new can of worms and we can expect more litigation against the Boy Scouts.

To add in some of these things like, you can bring a lawsuit for discrimination if you don't like your conditions. I had one lawsuit that went nowhere because a woman claimed she was moved from working on copper to working on aluminum and that was an insult. Under this, that's a legitimate lawsuit if you have manifested, acted or had people perceive you in such a way that they think you may be homosexual.

What this does is it invites people to come apply for a job, and if they feel like they may not get a job, make utterances like, well, you think I'm gay, that's why, and they will have a lawsuit. I can guarantee you, many lawyers will encourage their clients, the employers, to pay something just to make it go away.

Training programs are listed. If you don't get the seminar, then you can go in and say, you didn't give me that trip because you think I'm gay. There may be a lawsuit there. In fact, you could, and lawyers in some circumstances, I would say most circumstances, will say, yeah, you ought to settle with these guys because they can take you to the cleaners.

There is a provision, though, here. Isn't it nice, we have a provision in here that says States shall not be immune under the 11th amendment. This legislation is just going to set aside an amendment to the Constitution legislatively. My goodness. That's pretty bold. Pretty bold. Then we get down to what the real issue may be here, attorneys' fees on page 18. You're getting attorneys' fees. All the tort reform that occurred on med mal, this will bring litigation many times over if this becomes law. But the good news for the United States is, we have a provision in here, the United States will not be subject to punitive damages. Don't have a provision like that for States and for employers. So look out.

What this Congress is now attempting to dictate is which religious beliefs and moral beliefs the majority believes are okay and which religious beliefs it feels are not okay. This will actually encourage people, whether they are gay or not, to flaunt or manifest what may be perceived to be characterizations to help the lawyers.

Mr. Speaker, there's a phrase that's used in the Bible a number of times: ``It came to pass.'' That really struck me this weekend.

You know, the Republican majority, it came and it passed. The Democratic majority, it came and it will pass. So that needs to be thought about in these unprecedented procedural rules that shut out so much of America from having representation.

You have a Rules Committee that says, we'll not allow any amendments. Now put on your evidence about your amendments.

We have a majority leader that came to the floor and said, we reached out to the other side. I had a meeting this morning about SCHIP.

The bill was put on display at 7:30; we didn't even get a copy. You have to come and look at the copy.

It came to pass. I don't know how long the majority of the Democrats

will last, but it came and it will pass. And people need to remember they're setting very, very dangerous precedents.

It came and it will pass.

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

Mr. Speaker, while H.R. 189 went through both a hearing and a full committee, but not subcommittee, markup, several issues have gone unresolved. The National Park Service conducted a study as requested by this body to determine whether the Great Falls Historic District in Paterson, New Jersey, should become a national park. The study concluded that the area did not meet the criteria for inclusion in the National Park System.

Now, if we entrust the National Park Service with the management of our own crown jewels, then why are we ignoring their expert judgment that this should not be a national park? I remind my colleagues that we requested the park service to tell us what should be done here.

I recognize also it is our responsibility and our right as the legislative branch to decide what will become a national park regardless of what the park service tells us. There are times when it is necessary to disagree with them. However, in this case, we do not even know what the costs are. We don't know, nor does the park service have any idea, how it would manage the area. That is what we asked them to tell us and they are not in a position to do that at this time.

Now, the park service has already got a full plate and a billion dollar maintenance backlog. They are not even keeping up with and taking care of the parks that have been entrusted to them. So is this really the time to add another park that doesn't meet the criteria to add to this burden with this designation?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do need to address the question, and it may have been rhetorical, how dare anyone imply that this area is not significant? I haven't heard anybody imply such a thing. It is truly significant. That is not the issue. The issue is priorities.

We have been hearing for the last week how important it is for poor children to have health care insurance. There are so many priorities; yet there are thousands and thousands of wonderfully historic significant pieces of property. No one, I would hope, would dare say that this area was not significant. It is quite significant.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my friend from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, but I understand, and I have not had the privilege of visiting the Great Falls area, it is supposed to be one of the most beautiful areas and I am greatly appreciative of that. As I understand, this area is expected to include a microbrewery, a climbing wall, and an apartment complex is what was brought to my attention. And these of course raise other issues of liability. When we look around the country at all of the parks that are struggling right now to take care of their needs because the park service is a billion dollars in arrears as far as taking care of their current obligations, it should cause us to look carefully and go slowly in absorbing other land until we have the wherewithal to do so and the park service is able to work with Congress to come up with a solid plan to care for the park.

There are also other issues when you bring in these other things like a microbrewery, a climbing wall, and an apartment complex regarding liabilities that may arise. There are so many questions still out there yet to be resolved.

I have to say with regard to the Resources Committee, I am well pleased there are so many things that are completely bipartisan, and we have a number of them today. But because of the issues involved here, we will be asking our colleagues to vote ``no'' until we have a better plan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe the National Parks Subcommittee chairman has adequately explained this bill, and we have no objection.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I think my friend from Arizona has adequately explained the bill. We support it and I have no objections, and even though it's unusual here in Congress to yield back any time, we do so yield back our time.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the bill has been properly explained.

I would like to add a personal touch as a Member of Congress from Texas. We are proud that a Texan like Dwight Eisenhower is being honored. Not many people are aware, since he grew up in Kansas, that he was born in Denison, Texas, but there was so much about this great man to be admired. It is a wonderful tribute, and of course, as chairman of the National Parks Subcommittee has indicated, this is not the beginning of the process. This is continuing the ongoing process to make this a reality.

So we are very pleased that it's occurring. Of course, from a personal standpoint, I like the fact that he was a Republican and especially liked his hairline, but especially what he did for this Nation and shoring us up, protecting us in World War II, guiding this Nation as its President. This is a wonderful tribute, and I appreciate the work of the chairman in bringing this about.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 523 and yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, I would like to thank Committee Chairman Rahall and Subcommittee Chairman Grijalva for scheduling and for pushing this important legislation. This straightforward bill allows for the conveyance of a few small pieces of public land to the Douglas Public Utility District for fair market value and then dedicates the sales proceeds to improving public access to existing Bureau of Land Management lands in Washington State. This conveyance from one public agency to another will better facilitate the use of this land.

Congressman Doc Hastings is also to be commended for his work. He has worked and pushed, and it's great to see this all coming to fruition. Congressman Hastings is traveling from his district at this time and cannot be here.

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

I do thank my colleague from the Virgin Islands for outlining H.R. 53.

Two-thirds of the island of St. John is comprised of the Virgin Islands National Park. The park's dominant size is negatively impacting the quality of life for the growing population there at St. John. Without utilizing the park land, there is no other suitable property to build a school on St. John.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill. We had hoped to consider an amendment to convey the property outright for the school, as was offered, but then withdrawn by Congressman Jeff Flake during our committee consideration of this bill.

However, Chairman Rahall has given his support for other long-term leases, and this bill does establish an important precedent for the National Park Service.

We support the bill. It is for a great purpose. I would urge my colleagues to support this, since we don't have an amendment to give it outright to my colleague, but, in the meantime, we support this bill and wish the project well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 767, the REPAIR Act, as it is called, and yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to also congratulate and thank my dear friend from Guam. She gives hope to this country and encouragement by showing that there is class and there is graciousness in this body, and it exists in the delegate from Guam. She also carries that out as chairman of the subcommittee.

Now, the effectiveness of the REPAIR Act will be in direct proportion to the amount of money Congress allocates. We simply cannot afford to let our wildlife refuges be systematically destroyed by invasive species, and that is happening. This legislation is a positive step because it offers hope in the fight against invasives in the future.

One such species is the giant silvinia, a plant that has made its way across many lakes as it has entered Texas. It is a small harmless- looking little aquatic plant that finds itself on boat trailers leaving a lake. When the boat trailer is lowered into another lake, the nightmare floating plant finds itself in a new lake, and it can take over. It doubles its size in less than a week, and in no time covers acres, shutting off sunlight, killing off plants underneath, which results in aquatic life dying. It must be fought and eradicated without doing damage to the lake during the fight. Such a battle takes many good minds and hard workers coming together to prevent this creeping menace from being the last thing left in a lake alive.

In Louisiana, there are cities like Shreveport whose sources of drinking water are being put in jeopardy by this freak of nature. Just recently I toured Caddo Lake, the largest freshwater natural lake at one time and a true treasure for America with its cypress trees, Spanish moss, and unusual fish. We had a joint task force of biologists and brilliant environmental problem-solvers from Federal, State, private groups, who all had the same goal: eradicate the invasion of this foreign species without doing damage to the lake.

I just want to read a list of the types of people that are willing to come together when we deal with something that is such a grave threat to our water supplies.

We had Dan Turner, representing Congressman Jim McCrery of Louisiana; Ken Shaw, chairman, Cypress Valley Navigation District; Robert Speight, President, Greater Caddo Lake Association; Jack Canson, community response coordinator; Mark Williams, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Caddo Lake National Wildlife Refuge manager; Al Tasker, USDA/Animal Plant Health Inspection Service; Dustin Grant, USDA/Plant Protection and Quarantine, State operations support officer; Dr. Earl Chilton, Texas Parks & Wildlife, and a member of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee for the National Invasive Species Council, Department of the Interior; Paul Hoffman, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Department of Interior/NISC; also Dr. Michael Grodowitz, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, biocontrol expert; Dr. Randy Westbrooks, U.S. Geological Survey, invasive plant coordinator; Judge Richard Anderson, Harrison County judge; Jerry Lomax, Harrison County Precinct 1 commissioner; C.E. Bourne, Marion County Precinct 3 commissioner for Judge Parker; Sam Canup, mayor of the City of Uncertain, and that is a real city, Uncertain, Texas; Jay Webb, Caddo Lake Chamber of Commerce; Bill Abney, Red River Compact; Walt Sears, manager, Northeast Texas Municipal Water District; Dwight Shellman, Caddo Lake Institute; Todd Dickenson, manager, Caddo Lake State Park; Alan Grantham, Dallas Caddo Club; Connie Ware, Marshall Chamber of Commerce; Dr. Jim Harris, Marshall Chamber of Commerce, Water Committee Chair; and Sam Moseley of Marshall.

It just points up how important what this bill addresses is. These are invasive species that come into lakes and to parks and take over and destroy the native habitat that we are trying to preserve. I have to say, when we had this meeting that went on for a number of hours, I don't recall one time during the entire meeting where anybody ever asked what party anybody ever supported politically. It was all about trying to protect what God had graced this country with, and it is wonderful to see that kind of support.

But what is very clear is that we cannot fight off these nonnative invasive species unless we work together in a bipartisan, in a cumulative fashion with all these different scientists, biologists, governmental groups coming together, because it affects so many different areas. It's one of the reasons I am so grateful to my friend from Guam and for all of those that have worked to help make this possible. We have got to preserve what we have got, and this is one of the ways to do it.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, some people advocate mechanical removal of an invasive species; others advocate using natural means, whether it's an insect or a fish or something to help control an invasive species. Some offer that there are chemical means for dealing with those.

But unless we come together on a bill like this, bringing all the different entities with all the difference weapons

at their command, we are not going to be able to control some of these species. Some of them, like the giant silvinia, are so resistant to so much, and they hide among other plants until they take over and just spread so rapidly, that we must come together.

It is gratifying to see such bipartisan effort in trying to hold on to the land we love.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1205, the Coral Reef Conservation Amendments Act of 2007. We thank the gentleman from American Samoa and, once again, my friend from Guam and also the gentleman from Puerto Rico for their work on this legislation.

Coral reefs are truly a treasure, but they mean the world to the aquatic life in those areas. This legislation authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to undertake coral reef conservation activities. It does involve matching grants, and it provides it in areas under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior.

At this time, though, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to my friend from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It does a good thing and preserves something that is so vital to our Nation as a resource. We do need to be careful about the unintended consequences of the expansion of the term ``wildlife'' in other statutes just to give the Secretary authority over coral reefs and coral reef ecosystems, even in limited circumstances.

But with that aside, I would encourage support for the bill, and yield back the balance of my time.

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

H.R. 1462 stems from endangered species conflicts along the Platte River. As a result of lawsuits and the real threat of water and power infrastructure being shut down over endangered species conflicts, the Federal Government, three States, water and power users, and environmental organizations came together on the Platte River Recovery Program, and this legislation implements part of that program. The result is that existing water and power infrastructure is protected while a collaborative and far-reaching program to help save four different species begins.

Since this program is contingent upon Federal appropriations and a State can opt out, the governance committee charged with implementing the program has the enormous responsibility of keeping all stakeholders together, conversing with affected parties, communities and landowners on land and water issues and finding real results. Congress will continue to have oversight on this program to see if it is being run effectively and efficiently. This legislation, if implemented properly, can be a win-win for both the people and species of the Platte River basin.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield back, let me just emphasize again there were so many interests at work here. I don't know if anybody is totally thrilled with the result, but it seemed to be an appropriate way to bring what could be

done together to come about with a result that will require oversight, will require monitoring. But under the circumstances to keep things from being totally shut down, we would encourage our colleagues to support this bill.

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

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

I rise in support of H.R. 1337.

H.R. 1337, authored by Congressman Tom Cole, authorizes a feasibility study to assist Norman, Oklahoma, and the surrounding area to meet long-term water supplies through the expansion of a Federal water project.

Like many areas throughout the West, these Oklahoma communities are faced with growing water supply challenges. This thoughtful bill provides limited Federal assistance to expand a Federal reservoir, but preserves local rights and jurisdiction.

Although some of us have concerns that there are people who play football in the Norman, Oklahoma, area and they have been overly aggressive as of late with some of our Texas teams, we are hopeful that by providing this help that it will cool down some of that overaggressiveness.

I would urge my colleagues to support the bill.

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