Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), and I also want to express my respect for the work the gentleman has done on this bill and the way it has been done. But unfortunately, for reasons that are largely beyond his control, there are serious defects and deficiencies in this bill, so at the appropriate time I intend to offer a motion to recommit.

This conference report breaks the promise to maintain the fully funded Interior portion of the Conservation Trust Fund, and that would be at $1.56 billion. The Conservation Trust Fund was groundbreaking, bipartisan conservation legislation designed to protect the Nation's threatened natural resources. To abandon it after only a few years violates a commitment that this House and this Congress made to the American people. Instead of the promised $1.56 billion, the bill contains just over $1 billion, $447 million below the authorized level and $87 million even below that appropriated last year.

This funding level is an assault on the ability of the Nation to conserve lands and protect sensitive forests and parks. This funding is important because the American people value the programs in the Conservation Trust Fund for protecting open space and historic sites, conserving wildlife and wildlands, and creating opportunities for recreation for both body and soul. Because of these cuts, some threatened lands that would have otherwise been protected will now be lost forever.

Within the Conservation Trust Fund, the Land and Water Conservation Fund which funds land acquisition is especially hard hit with deep cuts. Land acquisition is funded at only $176 million, that is $137 million below last year. It is a 60 percent cut below 2002. So this conference report willfully walks away from our responsibilities to protect and conserve our precious land. And if we approve it, I predict next year we will be fighting even deeper cuts than we are experiencing this year.

And then there are a series of antienvironmental riders. This conference report includes damaging riders. Some of them, for example, would strike at the heart of the protection of the coastal lands. One Senate rider, for example, removes Alaska's Bristol Bay from protection, even though the House bill and the President's budget renewed the moratorium that put that protection in place.

Mr. Speaker, it could be our coastline next. Another Senate rider sets a dangerous precedent for interfering with the independence of the Federal judiciary by severely limiting the amount of time that the public has to challenge harmful logging projects in the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, and limiting the amount of time a Federal district court has to rule on those cases. People will be denied their time in court. There are a host of our damaging antienvironmental riders in this bill, and for those and other reasons, I will offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

In its present form, I am, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the Committee on Government Reform for bringing this bill to the floor so expeditiously. I also want to express my thanks to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), who is managing the Democratic time, and the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis), who is managing the time for the majority.

I also wish to express my thanks to the elected officials, civic organizations, and individuals in Liberty and Sullivan County, New York, for recommending and endorsing this legislation; as well as the family of Ben Gerow for providing photographs, newspaper articles, and detailed biographical information; and, finally, to the current postmaster in Liberty, New York, Gene DeCarlo, for his assistance.

It is a testament to Ben Gerow's significant contribution to Liberty that there is such overwhelming support in the local community for naming this post office in his honor. There is a true groundswell of support for this legislation. It is endorsed by Liberty community leaders and organizations locally, including the town of Liberty Democratic and Republican Committees, the town of Liberty and the Village of Liberty Boards, the village mayor, the Sullivan County Historical Society, the Greater Liberty Chamber of Commerce, and many Liberty residents and others in Sullivan County who have signed petitions.

Ben Gerow was born in Liberty, New York, in 1880, and died in 1961 at the age of 81. He lived virtually his entire life in Liberty, New York, where he was a pioneer of the automobile age who became a county sheriff, member of the New York State legislature, and a postmaster.

Ben Gerow was involved in the automobile business for 30 years. He was the first man in Liberty to own a gasoline-fueled car. He owned and operated one of the best-known businesses in Sullivan County, Gerow's Garage Machine Shop and Supply Store. He was the first Cadillac dealer in Sullivan County and also sold Fords, Dodges, and owned a rubber tire business. He was a lifelong firefighter as a member and president of the Liberty Hose and Truck Company No. 20.

Legend has it that Ben Gerow was an instrumental coconspirator in the introduction of the first motorized fire truck in Liberty and all of Sullivan County. With a few chosen friends, he got hold of an automobile chassis and a motor, refurbished and repainted it, and outfitted it with the hose and other firefighting equipment. Then one of his crew set fire to a bunch of orange crates, and Ben's motorized equipment whizzed by the firefighters from companies number one and three who were carrying their heavy hose carts by hand. This carefully staged incident reportedly ended the era of man-powered fire trucks in Liberty and in Sullivan County generally.

Ben Gerow was an active civic leader: a founding member of the Liberty Elks Lodge, a member of the Mongaup Lodge, and Free and Accepted Masons, and the Independent Order of Odd Fellows.

In addition to being a successful businessman, community leader, and honorable public servant, Ben Gerow was married to Angeline Wheeler for 61 years. Together, they raised 14 children in one of Liberty's largest families. It is notable that five of their sons served in World War II all at the same time. Overall, these two wonderful people had 65 descendents, including 34 grandchildren and 17 great grandchildren.

At the age of 50, Ben Gerow retired from business and entered politics, a natural transition, given that he is said to have been known by virtually every member of the population in Sullivan County. A lifelong Democrat, he was elected Sullivan County sheriff in 1930 and then elected to a 1-year term in the New York State Assembly in 1933. He was appointed postmaster to the Liberty post office by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1934, and he served in that position for 12 years.

Under Mr. Gerow's administration, the current Liberty post office building was sited and built as a Works Progress Administration project. Given his many accomplishments and contributions to Liberty, naming the Liberty post office in honor of Ben Gerow nearly 60 years after he retired from his long tenure as postmaster is clearly fitting, it is appropriate, and, one might say, long overdue.

Offered By: Mr. Hinchey

Amendment No. 58: Page 42, lines 2 and 3, strike ``the date

of the enactment of this Act'' and insert ``October 1,

2002,''

Mr. Speaker, as a longtime supporter and proud member of the Taiwan Caucus, I would like to recognize and congratulate Taiwan on its 92nd National Day, which it celebrated on October 10, 2003. Taiwan has made many significant accomplishments during its brief history. It is a true friend to the U.S., and one of our major trading partners.

Taiwan is one of the largest export markets for many U.S. states, including New York. With a population of 23 million, the island of Taiwan is the world's 12th largest economy and our eighth largest trading partner. These economic ties have strengthened our bilateral relationship.

Taiwan is a thriving democracy, supportive of political freedoms and human rights. Its constitution guarantees citizens freedom of assembly, expression and association, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press. Taiwan conducts free and fair elections, and is home to more than 90 political parties.

I applaud Taiwan's commitment to upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, and the Declaration and Action Program of the 1993 Vienna Conference on Human Rights. I thank Taiwan for providing humanitarian assistance to Afghan refugees, and for its generous contributions to the International Community. I fully support Taiwan's efforts to rejoin the United Nations and join the World Health Organization.

As we celebrate Taiwan's 92nd National Day, we recognize the strong relationship between our countries and commit ourselves to see this relationship continue to flourish and grow in the years to come.

Madam Speaker, earlier this evening, one of our Republican colleagues, a very fine and thoughtful gentleman, came to the well here to lament the fact that the dialogue here, the discussion in the House, has become somewhat partisan lately. I have to agree with him that that is the case. He also said that earlier, after September 11, 2001, immediately thereafter, there was a sense of unity and purpose here, we were united. There is no question that that also is true. There are legitimate reasons for both circumstances.

After the attack of September 11, of course we were united. We were united as a country and the Members in this House were united purposefully to deal with the problems associated with that attack.

The President and the Members of Congress here identified the source of that problem. It was al Qaeda network being harbored by the Taliban in Afghanistan, and we all united together to make sure that that problem was eliminated. Some of us even went to Afghanistan to be with our military personnel to show them our support for the efforts there. That military action is over. Unfortunately, due to the lack of attention of the administration, however, it is rapidly deteriorating.

But I want to talk more about the situation that exists in Iraq because that has become the major focus of our attention, and indeed it has taken on a partisan perspective, and there are very good reasons for that because we have major differences of opinion. First of all, with regard to the rationale for attacking Iraq and, secondly, with regard to how the circumstances there are being carried out by this administration and especially by the Defense Department under this administration.

Everyone will recall that the President, when he spoke here in this House to a joint session of Congress and the American people, said over and over and over again directly and indirectly that there were ties and relationships between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, between Iraq and the al Qaeda network, and that was the reason why we had to go to war. Just recently the President has had to admit that that was not the case. There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden.

Then the administration was telling us that they had to go over weapons of mass destruction. They knew there were chemical and biological weapons there in Iraq, and we had to go in there because those weapons were dangerous and they had to be taken care of. We have been there now for 5 months. We have found no chemical or biological weapons, no trace of any program dealing with nuclear weapons in spite of the fact that the President, from the podium here in this House, said that he had good solid information that the Iraqis were importing enriched uranium from Niger to facilitate the development of their nuclear program. All of that has turned out to be false. And so, yes, we raised the question why did we go to Iraq? For what purpose are we there? Why did we disrupt that country? Why have we created a situation of chaos there that has resulted in the death, up to this moment, of more than 300 American soldiers and the injury, the wounding, many of them very serious, of hundreds more, not to mention the deaths of tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and others from other countries? Yes, we question that.

Now, we find out other things. For example, we have learned recently that there are now, according to General Abizaid, who is the highest- ranking American military officer in the Persian Gulf, that there are 650,000 tons of conventional weapons in Iraq, and they are essentially unguarded. The administration is running around the country there looking for so-called weapons of mass destruction. They have not paid a bit of attention to 650,000 tons of conventional weapons, grenades, surface-to-air missiles, 500-pound bombs, things of that nature that are scattered in places all over that country.

The destruction of the UN headquarters in Iraq recently, which resulted in the death of the highest-ranking United Nations official in Iraq, is something that we are all deeply concerned about and lament. What caused that? It turns out that under an FBI investigation, they found remnants of a Russian-made 500-pound bomb that, in all likelihood, came from one of these arsenals that are scattered around Iraq unguarded from which the terrorists can get all of the explosives and all of the conventional weapons they want, because we are not paying sufficient attention to them because we are looking for something that the administration has known from the beginning, based upon intelligence from the Central Intelligence Agency, the FBI, and elsewhere, that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

They have taken us down a blind alley. We see through it. We see the falsehood. We see the mendacity. And, of course, we have an obligation, a responsibility to speak out against it. That is why the tone has turned in this House to a more partisan nature, because the administration and the leadership in this House pulled the wool over the eyes of the American people and many of the Members of this House who voted for that war resolution back last October. And now it is evident that they did so under false pretenses. It was a fraud, and we need to take action to correct it.

Madam Speaker, last February the President's Council of Economic Advisors forecast that, as a result of the economic policies of the Bush Administration, there would be 510,000 new jobs generated this year. Here we are on the advent of October; and in order for that prediction of last February to succeed, 947,000 jobs would have to be created between now and December 31, in other words, within the next 14 weeks. I wish the President's Council of Economic Advisors luck because this administration, aided and abetted by this Congress, has lost 437,000 jobs so far this year. We have had record job losses under this administration and that includes the 93,000 jobs that were lost in August alone. We do not yet have the figures of course for September, but it is likely that we will be seeing some similar amount of job loss.

This administration and this Congress have given us the worst economic performance in more than 70 years; 2.7 seven million jobs have been lost since the neoconservative Republicans have controlled both the White House and the Congress. They have also done other things which are huge in their consequences. They have given us the largest budget deficit in history, and they have also provided the Nation with a record national debt.

Just recently we learned from the Census Bureau that America is now poorer than it was last year, just as it was poorer last year than it was the year before. Median income of the average American family has dropped by more than $1,000 within the last year. America and its families are poorer today than they were this time last year. Poverty is up.

These are the statistics, bare statistics. They only begin to tell the difficult story that has fallen on American families all across this country. We need a reversal in these policies, and we need it quickly.

Mr. Speaker, recently Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts took the floor of the other body and made the observation that the stated reasons of the President for going to war in Iraq were a fraud, that the war in Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terrorism and certainly nothing to do with the specific attack on the United States of September 11. Rather, his observation was that the President's reasons for going to war in Iraq were political, and partisan political reasons at that.

Senator Kennedy's observations were correct and courageous. Since September 11, for almost 2 years, the President has inferred that there was a direct relationship between the attack on the United States by the al Qaeda network of September 11, 2001, and the Government of Iraq; that there was a direct connection between those two. Just recently the President had to admit that there was no evidence whatsoever associating either Saddam Hussein or the Government of Iraq in any way with the attack on our country of September 11.

The President has alleged that the other reason for going to war in Iraq was that Iraq possessed substantial so-called weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological weapons. He made that statement repeatedly, and that statement was made also by Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney. In fact, statements were made at certain points that they knew precisely where those so-called weapons of mass destruction were located and that they could find them very easily. That, too, has proven not to be an accurate statement.

The reasons that we have gone to war in Iraq have nothing to do with terrorism, nothing to do with the attack on the United States of September 11 and nothing to do with the presence of so-called weapons of mass destruction. They have not been found.

The administration has got to answer a basic question: Why? Why did we engage in a preventive war against another sovereign country? Why have more than 200 Americans lost their lives? Why have more than 70 Americans lost their lives since the President declared victory in Iraq? And why, because of the destruction that was caused in that war, are we now about to spend in the neighborhood of $200 billion or more for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of that country?

The President most recently has asked this body for $87 billion. That expenditure would have been unnecessary had this war not taken place.

So there is much that this administration has to answer for, and the American people, and specifically their representatives in this body, have the profound obligation to answer those questions.

If the leadership of this House was discharging its responsibilities, it would begin a series of hearings to get to the bottom of the rationale behind the administration's actions in Iraq. Why was this preventive war engaged in, and why have we lost so many lives? Why have so many Iraqis been killed? And why are we spending so much of our treasure in Iraq, when our needs here at home are so substantial

and significant and those needs are not being addressed?

These are serious questions, they need to be asked, and that is one of our most important duties as Members of the House of Representatives, to raise these questions. Why is the leadership of this House not raising these questions? Why are we not engaged in those hearings? Why are we not trying to get to the bottom of this matter? That is the responsibility of the people who operate this House of Representatives.

I call upon the leadership to engage in a concerted and directed effort to find the answer to this question: Why did we go to war? Why did we engage in this so-called preventive war, when the President now has admitted there was no connection between September 11 and the government in Iraq, when no so-called weapons of mass destruction have been found. Therefore, the stated reasons of the administration for engaging in this war have been shown to have absolutely no legitimacy, yet the costs of this action are substantial, in human life and in treasure. We must get to the bottom of this.

Mr. Speaker, as the 58th session of the United Nations General Assembly convenes this week, I rise to recognize the accomplishments of the Republic of China on Taiwan and call for its rightful return as a member of the U.N.

Taiwan has become a stable, democratic presence in Asia, a bulwark of support for human rights and a world economic power. It is a thriving multi-party democracy, with free and fair elections held at all levels of government. Taiwan also has a thriving capitalist economy. It is now the United States' eighth largest trading partner and a major investor in East Asia.

The R.O.C. has long demonstrated its commitment to the well being of the international community. It has a history of heeding calls by the U.N. for emergency relief and assistance to countries that suffer disasters and wars. Its generosity and humanitarianism have included Kosovar refugees, Afghanistan reconstruction, Iraqi food supplies, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, and victims of natural and man-made disasters in El Salvador, Turkey, Nicaragua, and New York City in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Denying Taiwan U.N. membership is not in the best interests of the world community. The memberships of the now unified East Germany and West Germany and the divided Republic of Korea and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea are examples of parallel representations of divided nations in the U.N. The U.N.'s role in exchanges between East and West Germany assisted in the eventual unification of the country in 1990.

Taiwan's membership in the UN will have enormous benefits for the international community and it is imperative that this unfair and untenable situation be resolved.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Town of Rochester in Ulster County, New York, which is part of the 22nd Congressional District that I proudly serve. This year marks the 300th Anniversary of the founding of Rochester on June 25, 1703. I am pleased to recognize the Town of Rochester and the important contributions it has made to Ulster County and to the State of New York.

The Town of Rochester is located in the Mid-Hudson Valley, and is bordered on the east by the Shawangunk Mountains, and on the west by the Catskill Mountains. It also includes part of the rich land of the Rondout Valley, and consists of approximately 48,000 acres.

Prior to European settlement, the Rondout Valley was inhabited by the Lenni-Lenape, or Esopus Indians. After the defeat of the Esopus Indians, Captain Martin Cregier led a group from the original Dutch settlement of Wildwyck, on the Hudson River, to what is now Rochester. This group first explored Rochester in 1663, and it was originally called the Town of Mumbakkus. Captain Joachim Schoonmaker led the first group of settlers to Rochester in 1685 from Kingston, NY. A small number of land grants were given out in Rochester by the Kingston trustees, which made up the closest governing body to Rochester at the time. By the time Rochester officially received its patent in 1703, there was already a solid contingent of 334 residents in the town.

Through the eighteenth century, Rochester was mainly a commercial agrarian community. The fertile soil of the Rondout Valley provided ample opportunity for the successful farming industry that Rochester was known for. In order to support the agricultural advances of the region, paper, grist, saw, and other mills were built along the major streams in the Town. Rochester was linked to Kingston and the Hudson River port by what was known as King's Highway. The original historic stone houses of Rochester, many of which remain standing today, were built during this period.

Agriculture remained the dominant economic force in Rochester throughout the nineteenth century as well, with the establishment of the Delaware and Hudson Canal. With the introduction of the Ontario and Western Railroad at the start of the twentieth century, Rochester's economic focus turned to tourism. Resorts, summer homes, and guesthouses were built, which provided Rochester's many New York City visitors with relief from the confinement of city life. Tourism contributed greatly to Rochester's economy during the first half of the twentieth century, and brought new prosperity to the region.

Evidence of Rochester's colonial history remains today, as the Town has one of the highest concentrations of inhabited 18th century homes in the nation. Rochester and the Hudson Valley continue to provide breathtaking scenery and views of the Catskill and Shawangunk Mountains to all their visitors. Small towns like Rochester are an essential component of our nation's past, present, and future, and deserve to be honored and recognized for their numerous contributions to our states and country. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to recognize the Town of Rochester, New York as it celebrates the 300th Anniversary of its founding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the Ruddick Trowbridge Post No. 73 of the American Legion, based in Monticello, New York, which is commemorating the 80th Anniversary of their Post. It is with great pleasure that I join the Post in honoring their present and former commanders and auxiliary presidents on the occasion of this significant milestone.

Named in honor of Ruddick Trowbridge, who was killed in action during World War I in France on August 10, 1918, the Ruddick Trowbridge Post was established in 1923, when its first commander, Sylvester Smith, entered office. The Post was later chartered on June 7, 1930. Since the Post was established, forty-five men have served as commander.

The Ruddick Trowbridge Post has continued to work to ensure that the tremendous contributions and sacrifices made by this nation's veterans are remembered and recognized. In addition, the Post has maintained an active role in the community. The Post has provided scholarships to deserving local students, recognized scouts for their achievements, donated flags to community organizations and municipal governments, and honored deceased veterans by decorating their graves. The Post also holds and participates in ceremonies for Memorial Day, National POW/MIA Day in September and Veterans Day.

As part of the American Legion, which boasts a membership of more than three million veterans and currently includes approximately fifteen thousand posts worldwide, the Ruddick Trowbridge Post has actively promoted the values and focus on community service that define the American Legion organization. I am proud to express my appreciation and great respect to the members of the Post for their distinguished record of service to this great nation as well as the significant contributions they have made to our local communities.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to submit these remarks in honor of the 80th Anniversary of the Ruddick Trowbridge Post No. 73 of the American Legion.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the accomplishments of my friend and constituent Max Finestone, who recently celebrated his 81st birthday. I am proud to say that Max has remained an active member of his community in Ulster County, New York and has dedicated himself to improving this nation and the lives of the people who reside in it.

For the past 60 years, Max has fought for social justice, equal opportunity, education, protection of the natural environment, and the preservation of individuals' rights of free expression. Nearly 50 years ago, Max was called to testify in this building by Senator Joseph McCarthy to defend his own rights of free speech, free thought and free assembly. He was quite wrongly accused of being un-American. To me, and to many others, he represents the finest qualities of an American citizen.

Every day of his adult life before those hearings, and indeed, every day since, Max has exemplified the characteristics of true citizenship--those very characteristics that make our nation great. He was a successful entrepreneur who attended to his customers with the utmost integrity. He epitomizes the values of volunteerism and activism. He tirelessly contributes considerable effort and time to the betterment of his community, advocating for the homeless, feeding the hungry, striving for better quality education and affordable health care and working for a more peaceful and tolerant world. He has been a loving husband to Annette, his wife of 50 years, a proud and devoted father to his two daughters, Laura and Lisa, and a doting grandfather to Eva and Michael.

Mr. Speaker, in this day, when so many people question other people's motives and when voices of disagreement are dismissed as being unpatriotic, we must remember that it is men like Max Finestone, who fight diligently every day for the rights with which we have been blessed and which we must never take for granted. I ask my colleagues in the House to join me today in honoring Max Finestone for his commitment to improving the world around him and for his dedication to his country.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this government, our government, derives its just power from the consent of the governed. Those words form the basic founding principle of this Nation: The government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.

But in order for the governed to give their consent, they must be informed. It must be not an ignorant consent. It must be an informed consent. It must be a consent based on knowledge and accurate information and a multiplicity of voices and the opportunity for everyone to be heard. The marketplace of ideas in this country shall not be shut down. Otherwise, we lose the basic founding principle of our country.

But, unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission in its decision on June 2 has gone a long way to doing precisely that, shutting down the marketplace of ideas. What they did was to weaken the rules governing cross-ownership of the media, newspapers, television, radio. What the FCC has done very quietly without any public hearings outside of Washington except for one, which they held in Richmond, Virginia, they have passed a rule which will shut down the ability for people to understand what is going on in this country.

We need to restore the previous rules, and we have an opportunity in this bill, through this amendment, to do precisely that in the next fiscal year. Restoring the previous rules is essential to preserving localism, diversity, and competition in our airwaves, standards that are needed for a vibrant democratic republic.

The FCC's decision, if we allow it to go forward, will permit one company to own the local newspaper, local television station, including the most popular, and several of the top local radio stations in any single market. It paves the way for one company to dominate a local community's flow of information.

The rule change makes it much more likely that a company based hundreds or even thousands of miles away will control a community's information and whatever information gets into that community.

Only large companies have the resources to purchase and operate a newspaper, TV stations, and radio stations. Competition, diversity of voices, and local control are at stake if this rule is allowed to stand.

The FCC's decision will allow broadcast television to be highly concentrated in the vast majority of markets as defined by the Merger Guidelines of the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission.

Before the FCC changed the rules, one company could own two TV stations, or duopolies, in a single market as long as at least eight independent voices remained. This restricted duopolies to sizable markets. If the new rules are allowed, 95 percent of Americans could see duopolies in their media markets. These changes will greatly reduce the number of independent and local voices, and in many instances they will completely eliminate those independent voices. Democracy requires the widest possible dissemination of information, yet these new rules will restrict access to diverse voices.

This amendment that is offered by myself, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) would prevent the FCC from implementing its misguided decision and would leave in place the media ownership rules that have protected localism, diversity, and competition in our media, as well as preserving the basic principles of this democratic republic. We have an opportunity here to correct a mistake, a huge bureaucratic error, that works against the best interests of the vast majority of the people in this country.

I offer this amendment, and I ask for the Members' support.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a simple limitation that would prevent the Justice Department from using any of the funds appropriated to it by this bill to interfere with the implementation of State laws that allow for the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes under the supervision of a licensed physician.

During the past several years 10 States, Alaska Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon and Washington State, have passed laws that decriminalize the use of marijuana for medical purposes. With the exception of Hawaii and Maryland, all of these laws were passed by referendum and the average vote in each of those eight States was more than 60 percent approval. These State laws are not free-for-alls that open the doors to wholesale legalization as critics claim. Rather, in every case, they specify in great detail the illnesses for which patients may use marijuana for medicinal purposes, the amounts the patients may possess, and the conditions under which it can be grown and obtained. Most establish a State registry and an identification card for patients.

Federal law classifies marijuana as a Schedule I narcotic with no permissible medical use. Despite the difficulty of conducting clinical trials on such a drug, it has been highly effective in treating symptoms of AIDS, cancer, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma and other serious medical conditions. In fact, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences has recommended smoking marijuana for certain medical uses.

The AIDS Action Council, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Nurses Association, the American Preventative Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, Kaiser Permanente, and the New England Journal of Medicine

have all endorsed supervised access to medical marijuana.

Internationally, the Canadian Government has adopted regulations for the use of medical marijuana in that country to our immediate north. In addition, the British Medical Association, the French Ministry of Health, the Israel Health Ministry, and the Australian National Task Force on Cannabis have all recommended the use of medical marijuana.

Here at home, however, our Federal Government has been unequivocal in its opposition to the citizen-led initiatives in the States that I mentioned. After California voters approved Proposition 215 in 1996, the Clinton Justice Department brought suit against both doctors and distributors in an attempt to shut down the new California State law.

Federal courts upheld the right of doctors to talk to their patients about medical marijuana. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that it is a violation of Federal law to distribute marijuana for medicinal purposes. Despite State laws that protect patients from State prosecution, the Supreme Court cleared the way for the Federal Government to enforce Federal laws against those individuals, nevertheless complying with laws in their own States.

Attorney General Ashcroft has vigorously enforced this decision, choosing to prosecute patients and distributors, which makes passage of this amendment critical to the States that have enacted laws for the medicinal use of marijuana. This amendment would prevent the Justice Department from arresting, prosecuting, suing or otherwise discouraging doctors, patients and distributors in those States from acting in compliance with their State laws.

This amendment in no way endorses marijuana for recreational use, not in any way. It does not reclassify marijuana to a less restrictive schedule of narcotic. It does not require any State to adopt a medical marijuana law. It will not prevent Federal officials from enforcing drug laws against drug kingpins, narco-traffickers, street dealers, habitual criminals, addicts, recreational users or anyone other than people who are complying with the laws of their own State with regard to the medical use of marijuana.

By limiting the Justice Department in this way, we will be reaffirming the power of citizen democracy and State and local government. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

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

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

I just want to make it clear that we are not doing anything by subterfuge here. We are just saying that in 10 States of this Nation the people have decided that is a legitimate practice for people who have certain medical conditions. Twenty percent of the States have said so, and most of them by referendum; and 60 percent or more voted for that in those referendums.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire the remaining time?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

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

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Our Federal system reserves to the States all those powers that are not designated to the Federal Government in the Constitution. Ten States have decided that they want to alleviate the pain and suffering of their citizens who may be afflicted with AIDS or cancer or some other debilitating, killing disease, and make their last days on this Earth more comfortable by allowing them, under prescription from a licensed physician in those States, to use marijuana for medical purposes.

The Federal Government has said ``no.'' The Justice Department and this administration have said ``no.'' They are not going to allow people in those 10 States, fully 20 percent of the States of the Nation, to be relieved of the pain and suffering under the laws of those States. That makes no sense.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

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

I want to thank everyone who participated in this debate. I think it is very important that issues like this be discussed on the floor of the House of Representatives. The fact of the matter here, in this particular amendment, is simply this: Are we going to continue to allow the United States Justice Department to stick its nose into the business of 10 sovereign States of this Union who have decided that they want to help people who are suffering and dying from debilitating disease, AIDS, cancer, and others, who suffer from ailments such as glaucoma and a whole host of other ailments that have been found by a vast majority of the highly respected medical associations of this country, they have found that people suffering in that way can be relieved by the prescriptive use of marijuana under the supervision of a licensed physician?

That is what this amendment would do. It does not open up anything else.

Some of the arguments that have been made against this amendment have nothing to do with what this amendment seeks to achieve. It is very narrow in its form and in its definition. It relates only to States that have decided in their own way, either by referendum, which eight of them have, or by laws passed by their State legislative bodies, to allow people to use marijuana for medical purposes to relieve the pain and suffering in the final days of their lives.

People talk about a gateway drug. Someone dying from cancer is not going to use marijuana as a gateway drug. They are using it to try to gain back a bit of their appetite so that they can maintain their strength and continue to live among their family and offer the aid and assistance of themselves to that family during the last days of their lives. Are we going to deny people that?

That is exactly what we are doing by the present law, and that is why this amendment is here, and I ask for its passage.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support Representative Mark Udall's amendment to stop the giveaway of millions of acres of public lands across the West. The Udall amendment will restrict funding for a January 2003 rule published by the Bureau of Land Management that facilitates the construction roads across some of our most sensitive and pristine federal lands.

The Bush Administration and Secretary Norton are currently engaged in an unprecedented assault on our nation's natural heritage. In their concerted effort to undermine the protection of America's public lands, they have gone farther than James Watt ever dared.

This rule endangers our public lands across the West, including some of this nation's most outstanding national parks, wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, national monuments, and national forests. The uncontrolled road building that this rule invites would cause irreparable harm in sensitive watersheds, undeveloped fish and wildlife habitat, historical and archaeological resources, and sensitive coastlines and wetlands.

As the sponsor of America's Redrock Wilderness Act, to protect Utah's wilderness quality public lands, I am particularly concerned about the potentially devastating impact of this rule in Utah. Approximately 10 million acres of Utah's federal lands that are eligible for wilderness designation would be open to road right-of-way claims under BLM's rule. There are an estimated 15,000 road claims in Utah, and off-road-vehicle groups have targeted areas within my wilderness proposal for motorized vehicle access, including the Grandstaircase Escalante National Monument.

These claims have nothing to do with legitimate access--this is about bulldozing and paving thousands of miles of new roads across some of this country's most pristine lands and protected areas. With this rule the Administration has provided opponents of wilderness with a tool to punch roads through pristine lands in an attempt to disqualify the impacted areas from future wilderness consideration by Congress.

Encouraged by the Administration's rule, counties, organizations and individuals are asserting spurious road-building rights-of-way claims for cow paths, horse trails, river beds, dirt bike and off-road vehicle routes, as well as for dogsled trails and for overgrown and nearly

indistinguishable trails long ago abandoned by prospecting miners. These aren't legitimate roads.

Back in May, along with Representative Udall, I sent a letter to Secretary Norton--signed by 100 members of the House, including the ranking member of this subcommittee, Mr. Dicks and the ranking member of the Resources committee, Mr. Rahall--urging the Administration to reconsider this rule. It has been nearly 2 months since we sent this letter and there has been no response.

It's time for Congress to send Secretary Norton and the White House a clear message that they can't ignore--the assaults on our public lands and wilderness must stop. Let's ensure that our publicly owned lands throughout the West--including Utah's unique public lands--are protected for future generations of Americans. Support the Udall amendment and oppose the Taylor substitute.

Offered By: Mr. Hinchey

Amendment No. 1: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following: