Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, I have the privilege of representing the great State of West Virginia in this body, a State that was born amidst civil conflict in the middle of a war. It is said that West Virginia is the only State to be formed by seceding from a Confederate State during the Civil War. In fact, the western counties stayed loyal to the Union, while Tidewater seceded from it.

Puerto Rico also joined the American family as a result of war. In 1898, during the Spanish-American War, the island was invaded by the United States and was ceded by Spain to our country under the Treaty of Paris. The island's century-long history within the American family has been significant. Puerto Rico was one of the first areas outside the continental United States where the American flag was raised.

To the United States, it marked a milestone in our own political development. When once our Union of States was comprised of renegade English colonies, we then stepped into a role that we previously had fought against. Given our own experience, would anyone have imagined that our new colony would be disenfranchised and kept unequal in our own political framework? Our commitment to Puerto Rico's advancement under the 1898 Treaty of Paris should be our judge.

If our measure of success is today's Puerto Rico, then I state Puerto Rico has done well by the United States. It is a showcase of democracy in the Caribbean. Having some of the highest voter turnout rates in our Nation, Puerto Rico shames many of our own States with its energy and enthusiasm in electing its leaders. Economically, it is a powerhouse in the Caribbean and considered a home away from home for many mainland Fortune 500 companies.

Equal in importance to Puerto Rico's political and economic prowess is the island's contributions to our own social fabric. Every aspect of American art, music, theater, and sport has been influenced by Puerto Rico's own culture and its people. And beyond such contributions, there remains Puerto Rico's patriotism, beginning in World War I when thousands of Puerto Ricans served in the U.S. military. There is no doubt that many more thousands are currently serving in our Armed Forces, fighting our wars, and dying for our country.

To the families who have lost a husband, a father, a daughter or son in our wars, I take this moment, as we all do, to salute you. We can debate political status, but what is not subject of debate is the patriotism of the people of Puerto Rico.

We are here today on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives because, in spite of what we have gained from each other, there has been no ultimate achievement in Puerto Rico's political status, which really is the greatest commitment the U.S. has to all of our territories.

Since the establishment of the current Commonwealth status in 1952, four popular votes have been held on the status of Puerto Rico in three plebiscites and one referendum, but none of them were sanctioned by this body, the Congress of the United States.

Going back just to the 1970s, at least 40 separate measures have been introduced in Congress to resolve or clarify Puerto Rico political status. In addition, Congress has held at least 12 hearings, and four measures have received either House or Senate action.

During the last Congress, the Bush administration issued the President's Task Force Report on Puerto Rico's Status which served as the basis for the legislation before us today; a task force, I would point out, that was initiated by the Clinton administration and concluded by the Bush administration.

Indeed, the entire exercise has been bipartisan. The measure before us today is sponsored by the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, Pedro Pierluisi, a Democrat. It is strongly supported by a former colleague and current Governor of Puerto Rico, the Honorable Luis Fortuno, a Republican. And it was reported out of our Natural Resources Committee by a vote of 30-8.

With this history before us, I join those who say it is time for Congress to provide the people of Puerto Rico with an unambiguous path toward permanently resolving its political status that is consistent with the U.S. Constitution.

When our Committee on Natural Resources considered similar legislation in the last Congress, we exhaustively examined the question of the constitutionality of the various status options available under the Constitution. And we continued that process during the current Congress. What emerged from that process was a clear consensus that settled on the permanent status options that are reflected in the bill before this body today.

The Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico is to be congratulated for carefully crafting a bill which seeks to authorize a fair, impartial, and democratic process for self-determination for the people of Puerto Rico. The pending measure is straightforward. It authorizes a plebiscite in which the two voting options are presented: number one, present political status; or number two, a different political status. If option two prevails, then a second plebiscite would be conducted in which three options are presented: independence, free association with the United States, or statehood. Puerto Rico would then certify the results to the President and the Congress.

Let me be very clear on this point. Nothing in this legislation prejudges the result of these plebiscites. Nothing in this legislation prejudges the result of these plebiscites. And voting for this legislation does not constitute a vote for the status quo, statehood, independence, or free association.

The bill is about a process, and depending upon what occurs during that process, it will be up to a future Congress to ultimately decide Puerto Rico's status.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, a couple of claims have been made by previous speakers about why not have a direct vote on statehood, yes or no, like Hawaii and Alaska did. I think it's worth clarifying here that those States were already incorporated territories--and the Representative from Alaska can speak to this better than I can--meaning that it was constitutionally clear that they would eventually become States. Puerto Rico is unincorporated, meaning it can become a nation as well as a State.

The plebiscites would determine if Puerto Ricans wanted to pursue nationhood or statehood. A number of Puerto Ricans, as we all know, want statehood; some, independence; some, free association with the U.S., such as the U.S. has with Palau and two other areas. It is unclear what the second largest group of Puerto Ricans, those who vote for the Commonwealth Party, want among the real options of continued territory status, free association, independence, and statehood.

Another claim that my ranking member and good friend Mr. Hastings made was that the Congress of the United States would be reduced in seats if Puerto Rico were granted statehood. I'm going to quote directly from a CRS report that was done on this issue when it said that, New States usually resulted in additions to the size of the House of Representatives in the 19th and early 20th century. The exceptions to this general rule occurred when States were formed from other States--Maine, Kentucky, and my home State of West Virginia, as I have referenced already. These State Representatives came from the allocation of Representatives of the States from which the new ones had been formed.

So I don't think the assertion that the number of Members of Congress in its totality would be reduced, with the addition, if that were to be the outcome of Puerto Rico being a State were to occur.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi), the sponsor of this legislation and truly the driving force.

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am honored to yield the balance of my time to the people's representative from Puerto Rico, Mr. Pedro Pierluisi.

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

Mr. Chairman, this bill was carefully crafted to give the people of Puerto Rico the opportunity to inform Congress for the first time ever whether they want to continue with their current temporary status, Commonwealth, or move to a permanent status: statehood, independence, or free association. This amendment would subvert this effort by including a choice to continue the island's present status among the options provided for in the bill's second plebiscite. Adoption of this amendment will contradict the bill's intent and make it less likely that the people of Puerto Rico would seek a permanent nonterritorial status.

Debate over Puerto Rico's status continues to be the central issue in politics on the island. The fairest and simplest way, we believe, to address this concern is to let Puerto Ricans choose to either retain their present status, as the underlying bill does; or, if they don't want to, allow them to elect to become a state, an independent country, or a free nation with association with the U.S. Allowing the choice of retaining their current status after it was rejected in the first plebiscite, as this amendment would do, only serves to confuse the process and would likely cause an inconclusive outcome.

I, therefore, urge defeat of the amendment and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the right to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Before I yield to the gentleman from Puerto Rico to close on our side, let me just address one issue the gentlelady from North Carolina raised about us having other issues that she alluded to which are more important than this issue to address in Congress, like jobs, the economy, et cetera; therefore, why are we considering this legislation. That may be true.

Certainly, jobs and the economy are very important to every one of our districts. But I think it should be worth pointing out here that it's most unfortunate that we can't get the type of bipartisan support--as much bipartisan support from the other side on those issues of jobs and the economy as we do on this particular piece of legislation.

I would yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi).

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, as was the case with the Foxx amendment, this amendment would also add a fourth option to the second ballot in the two-stage plebiscite process. I urge defeat of this amendment as well,

largely along the same lines as the earlier amendment.

``None of the above'' is the ultimate and unnecessary escape clause. The proposal for its inclusion on the ballot suggests that there exists some other option for permanently resolving Puerto Rico's status in a manner compatible with the U.S. Constitution beyond the three options of independence, sovereignty in association with the United States, or statehood. Such a belief defies the conclusions of the international community, the courts, and the executive branch.

There is no other viable option than the three to be presented on the second ballot as provided for in the underlying bill. Thus, this ``none of the above'' amendment is not about progress, but rather inconclusiveness. Self-determination for the people of Puerto Rico should no longer be thwarted by inconclusiveness nor held captive to any pursuit for a status change not deemed viable under the U.S. Constitution or international law.

I urge defeat of the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the people's representative from Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi).

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

Mr. Chairman, the pending amendment would strike the requirement from the bill that a ballot include the full content of the ballot printed in English. Instead, the amendment requires ballots to be printed in Spanish. An English ballot could be obtained only by the request of a voter.

The underlying bill strikes the right balance. We did address this issue during our full committee consideration of this legislation, and the underlying bill gives rise to the printing of a unified ballot. The amendment before us undoes that balance that we struck in the full committee in consideration of this issue, and it puts the onus on an English-proficient or otherwise English ballot-preferring voter to request such a ballot.

In my opinion, this would add tremendously to the administrative processing of the ballots; it would complicate the process, and it would add cost. It would be a tremendous cost addition to the process as well, and I would, therefore, urge the defeat of the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I just have one concluding speaker.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the people's representative from Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi).

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment does nothing to further the goal of H.R. 2499, which is to provide the people of Puerto Rico with a federally recognized process to allow them to freely express their wishes regarding their future political status in a congressionally recognized referendum.

The amendment recognizes that Puerto Rico can conduct a plebiscite on whether to conduct a plebiscite on a status option or options, and it calls on Congress to ``respectfully postpone consideration'' of the issue until it receives a proposal for revision of the current U.S.- Puerto Rican relationship voted for by Puerto Ricans.

We are all aware of the fact that Puerto Rico can conduct its own plebiscites. There is no disputing this fact. In fact, they have done so multiple times in the past, most recently in 1998, but because some of those were local referenda, which included definitions of the various status choices that were inaccurate and likely not to be supported by Congress, the results were inclusive, which brings us to the need of the bill pending before us.

We have an obligation to provide the people of Puerto Rico with a process that, more likely than not, will lead to a final resolution of the question of their political status, a question with which we have been grappling for more than a century. The amendment of the gentlewoman fails this test, and, for this reason, it should be defeated.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

First, Mr. Chairman, just a correction. The gentleman from Washington stated that the previous amendment passed by voice vote. We have a rollcall order on that; so I just wanted to correct that.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

We do have a rollcall vote scheduled on that.

Reclaiming my time, this particular amendment does nothing to fulfill our obligation to provide

a process for self-determination for the people of Puerto Rico, and it is very similar to previous amendments that have been offered today. It was my hope that when the gentleman supported reporting the bill from committee, when he voted for it back on July 22, 2009, when the bill passed out of our Natural Resources Committee on a 30-8, I see the ranking member, my good friend, the gentleman from Washington is listed as ``aye'' vote. It's an ``aye'' vote for the pending legislation before us today.

In addition, in looking through the report here, I see no dissenting views. There are additional views, but there are no dissenting views to this bill as it came out of our Committee on Natural Resources back on July 22 of last year.

So we are where we are. Regrettably, the gentleman's substitute does nothing to advance the goal of self-determination for the people of Puerto Rico. It states the obvious. Puerto Rico does have the authority to conduct a plebiscite on its own. It has done so on several occasions, often with confusing definitions of the alternatives. But there has never been, never been, a congressionally authorized plebiscite, one backed by the full power of the United States Congress. And that is what the underlying bill is all about. That is what our efforts are here about, showing some congressionally sanctioned approval of the Puerto Ricans' efforts at self-determination.

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

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to welcome to the House of Representatives our guest chaplain today, Bishop Fred T. Simms, D.D., pastor and founder of the Heart of God Ministries in my hometown of Beckley, West Virginia.

It is an honor to have such a distinguished West Virginian here with us today, and it is particularly fitting to have Bishop Simms join us in offering the morning prayer on behalf of our Congress and our Nation on this somber day. Today we will act on a congressional resolution honoring the courageous miners who lost their lives in the tragic explosion at the Upper Big Branch Mine and recognize the heroic actions of the rescue teams who also risked life and limb to search for the missing miners.

Bishop Simms was called to the ministry and preached his first message in December, 1977. Since that time, Bishop Simms has continued his Biblical studies through Aenon Bible College and the Institute of Biblical Studies in Lynchburg, Virginia. He received his doctorate of divinity degree from the St. Thomas Christian College in 2008. He has received numerous awards for his community service, which includes the Citizen of the Year award from the Mountain State Bar Association, Mountain State University's School of Leadership and Professional Development's Living Leadership award, and recognized by the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Holiday Commission of the State of West Virginia with its ``Sharing of Self'' award.

Bishop Simms, one of eight children born to George Simms and Audrey Simms Totten, is married to Marilyn Staples Simms, and the father of five daughters and 11 grandchildren. His greatest strength perhaps may be his humbleness of heart and his ability to become less, so that God gets all the glory. He teaches his congregation by example, as he lives what he preaches.

Bishop Simms' two mottos are, ``It's not about Fred T., but about God,'' and ``Come on, let's have church.''

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to honor Bishop Fred Simms today, and proud that he gave our invocation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman George Miller.

Mr. Speaker, last week, on Monday, April 5, an explosion tore through the Upper Big Branch Mine in Raleigh, West Virginia, taking the lives of 29 good, hardworking men. It was the repeat of a recurring nightmare that has haunted the coalfields of our Nation for generations, and it is a tragedy that never should have occurred.

Immediately upon receiving news of the explosion at the Upper Big Branch Mine, I rushed to the scene to be with the families. For me, it was, unfortunately, not an unfamiliar circumstance. I have spent too many anxious hours within the aftermath of mine accidents in the midst of family and friends, of coworkers and survivors, awaiting word. The watching, hoping and praying for survivors to emerge from the darkness into the arms of their loved ones is a heart-wrenching exercise, but being surrounded by such warmth and love, generosity and faith is heartwarming at the same time.

The people of coal mining communities, in particular those of southern West Virginia, are a special breed. Generations of these families go into our mines. For so many of these miners, it is not a job; it is a calling. They live with the knowledge that there is risk, but they are proud to take that risk to labor in the company of good and loyal friends, to earn an honest paycheck in order to provide for their families and for themselves.

The miners at Upper Big Branch were just such men. Like coal miners throughout the ages, they did difficult work in dangerous circumstances. They labored underground in cramped conditions in the damp and the dark, but outside the mines, their lives were full of light and love and joy. They had wives and children and grandchildren. They hunted, pranked and laughed together, and they experienced many warm memories and gentle sorrows. While most Americans can scarcely imagine what a coal miner's day at work is really like or will never really understand our coal miners, we certainly appreciate what their labors have meant in our daily lives.

The toil of these coal miners, of all coal miners, has fueled our Nation's economic engine, ensuring our military security by providing coal not just to the generation of power but as an essential element in the steelmaking process. All coal miners are deserving of our gratitude and of our renewed commitment to ensure that such tragedies never occur again.

Countless individuals can be thanked for their help during this disaster. I thank our Governor, Joe Manchin, III, for his leadership; both of our U.S. Senators, Jay Rockefeller and Robert C. Byrd; our Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis, who twice visited us during this week; her assistant secretary for Mine Safety and Health Administration, Joe Main, there every day and night; Ron Wooten, our West Virginia division Mine Safety and Health training director; Jimmy Gianato, director of our West Virginia Homeland Security. Both of these individuals were there every day and night, 24/7, for an entire week. I thank our West Virginia head coach, Bobby Huggins, for his uplifting visit to the families.

By all accounts, the explosion that took the lives of these 29 miners should never have happened in this time, in this modern era.

To quote the Mine Safety and Health Administration's administrator for coal mine safety and health, Kevin Stricklin, who fought every hour, 24 hours a day, to help find our coal miners, ``All explosions are preventable. It's just making sure you have things in place to keep one from occurring. It's quite evident that something went very wrong here.''

There are multiple layers of laws and regulations in place to prevent such a disaster. There are modern technologies. There were repeated, persistent inspections. And yet 29 men perished and one is hanging on in the hospital. That this deadly explosion occurred is infuriatingly, frustratingly heartbreaking, and I am determined that we will get to the bottom of it and ensure that steps are taken to prevent a recurrence of this type of explosion. We owe it to the miners who perished in Raleigh County last week. We owe it to their families. We owe it to their coworkers.

So many strong and tough West Virginians came together to pray and to help these families. Our West Virginia State Police stood by every family's side to help in any way they could. The American Red Cross, Billy Graham's Crusade, family members of previous mine disaster victims, and most importantly, our ministers, our pastors, our West Virginia Council of Churches, all who came from all over our great State to counsel, to cry, and to call upon God, who above all else will guide these families through this healing process.

With that inner strength that comes to the West Virginia people, we will get through this tragedy together. We will hold accountable those who failed our miners, so help me God.

Today the House of Representatives honors the 29 miners lost in Raleigh County last week. We express the condolences of our Nation to their families, and we recognize above all the valiant efforts of the rescue workers, those who placed their lives on the line to save other lives, who answered the call the other day. Our first responders, our paramedics, our law enforcement personnel all came together.

May the Good Lord keep our lost miners, may He care for their families, and bless those rescue personnel who risked their own lives in service to others. And may He watch over each and every coal miner who continues to work and continues to walk in the wake of risk in service to our Nation.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

I rise simply to thank my many colleagues in this body on both sides of the aisle that have expressed their condolences this week in the debate that has just occurred or rather to me personally or in phone calls. I know that my colleague from northern West Virginia, Representative Mollohan, called every day for a status update; and I appreciate the gentlewoman from the Second District, Representative Capito's, comments.

But most importantly, Mr. Speaker, I do recognize the work of the distinguished chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, my dear friend George Miller. We worked together following previous disasters that have been referenced during this debate, the Sago and Aracoma disasters that occurred in West Virginia as well about 4 years ago.

Reference has been made to the MINERS Act that was passed following past disasters. Many good parts of that were put in place by our operators across the State and were in place at this particular mine. Unfortunately, due to the severe nature of this blast, these features did not have a chance to trigger or to come into play. So something else needs to be done to prevent these disasters.

I salute the chairman again.

Madam Speaker, it was 1 week and 1 day ago that a devastating blast in a coal mine outside of my hometown took the lives of 29 courageous coal miners. One more is hanging on in the hospital.

I ask that the House have a moment of silent prayer for those who have lost their lives in this tragedy.

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, aviation is a critical component of our Nation's transportation system. Aviation not only supports the quick and efficient delivery of goods and services it is essential to the health and success of our Nation's commerce.

While moving goods and people is a major aspect of aviation, we must not overlook the role aviation and our airports play in the well-being of our small communities. In many cases, they act as the economic engine that powers our local economies.

Essential Air Services has assisted our small communities in kick starting the promise of economic development. In fact, businesses often cite proximity to air service as one of their top requirements in choosing a location.

Throughout my career I have taken steps to not only ensure increased EAS funding, but to ensure on-time regularly scheduled air service is a priority for small communities, as well as large communities.

My March 8, 2010, letter to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, with signed support from Chairman Oberstar and Subcommittee Chairman Costello, requests an investigation into delays and cancellations in small communities. This request initiates the process of narrowing down what changes we can make to increase air service reliability at our rural airports. The FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act renews our commitment to the Essential Air Service program.

As the Representative elected nearly 34 years ago by the great people of southern West Virginia, I know just how crucial EAS is to the survival of many rural airports.

The last FAA reauthorization bill made the Small Community Air Service Development, SCASD, Program a permanent program and increased authorized EAS funding to ensure the continuation of air service for rural businesses and residents that otherwise would find local air service too expensive.

This bill today improves our commitment to rural communities, brings stability to rural air service and encourages small communities to build relationships with air carriers that serve them. As importantly, this bill increases the authorized funding level for Essential Air Service, EAS, from $127 million to $200 million per year through FY 2012 and extends the Small Community Air Services Development, SCASD, program through FY 2012 at the current authorized funding level of $35 million per year.

Airports have a vital role in our communities serving as both direct and indirect employers of our citizens--from the aircraft mechanics and airport managers who support the safety and on-time performance of flights, to the cooks and custodians who provide comfort and convenience for weary travelers.

Airports attract business development to communities and ensure local businesses remain robust and have opportunity for growth. For these reasons and more, businesses are drawn to those communities that can boast of a strong local airport.

To stay competitive in an ever-changing global marketplace, airports are constantly faced with pressures to modernize their operations. Often, local communities take it upon themselves to come up with the necessary funds and make improvements themselves. That is a crucial, and often difficult, goal.

Essential Air Service funding can make the difference between a community having access to aviation or not. The program has kept many airports operational and, in many cases, made lasting improvements to the services offered.

We must take it upon ourselves to do more to ensure that local airports, like the ones in my State of West Virginia, can continue to operate and provide much needed air service and jobs.

In closing, I just want to reiterate my strong belief that the EAS program provides rural areas with a vital link to our national air transportation system and promotes business development in our local communities.

Mr. Speaker, throughout my career of public service, there have been a few critical challenges that have remained at the top of my priority list; protecting our coal miners and our coal jobs and the need to provide our people with access to affordable, quality health care.

Across southern West Virginia, especially in rural areas where senior populations are high, that challenge has been particularly daunting, because so many health insurance companies have been increasingly putting high profit margins above all else, even the compassionate treatment of the sick and the elderly.

I have consistently spoken out against the abuses of and mistreatment by huge, for-profit health insurance companies. And I have advocated for competition, recognizing that it is good for consumers and drives down prices for all buyers, while driving up quality of service.

At the same time, I have consistently stood against the use of federal funds to pay for abortions--a stand I took again when I worked to have anti-abortion language included in the original House-passed health care bill. That was, in fact, one of many issues that I heard a lot about from West Virginians in recent months and that I successfully pressed to have addressed in the House bill.

With the Executive Order strengthening the life protections in this bill, we have achieved a firm anchor for the protection of life in this country, reflecting the principles of the Hyde Amendment, no federal funding for abortions. Administrative chipping away and mischief will be held at bay with this order throughout this administration. Future administrations should be held to this standard.

Health care is a deeply personal issue for all Americans. But it is also true that there are no people in the world more personally generous than Americans when it comes to helping the ill and the injured.

I understand people's frustrations and concerns over coal, jobs, our economy. The rhetoric about health care this year has been emotional, at times angry, and, ultimately divisive. Much of the legitimate debate has been undermined by millions of dollars in advertising, underwritten by massive health insurance companies interested only in protecting their record profits and lucrative salaries. The result has been a polarized public and a polarized Congress.

But underlying the most contentious, most calculatingly advertised issues, there can be found common ground. Certainly the status quo-- where honest, hardworking parents are forced into bankruptcy to afford lifesaving treatments for their child and where longtime, loyal workers lose their health care coverage along with their jobs during tough economic times--does not comport with American values.

One of my constituents, Fred Long, is a Vietnam veteran and a proud West Virginian who has long had private health insurance. Fred, blessed with good health, needed his insurance little until he was 63 years old when he had to have cataracts removed from both eyes.

Fred's brother was born with cerebral palsy. His problems were covered by SSI and Medicaid. He, too, had cataracts removed, but because of Medicaid, it did not cost his family a dime.

The two brothers had the same procedure, used the same hospital, and same doctor, yet Fred's surgery cost him $3,099.36 despite Fred's $480 a month health insurance premiums.

Mr. Long closed his letter to me with this:

``. . . how many thousands of dollars have been paid in insurance premiums over the years . . . I don't know if this will be of any help in changing the thinking of those that can't see where national health care would benefit the working man.

``The insurance companies could have done this, collected from those that weren't sick and paid the heath care cost for those that were sick, just like the government helped my brother when he needed it. He is on Medicare now and I just hope I can get by the next few years when I can sign up for Medicare. (Sincerely, Fred Long)''

Mr. Long's personal story echoes so many others I have heard from all across southern West Virginia--this is just one of the reasons I believe health care reform is necessary.

We must end the polarization of America and find that common ground for the common good. The health care system as it currently exists is not sustainable for the long-term and this Nation has a host of serious challenges that cry out for attention--jobs for our people, renewed transportation funding for our highways, expansion of our technology, and diversification of our economy.

Unfortunately, as long as the needs of the people can be subverted by special interests, financed by donors who operate in secrecy without any accountability to the American public, I worry that we will see little more than the same polarization that has dominated this Nation for months.

Free speech is a wonderful American right that must be protected. But much of the speech we have been witnessing of late has been anything but free. It has been well-financed by special interests whose hands are in the pockets of political operatives, and their motivation is not the preservation of health care for our citizens, but, instead, the preservation of power for themselves. Worse still, to the degree that these operatives are able to bend government to suit their own purposes, you can be sure that others will line up to use the same tactics for their own good.

This is bad for West Virginia. And it is bad for our Nation.

Throughout my years of hard work for the people of West Virginia, I have worked with Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike, always focused on the needs of southern West Virginia and the Nation. In all that time, I have used my experience, honesty, and integrity to sustain jobs for our coal miners, to ensure their health and safety and that of their homes and their families. I have fought to expand our job base and to build improved infrastructure, to advance technology, ensure veterans care, improve education, and protect our God-given natural resources, including the unborn.

Today, I call for an end to the polarization. We must put away our personal interests, set aside our differences, and do the People's work. We must come together for the common good, using common sense.

Madam Speaker, today I have introduced a resolution recognizing the heroic efforts of the West Virginia National Guard and local responders.

On Thursday, February 18, 2010, the heroic actions of West Virginians brought about the highly successful rescue of 17 military personnel who were on board a U.S. Navy helicopter--participating in the Operation Southbound Trooper X annual military exercise, which went down in deep, snow-covered, and very rugged terrain in Pocahontas County, West Virginia.

The remarkable rescue was an outstanding and highly coordinated effort on the part of many highly trained professionals as well as private citizens, who worked under very difficult conditions to reach the crew and personnel on board the aircraft, many of whom had been injured in the crash.

West Virginians are the best neighbors for whom you could ever wish. It is a truth that has been proven time and again. This heroic rescue effort was, thankfully, a rare event, but it was not at all out of character for our State. In fact, it was merely illustrative of the best of West Virginia.

The swift response; astounding skills and abilities; enormous courage; and, profound determination of all those involved in the rescue operation--from those who serve in and lead our West Virginia National Guard; to our local fire, rescue, law enforcement and first responder units; and the countless volunteers, families and neighbors nearby--most certainly made the difference between life and death.

While no expression of gratitude would ever be sought for such selfless acts, the hope that one good turn deserves another never dims with West Virginians.

On behalf of my fellow West Virginians, I'm pleased to introduce the following resolution to honor their good deeds, and to illuminate them as a beacon for others.

Mr. Speaker, the Bible tells us for everything there is a season. Surely, that includes a time to work and a time to rest.

Since 1979 I've had the privilege and indeed the honor of working with a West Virginian who has had an extraordinary time of working with me for the people of southern West Virginia. Vickie L. Bandy was born in our hometown of Beckley, West Virginia, and came to Washington, our Nation's Capital, three decades ago. She began her long career serving the State she loves and its people at my front desk. This week she retires from her Hill career serving as my deputy chief of staff.

Vickie, as we say back home, was raised right by her parents. But the truest power her parents gave her was her active faith. Far from being left at the church steps on Sunday mornings, Vickie's faith never tires. She has carried that throughout her career working on my staff and working for the people of southern West Virginia.

Our mission, of course, is larger, filling the giant void that is left in Vickie's absence. And I'm sure that we will have a hard task to do in our office, but we will do it for the people of West Virginia and for Vickie's continuing legacy of working for those people.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about principled leadership that makes a difference. That best describes the Dean of the Pennsylvania delegation and its longest serving member, Jack Murtha. Yes, Jack Murtha was a Member's Member. He was a soldier's soldier. Always straight shooting, courageous, willing to defend this institution and all of us that work herein.

During my 33 years of service in this body and with Jack Murtha, very few individuals would I turn to for advice and counsel like I would Jack Murtha. Like so many of my colleagues, I have traveled to troubled spots in this world with Jack Murtha. I have read and learned from him not only on these hardworking, hard hitting CODELS, but also from his book, From Vietnam to 9/11. Words of wisdom for all of us here today and for the future.

Many of my strongest memories of Jack Murtha are from our congressional travels together. We traveled to Lebanon in the fall of 1982, following the deployment of U.S. forces as peacekeepers to that country. We stayed in the very same Marine barracks that 6 months later were blown to smithereens.

During our trip in June of 1987 to Angola, it was Chairman Murtha who was successful in securing the release of a downed U.S. pilot from his Congressional district. Later, in August of that same year, we traveled to the Persian Gulf during the U.S. reflagging operation of Kuwaiti ships. A few years later, in January of '93, we traveled on an inspection trip to Somalia, following President George Herbert Walker Bush's December of 1992 dispatch of our U.S. troops there in order to establish order and ensure the success of our humanitarian relief efforts.

The bottom line in all of these travels, of course, as so many of my colleagues can attest, is that around this world our service men and women knew the true character of Jack Murtha.

They knew the backbone of Jack Murtha, a veteran, a dedicated public servant, an individual who was never too busy or never too selfish to take time to regularly visit our military installations, our military hospitals, to visit our brave, wounded service personnel.

From Chairman Murtha's station atop our Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, our soldiers knew, they were secure in the knowledge that their sacrifices and their dedications were in the best hands in the United States Congress.

I will miss you, Jack. I will miss our true leader. I will miss his courage and his dedication. Our courageous American troops will miss you, Jack Murtha. Our veterans will miss you, and all of America will miss you.

Your family, Joyce, and your children and your grandchildren, to them I extend my thoughts and prayers and know that the memories of Jack Murtha will always instill in his family the inspiration, the pride, the strength, and the love that will carry you on to carry on the brave torch of Jack Murtha.

God bless you, friend.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the heroic efforts of my fellow West Virginians, who safely and successfully rescued 17 individuals from a downed military helicopter in Pocahontas County, WV, last week. The Navy helicopter was participating in the Operation Southbound Trooper X annual military exercise, when it went down in a deep snow-covered and rugged site, which lies in northwestern Pocahontas County.

A West Virginia Army National Guard HH-60 Blackhawk helicopter-- piloted by Bluefield, WV, native Major Kevin Hazuka--located the downed aircraft. Two medics were lowered to the landing site to assess the situation and provide assistance to the injured. A C-130 Hercules aircraft from the 130th Airlift Wing in Charleston was dispatched and orbited the site to maintain communications with the downed aircraft, while emergency response and rescue teams worked through the night

and into the next morning to make their way to the survivors.

A February 20th editorial in the Beckley, WV, Register-Herald newspaper titled, ``Our Nature,'' perhaps tells this story best:

When a crisis strikes, West Virginia responds. Time and

time again. We've seen it this winter during all the

snowstorms that have paralyzed different regions of the

state. We've seen it during all the major floods. We've seen

it in the aftermath of major accidents. We've seen it beyond

our borders, like helping with the relief effort following

Hurricane Katrina, like battling western forest fires.

West Virginians are ready to help in a moment's notice,

often without being asked Paid responders. Volunteer

responders. Neighbors. Even those who may not be physically

able to provide aid will show up with food, drink and

supplies for those who are.

And now we've seen it again with what are being described

as ``heroic'' efforts on the part of many who rescued 17

military personnel aboard a Virginia-based Navy helicopter

that crashed during a training exercise Thursday on a rugged,

snow-covered mountain on the Pocahontas-Randolph county line.

``I'd like to thank the West Virginia National Guard and

the local responders for their heroic work,'' Navy Capt.

Steve Schreiber said ``Their efforts were extraordinary and

took place under the most difficult of situations. The

rescuers had to traverse more than three miles from the

nearest road through heavily wooded and mountainous terrain

to reach the crash site.''

``A special thanks to the Snowshoe Mountain Ski Resort for

providing Snowcats that enabled first responders to reach the

site.''

The West Virginia National Guard and first responders

around the state have a way of turning the extraordinary into

the ordinary. In other words, we've seen it enough times to

still marvel but not be surprised by what they do, even as

they take rescue efforts to another level.

And this one reached another level, literally and

figuratively. ``. . . we've never had anything quite this

big,'' said Shannon Boehmer, chief of the Shavers Fork

Volunteer Fire Department.

After rescuers went as far as they could with special

equipment along a railroad grade, Boehmer said, ``it was

still about a 45-minute hike in five feet of snow, straight

up the side of a mountain . . . It was probably a 50-degree

pitch or so. The guys described it as like climbing a `snow

ladder.' ''

Have you ever tried to walk in 5 feet of snow? Even on flat

ground, just a few steps can wear you out.

Sometimes we may not realize what we have here in West

Virginia. We have the finest National Guard unit in the

country, first responders to match and a general willingness

by everyone to help.

One thing is for sure: The US. Navy now knows.

And, now Madam Speaker, as I share this with our colleagues, the world now knows the courage, ability, incredible determination, and willingness to lend a neighborly hand of West Virginians--from those who serve in and lead our West Virginia National Guard, to our local fire, rescue and first responder units, and the countless volunteers, families and neighbors nearby.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1083, I call up the bill (H.R. 2314) to express the policy of the United States regarding the United States relationship with Native Hawaiians and to provide a process for the recognition by the United States of the Native Hawaiian governing entity, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 2134.

Mr. Speaker, the history of these United States is replete with glory. From the moment we broke the bonds of tyranny and declared independence to the severe tests we endured to maintain our union of States during the Civil War, to developments in science, medicine, and technology,

we as a Nation advanced for the benefit of the entire world. But throughout much of this history, our treatment of indigenous populations has been found wanting. The very policy that the United States advanced toward Native Americans from destruction to assimilation to reservation were conflicting and did not usually produce favorable results, at least from the perspective of the Native American.

Today, we are considering a measure which seeks to rectify a wrong that occurred 117 years ago. On January 17, 1893, the legitimate Kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown by American speculators with the active participation of the U.S. military. Five years after this overthrow, Hawaii was annexed to the United States and the lands of the indigenous population were lost to sugar plantations. Their health, education, and economic standing diminished greatly, a saga that has been repeated again and again with respect to Native Americans throughout our country.

The measure we are considering today is not a restitution measure, nor is it an outright recognition measure. What it would do is create a process by which the Native Hawaiian governing body would be reorganized, and the political and legal relationship with the United States would be reaffirmed.

I think it is important to note what this bill does not do: It does not allow for gaming; it does not provide for the transfer of any lands; it does not change civil or criminal jurisdiction by the State or Federal Governments; and it does not provide for any new eligibility into Indian programs.

Following reorganization of a governing body, the bill authorizes negotiation among the Federal, State, and Native Hawaiian governing entities to address certain powers and authorities. Any changes in these areas would require enactment of additional Federal and possibly State legislation.

Beginning in 1920, Congress began passing legislation specifically for the benefit of Native Hawaiians. To date, over 160 laws have been enacted to provide the Native Hawaiian community with everything from housing to repatriation of Hawaiian human remains from the Nation's museums. In each case, Congress understood its right and responsibility to enact laws affecting the native peoples of Hawaii similar to natives of the other 49 States. This is not a matter of race; it is a matter of Congress properly dealing with the indigenous populations as expressly sanctioned by the Constitution of the United States.

To allege that the Congress cannot engage in legislation of the pending nature regarding Native Hawaiians is to ignore the fact that there are 564 Federally recognized Indian tribes in this country. The bill before us today is similar legislation that has passed the House in previous Congresses. During the 106th Congress, we passed a similar bill under suspension of the rules when the Republicans held the majority. That was under Tom DeLay's watch, but what a different tune we will hear today from the other side. Similar legislation also passed during last Congress by a large majority.

So I urge my colleagues to vote to fulfill our constitutional responsibility toward indigenous people residing in the United States and vote for this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the author of the pending legislation, I would like to make a couple of comments and praise him for his hard work and for his determination, persistence and patience on the pending matter.

For 20 years, Neil Abercrombie and I have served together on our Natural Resources Committee. We have fought many battles together, and I have always been proud to call him my friend--a unique friend, I might add at that--and I'm not even getting any chocolate-covered macadamia nuts this evening.

He has always been able to work together with Members of differing views and backgrounds. He has always remained decent, fair-minded, able to reach across the aisle both politically and philosophically, and I find that a truly commendable feature of this gentleman.

As we have already heard from the minority side, he will be leaving the Congress at the end of this week, but I can tell him that his mark on this institution will live on much longer after he has returned to his beloved Hawaii and to his other pursuits. He has been a champion of all Native Americans during his time in this Congress. It is a testament to Neil that he will spend his last days in this body fighting for the rights of Native Hawaiians.

It is now, indeed, my honor to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud at this moment to yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono), who has been instrumental as well in passing this legislation and bringing it, that is, to the point that we are now experiencing.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 5 minutes to another valued member of our Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from American Samoa, Mr. Eni Faleomavaega.

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

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

I yield the gentleman 5 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, we're ready to close when the other side is. Is the gentleman from Washington ready to close?

Mr. Speaker, I'm very happy to yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

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

Mr. Speaker, the Hastings amendment would require a referendum by all the registered voters of Hawaii for approval of the Native Hawaiian governing entity's organic governing documents.

The Hastings amendment is inconsistent with State law as the State of Hawaii has no mechanism for a statewide referendum, thereby forcing the State of Hawaii to change its laws to comply with the Hastings amendment. This raises the question of it being an unfunded mandate on the State.

The Abercrombie substitute proposes to treat the Native Hawaiian governing entity the same as other native governments. Neither the States nor non-native citizens have the authority to approve the organic governing documents of other Native governments. So I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment proposes to require the Native Hawaiian governing authority to comply with the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The Abercrombie substitute will correctly treat the Native Hawaiian governing entity the same as any other Native American government is treated.

Specifically, the Abercrombie substitute mandates that the Native Hawaiian government's organic governing documents must provide for the protection of the civil rights of Native Hawaiian citizens. It requires that the Native Hawaiian government's organic governing documents must provide for the protection of the civil rights of all persons affected by an exercise of Native Hawaiian governmental powers and authorities. And the Abercrombie substitute subjects the Native Hawaiian governing entity to the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, which prohibits, among other things, a denial of the equal protection of any person.

There is no reason for this amendment, and I would urge its defeat.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1038, I call up the bill (H.R. 4474) to authorize the continued use of certain water diversions located on National Forest System land in the Frank Church- River of No Return Wilderness and the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness in the State of Idaho, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to

revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 4474.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4474, introduced by our colleagues, Mr. Walt Minnick and Mike Simpson of Idaho. This bill would authorize the continued use of certain water diversions located in wilderness areas on national forest system land in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness and the Selway- Bitterroot Wilderness in the State of Idaho. Predating the existence of the two wilderness areas, private land owners had received permits to maintain and repair these water diversions. The water is used for a combination of purposes, including drinking water for private cabins and ranches. Many of the permits have since expired, leaving those who own the water diversions without the ability to mechanically maintain the systems because they are located in designated wilderness. Under the terms of this legislation, the Secretary of Agriculture could only issue new permits if the owner demonstrates that the facility existed prior to the designated wilderness, the facility had been used to deliver water to the owner's land since the designation, the owner had a valid water right, and it would not be practical to move the facility out of the wilderness area.

This is narrowly tailored legislation designed to put in place a balanced reasonable solution to a specific conflict. Mr. Minnick and Mr. Simpson are to be commended for working cooperatively and in a bipartisan fashion to craft this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I do appreciate the manner which the gentleman from Washington, the ranking member, has stressed the bipartisan nature of this legislation. As he knows, in our Committee on Natural Resources, it's always our effort to improve a product the second time we consider it, and that's what we're doing here today with this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Minnick), who has been so instrumental in bringing this legislation forward and worked so hard in crafting it.

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1038, I call up the bill (H.R. 3726) to establish the Castle Nugent National Historic Site at St. Croix, United States Virgin Islands, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 3726.

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

I rise today in strong support of the pending measure introduced by my very good friend and a valued member of our Committee on Natural Resources, the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, Dr. Donna Christensen.

The pending legislation establishes the Castle Nugent National Historic Site on the island of St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Castle Nugent area possesses a wide range of historic resources, including the remnants of small Danish cotton, sugar, indigo, and cattle plantations. Pre-Columbian archaeological sites also exist on the property. The cattle ranch there is one of the oldest in the West Indies.

The diverse and undisturbed natural resources of the site include the most substantial black mangrove stand left in the Virgin Islands, sea turtle nesting areas, large and healthy coral reefs, and a lagoon that is home to many different species of birds and wildlife.

Congress authorized a special resource study for this area in 2006. The National Park Service has completed all of the work for that study and found that the area meets all of the applicable criteria for significance, suitability, and feasibility for designation as a National Park Service unit.

The proposed park would include 2,900 acres of privately owned ranch lands as well as 8,600 acres of submerged lands owned by the Government of the Virgin Islands. The family which owns the majority of the site has fought off aggressive developers for years, seeking instead to have their land preserved for future generations to enjoy.

This legislation includes no direct spending, and any land acquisition would be subject to appropriations. This is an excellent piece of legislation, and I commend once again Dr. Christensen for her tireless efforts to preserve the unique and stunning resources that are located in her beautiful district.

Thanks to the recent Public Broadcasting System series by Ken Burns chronicling the amazing history of our National Park System, many Americans are asking themselves and asking this Congress what can we do to build upon the incredible legacy left to us by those who invented the idea of national parks. The answer to that question is simple: work to identify and study significant, unique areas of natural and historic significance and then make certain they are protected.

The answer is to support the pending legislation, H.R. 3726.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am very happy at this point to yield to the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands who has worked so long, so hard, so diligently, and so patiently to bring this bill before us today, Dr. Donna Christensen, such time as she may consume.

I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time pending any further speakers on the minority side.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the remaining time?

Thank you. I yield myself the balance of my time.

I would close this debate by making the following observations on the allegations that we have heard on the other side. With respect to the technicality that a new area study has not been sent to the Congress, let me state that at a hearing before the Parks Subcommittee held last November, the National Park Service testified on the record that the draft study is completed and finds that the site meets the NPS criteria for addition to the National Park System.

The official agency testimony goes on for four pages describing the amazing natural, cultural, and historical resources found on the site. For example, that testimony states that, and I quote, ``Enactment of H.R. 3726 would provide the opportunity to preserve and protect this outstanding Caribbean cultural landscape and interpret the cotton era and related agricultural themes that have been instrumental in the development of St. Croix in the Virgin Islands. It would also help protect five pre-Columbian archeological sites, two of which are among the oldest sites on St. Croix.''

I was not able to attend this hearing, but my staff does inform me that at no time did any member of the committee, even for a moment, question the conclusions or opinions that were expressed by the National Park Service. The formal findings contained in the study will be enormously valuable as the NPS moves forward creating a management plan for this area, and in future years as the Congress contemplates appropriating funds for the site.

For now, I am satisfied that the NPS has provided us more than ample information to move forward with the initial designation. The fact that the formal study has not been transmitted to the Congress is a technicality, one that is either significant or not to the other side, the minority, depending upon what day it is. House Republicans have supported designations with incomplete studies. House Republicans have supported designations with no study at all. House Republicans have opposed designations when the study was complete and fully supported designation. So this concern for NPS studies by those on the other side of the aisle is newly discovered. Their record on this is inconsistent and simply not credible.

Like the Republican concern for following the recommendations of NPS studies, this concern for the NPS maintenance backlog is newfound as well. The NPS maintenance backlog is real, no doubt about it, and needs to be addressed. Democrats are serious about addressing it. We continue to work closely with the agency to document the work that needs to be done to prioritize it and provide the funding and the people needed to get the most pressing work done.

But I completely disagree with the Republican claim that the National Park Service, quote, ``can't take care of what it already owns.'' That kind of park bashing may score some points, but it is nothing more than a low blow. Millions of American families visit our national parks every year and come away feeling inspired, energized, and downright patriotic. The National Park Service could use more money, but they are the very best in the world at what they do, and claims to the contrary are false. Our National Park Service takes care of what they already own, to the enormous satisfaction of most Americans, and they can take care of this beautiful area of St. Croix as well.

I would ask the American people to keep an eye on the issue. You watch. When the President submits his budget request for the next fiscal year, it will contain critical funding for the NPS. And Democrats will support that request and pass it. And many of the same Republicans on this floor today expressing deep concern over the NPS maintenance backlog will come to this floor and vote against the funding needed to address it.

In fact, it was Republicans who insisted on drastically underfunding and understaffing this agency that caused the maintenance backlog to increase on their watch. The future health and growth of our NPS system should not be stunted because Republicans mismanaged it when they were in charge of government. Democrats will correct the mistakes of the past, not be held hostage by them. And just like other arguments offered today, the Republican record on this issue is so inconsistent it simply cannot be taken seriously.

Finally, Madam Speaker, H.R. 3726 does not spend one dime, and every Member on this floor knows it. The legislation designates this area as a new unit, but the bill contains no direct spending. Any land acquisition will be subject, of course, to appropriations. Enactment of this legislation is the beginning of the process, not the end. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to preserve a unique and stunning area, and I fully support having this land at least be eligible for land acquisition funding over the next few cycles.

Yes, the former Republican majority went on an irresponsible spending spree that damaged this country and resulted in the largest increase in the deficit since World War II. And yes, fixing the damage caused by those Republican mistakes will be an enormous challenge for all of us going forward. But I believe Democrats can do it. I believe we can get our fiscal house in order, and when we do it, Castle Nugent should be a unit of the National Park System so we can allocate funding to protect it and preserve it for generations to come.

As for unemployment, the unemployment rate on St. Croix was 8.9 percent last November. If this private land is successfully transformed into a popular tourist destination, it will create jobs

and help ease unemployment on the island. It will increase tourism, benefiting airlines, car rentals, travel agents, restaurants, hotels, and might even lead to hiring a few new park rangers. Democrats support creating jobs by building things up--investing in the long-term growth and health of this nation. H.R. 3726 does just that.

I would conclude by pointing out the obvious: We as a Nation have a responsibility to our territorial possessions. And if we shirk from that duty, we would be nothing more than the European empires which once ruled over vast swaths of Africa and the Americas. The U.S. Virgin Islands are a unique and fascinating place. Native people lived on these islands as far back as the Stone Age. And some of the evidence of that can be found on the site protected in this bill.

Christopher Columbus gave the islands early versions of the names we use today, Santa Cruz, San Tomas, and San Juan. And last, as we move forward in this legislation, recognize that these islands were then occupied by foreign nations, England, Holland, France and Denmark, a period that saw the native people enslaved and then driven almost to extinction. Remains of these times can be found on the land protected in this bill as well.

It is not only the history and the culture found in the continental United States that matters, but St. Croix is a part of these United States. And we owe it to those who live there now and those who were there long before this Nation came into being to value this history and to respect its culture. This legislation does that. This legislation deserves our support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I fully support recognizing legendary bluegrass singer and songwriter Lester Flatt for his many contributions to American music.

Music is a tradition that most of us in West Virginia have enjoyed our entire lives. Lester Flatt is a great example of the amazing collection of musical talent in Appalachia. This resolution supports the history and traditions of our region and brings awareness to the talents of Bluegrass Musicians.

Lester Flatt was an acclaimed guitarist, lead singer and a leader in making Blue Grass music what it is today. Most famous for his long career with Bill Monroe, Earl Scruggs and the Blue Grass Boys; Lester Flatt and his legendary sounds and strong rhythm and guitar playing helped to create the unique and memorable sound of modern Bluegrass.

A southern West Virginia Bluegrass legend Everett Lilly, originally from Clear Creek near Beckley, had the opportunity to tour with Lester Flatt in the early 1950s, and participated in classic duet recordings with Lester Flatt.

In southern West Virginia we celebrate not only famous Bluegrass Musicians like Lester Flatt and Everett Lilly, but all of our talented musicians through efforts led by the West Virginia Humanities Council and the Music Hall of Fame exhibit at Tamarack. The permanent exhibit at Tamarack in Beckley, WV houses memorabilia and recorded works of Mountain State musicians of the last 50 years and is accompanied by a concert series and a variety of educational programs.

Another exciting initiative is The WV Music Hall of Fame's Traveling Museum which is a collaborated effort between the Humanities Council and the WV Department of Education. The exhibits showcase the variety of music that has come from the Mountain State, from opera and jazz to gospel, traditional, country, bluegrass, blues and rock 'n' roll. While visiting the Traveling Museum, you can view an interactive county by county map of West Virginia's musical history, listen to a variety of music and even make your own CD.

I fully encouraged this partnership and commend The Hall of Fame on a remarkable job in its first few years.

Music was the missing link to West Virginia's premiere arts venue, Tamarack. The Hall of Fame and Tamarack are natural partners. I encourage my fellow West Virginians to support our State and our regions' great musicians and organizations--all working to keep our arts and humanities heritage alive and well in our communities, schools, and lives.