Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 788) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during further proceedings today in the House and in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair be authorized to reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any question that otherwise could be subjected to 5-minute voting under clause 8 or 9 of rule XX or under clause 6 of rule XVIII.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2262.

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

Mr. Chairman, over 135 years after President Ulysses S. Grant signed the Mining Law of 1872 into law, I bring before this body legislation to drag it into the 21st century. This legislation at long last provides badly needed fiscal and environmental reforms of mining for valuable minerals in the 11 western States and Alaska.

In bringing this measure before the House, I am pleased to have the strong support of our colleague from California (Mr. Costa), who chairs the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources of the Natural Resources Committee. Jim chairs the subcommittee that I chaired 20 years ago when I first began this effort to reform the Mining Law of 1872. I am honored that he has taken up the mantle as well.

The Mining Law of 1872 is the last of the frontier-era legislation to remain on the books, with the Homestead Act having long been repealed, not to mention laws regarding carrying your six-gun into a saloon or allowing a posse to hang horse thieves. The basic goal of this law, almost free land and free minerals to help settle the West, has long been achieved. While the minerals produced under this law remain in demand, mining under an archaic 19th century regime is not compatible with modern land use philosophies or social values. This threatens mining, and mining jobs, and is one reason this law must be brought into the 21st century.

Today, as in the 1800s, the Mining Law allows claims to be staked on Federal lands in the West for valuable hardrock minerals such as gold, silver, and copper. No royalty is paid to the true owners of these lands, the American people, from the production of their minerals. Except by dint of an annual appropriations rider, the claims can be sold to multinational mining conglomerates for $2.50 or $5 an acre.

Now, some listening to what I just said may think I am making this up. Free gold and land for $2.50 an acre? That sounds like a fairy tale. My friends, ladies and gentlemen, I am not making it up. This is no fairy tale. This is a pirate story, with the public lands profiteers robbing the American public blind.

Mr. Chairman, billions of dollars' worth of gold, silver, and copper have been produced from American soil without a royalty paid to the true owners of the land, the American people. Those that will recall history will know that the largest bank heists in the world have been the $900 million stolen from the Central Bank of Iraq in 2003; the $72 million stolen from Knightsbridge Security Deposit in England in 1987; and the $65 million stolen from the Banco Central in Brazil in 2005. But, my colleagues, those figures are chump change, chump change compared to the estimated $300 billion in valuable minerals given away for free from America's public lands under the Mining Law of 1872. Incredible. Simply incredible. But, it gets worse.

Being a 19th-century law, it contains no mining and reclamation standards. The result is a legacy of toxic streams, scarred landscapes, and health and safety threats to our citizens from abandoned mined lands. The mayor of Boise, Idaho, and let me restate that State, Idaho, wrote a letter to me recently to state that the city is powerless to protect the integrity of its source of drinking water, which is threatened by a cyanide heap-leach gold mining facility proposed by a Canadian, and I repeat that, a Canadian-based company.

This last September, a 13-year-old girl tragically plunged to her death in an Arizona mine shaft. In reference to an area pocketed with abandoned mine sites, an Arizona mine inspector was quoted as saying: ``It's just a death trap out there.''

The Mining Law of 1872 is the Jurassic Park of all Federal laws. It requires an extreme makeover. Environmental safeguards must be supersized. Federal lands must stop being given away for fast-food hamburger prices. The robbery of America's gold and silver must stop.

Mr. Chairman, the bill I am bringing before the House today would make commonsense reforms by imposing a royalty on the production of these hardrock minerals. Bear in mine that coal, oil, and gas produced from Federal lands have long paid these royalties. The legislation would also put a permanent end to what is known as patenting, the sale of mining claims for the price of a snack at Taco Bell.

Further, it would provide for statutory mining and reclamation standards that are performance-based rather than prescriptive. As well, this would establish a special fund to reclaim abandoned hardrock mines, address the health and human safety they propose, and provide for community impact assistance.

This is a historic debate, a debate that is long overdue. Those who support this legislation, the countless locally elected public officials across the West, concerned citizens across the West, sportsmen and -women across the West, taxpayer advocates across America, bring with them the new-century conviction that corporate interests can no longer have an unfettered ability to reap America's mineral wealth with no payment in return. There must be parameters set and rules to which industry must comply.

I am here to suggest that if we continue under the current regime, that if we do not make corrections, the ability of the mining industry to continue to operate on public domain lands in the future is questionable. The other side will bring up jobs, they will bring up the health of the industry that might be decimated by this legislation. I say we are here to protect mining jobs and to protect the health of the industry and to provide some certainty in the making of financial decisions by the mining industry.

While the Mining Law of 1872 over the years has helped develop the West and cause needed minerals to be extracted from the Earth, we have long passed the time when this 19th-century law can be depended upon to serve the country's 21st-century mineral needs, and do so in a manner accepted by society. Reform of the Mining Law of 1872, I tell my colleagues, is a matter of the public interest, the interest of the American taxpayer, the interest of all Americans who are true owners of these public lands. The name of every American is on the deed of these lands. I urge approval of this legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Yes.

Yes.

Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record at this point a letter to me from Chairman John Dingell of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and a letter in response from myself to Chairman Dingell of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC, October 29, 2007.

Hon. Nick J. Rahall II,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I write with regard to H.R. 2262, the

``Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007''. I know it is

your wish for the bill to be considered on the House floor as

soon as possible.

Some of the provisions in the bill establish requirements

for the Environmental Protection Agency and concern the

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act of 1980. Those provisions are within the

jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. I am

not, however, raising the issue with the Speaker because it

is my understanding that you have agreed that the referral

and consideration of the bill do not in any way serve as a

jurisdictional precedent as to our two committees.

Further, as to any conference on the bill, the Committee on

Energy and Commerce reserves the right to seek the

appointment of conferees for consideration of any portions of

the bill that are within the Committee's jurisdiction. It is

my understanding that you have agreed to support a request by

the Committee with respect to serving as conferees on the

bill (or similar legislation).

I request that you send to me a letter confirming our

agreements and that our exchange of letters be inserted in

the Congressional Record as part of the consideration of the

bill.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you wish to discuss

this matter further.

Sincerely,

John D. Dingell,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Costa from California.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

I say to my colleague from across the river from me in Kentucky that, as he knows, jobs in both our hardrock mining industry and our coal industry are on the decline already. Those jobs have been declining; and as the gentleman so well knows, as well as my colleagues on the minority side, these jobs are declining today because of the technologies that are coming in place.

Look at our coal industry. We're mining more coal as we're producing more hardrock minerals, but with less man and woman power because of the technologies that are replacing man and woman power. It's that simple.

So while the jobs may be on the decline, the production is on the upswing.

I would say as well to my colleagues who raise the specter of here the Democrats go raising taxes again, note this week in the Wall Street Journal, this week the administration, the administration, not the Congress, announced that it's raising the royalty rates for oil and gas from the Gulf of Mexico to 18.75 percent from 16.67 percent for offshore leases to be offered next year. Even with this increase, the gulf will remain one of the lowest tax oil basins in the world.

So let's put this proposed 8 percent royalty on hardrock mining in perspective, please. It's less than half. Let's also keep in mind that hardrock mining is the only industry that pays no royalty on public lands, and all other countries and all States, for that matter, charge a royalty. Companies impose royalties and private agreements on hardrock mines. Let's keep in perspective what we're doing here; and, remember, it was the administration this week that raised royalties on Gulf of Mexico leases.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our distinguished subcommittee Chair on Insular Affairs, the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a valued member of our Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from New Mexico if he has any additional speakers, because I am prepared to close, as I have the right to close.

Mr. Chairman, on January 28, 1872, Representative Sergeant brought to the House floor from the Committee on Mines and Mining H.R. 1016, the bill that was to be enacted as the Mining Law of 1872. He noted that debate had taken place whether it was worthwhile for the government to sell the mineral lands of the United States, some thought, on some idea of a royalty belonging to the government.

Instead, the Members debating that measure decided to allow for the patenting of mining claims for $2.50 or $5 an acre, depending on whether it was allowed to place their claim because, in the words of Representative Sergeant, ``We are inducing miners to purchase their claims so that large amounts of money are thereby brought into the Treasury of the United States.''

Well, now, perhaps back then $2.50 an acre represented a large amount of money. But I submit it does not today. And the royalty debated back when this law was passed is what, ironically, we are debating today.

Now, the gentleman from New Mexico has said that in order to pay that $2.50 an acre you have to mine the land. I would say that that is an inaccurate description of current law. You do not necessarily have to mine the land. You have to show that there's a valuable mineral that exists therein, which is not a very hard proposition to show these days.

With that noted, let me state that I've engaged in the effort to reform the Mining Law of 1872 these past many years, not just for the apparent reasons, valuable minerals mined for free, the threats to health and human safety from abandoned mine lands, but also because I am pro-mining, I come from a coal mining State, because I no longer believe that we can expect a viable hardrock mining industry to exist on public domain lands in the future if we do not make corrections to the law today.

I do so because there are provisions of the existing law which impede efficient and serious mineral exploration and development. And I do so because of the unsettled political climate governing this activity. With reform, if not coming in a comprehensive fashion, certainly it will continue to come on a piecemeal basis.

As my colleagues come to the floor to vote on this issue, I hope they will ask their staffs just how many letters from how many mining groups have they received in opposition to the pending bill. I hope they'll bring those letters to the floor with them, because I submit there will not be many. And I submit the reason may be, using my intuition, could the responsible segments of the hardrock mining industry, which is the majority, could the responsible segment of that hardrock mining industry want to end the uncertainty that exists over this industry? Could it be that they want a finality to the arguments surrounding their industry? Could it be that they want a basis upon which to make business and future investment decisions?

And hardly today are they screaming pauper. Look at this week's Wall Street Journal headline: ``Gold Rush of 2007. Mining Mergers.''

The price is pretty well up there these days. I think these companies are doing quite well, and they would like to have some finality on this issue. I believe that, with enough courage, as we've seen from elected officials, hunters, sportsmen, fishermen from across the West, we can continue to address the problems facing mining and dovetail our need for minerals with the necessity of protecting our environment.

For at stake here in this debate over the Mining Law of 1872 is the health, welfare, and environmental integrity of our people and on our Federal lands. At stake is the public interest of all Americans. And at stake is the ability of the hardrock mining industry to continue to operate on public domain lands in the future to produce those minerals that are necessary to maintain our standard of living.

I urge the adoption of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment by the form that I have placed at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, following 2 days of committee consideration of the bill during which the committee debated 25 amendments, we continued a dialogue with several members of the committee, both sides of the aisle, Democrat and Republican, in order to further perfect the underlying legislation and to keep the fairness of the process open.

This manager's amendment is a result of those deliberations. In summary, the manager's amendment would, one, clarify that valid existing rights associated with existing mining claims would be protected under the act.

Number two, this amendment clarifies that, in addition to paying a 4 percent royalty, existing operations would still need to come into compliance with the act within 10 years.

Number three, this amendment clarifies that the claim maintenance and location fees currently allotted to the administration of the mining claims will continue to be so allotted with the balance going to cleanup of abandoned hardrock mines.

In addition, in this amendment, as requested by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), user fees assessed by the BLM to process mining permit applications would be used for administration of the mining law program.

The manager's amendment would further limit the purview of section 504 citizen suits to permits issued pursuant to title III of the act as suggested by Mr. Cannon of Utah.

The manager's amendment would clarify that nothing under this act will affect the sovereign immunity of any Indian tribe.

That concludes the summary explanation of the manager's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I would agree with my friend from New Mexico in only the first three words of the statement he just made, and that being it's a simple amendment. Yes, it's a simple amendment. It helps liberate, it eradicates, it eliminates, it erases, it simply guts the fundamental environmental safeguard of this legislation.

We have struggled for many years to find a statutory standard by which hardrock mining on Federal lands must comply with. This bill states that mining must prevent ``undue degradation of public lands and resources.'' That term is defined as ``irreparable harm to significant scientific, cultural, or environmental resources on public lands that cannot be effectively mitigated.''

And let me stress the use of the words ``that cannot be effectively mitigated.'' It is common practice in this country to mitigate developments, whether it be the construction of a highway, a dam, or a mine. But under this bill, if a mining operation could not be configured under any circumstance to effectively mitigate irreparable harm to save the water supply of a major city, then the Interior Department would have the ability to just say no. The gentleman from New Mexico's amendment would strike the definition in the bill of this term. The amendment would continue a 19th century view that was fashioned in an era when there was no major metropolises in the West. The amendment harkens back to an era that no longer exists. This is a defining moment. This is what we are talking about in the overall thrust of the pending legislation.

Under this bill, we will continue to have mining on Federal lands. I personally believe it will flourish. But the bad actors in the industry, the minority, and I will be the first to readily admit it is a minority, will no longer be allowed on the stage. The responsible industries should be against this amendment because they are the ones, as I said earlier, that want some certainty to their planning decisions so that they can make the investment decisions necessary to run a responsible mining operation with the jobs attendant thereto.

I therefore would urge opposition to the gentleman from New Mexico's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding and for offering this very important amendment that does improve and enhance our ability to restore abandoned mine lands and waters.

The underlying legislation would establish an abandoned hardrock mining reclamation fund which would be financed by the royalties that were imposed on operations under the mining law of 1872. The gentlewoman's amendment makes it clear that remedial activities could be done on a river watershed basis.

Again, I commend her for offering this amendment, and we are truly ready to accept it.

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

Mr. Chairman, during debate in committee over this legislation, the gentleman from Nevada conducted himself in a manner which I highly commend. He offered amendments that were aimed at addressing the concerns and interests of his State and his district. And, frankly, I recognize he has the most at stake here, representing Nevada, the largest gold-producing State in the Nation.

The gentleman offered two amendments. The one he is offering today was one of those amendments. In committee, I could not accept it because we had no discussions on it prior to its appearing as an amendment. But we did offer to continue to work with the gentleman from Nevada, as we have done.

And after having some time to consider the subject matter of his amendment, I am going to accept it, and I would urge my colleagues to do likewise.

This amendment would allocate 50 percent of the revenues received from the proposed new abandoned hardrock reclamation fund back to the States where those revenues were generated.

There is precedent for this arrangement in the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund established for coal back in

1977 which so vitally affects my State. The other 50 percent of the revenues would be used by the Federal Government for national priorities.

So, in conclusion, I say to the gentleman from Nevada, you are looking out for your State. I appreciate that; I commend you for it. And I appreciate the manner in which you have approached this overall issue of mining law reform, and I accept your amendment.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

And I say I accept your amendment without soliciting a pledge for your vote on final passage.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the gentleman from Utah's concern and his deep involvement in this legislation. What worries me with his pending amendment is the myriad of unintended consequences that may occur.

In 1947, and again in 1955, Congress took out from the operation of the Mining Law of 1872 mineral materials such as sand, stone, and gravel on Federal lands and provided that they could be sold under contracts. However, a loophole was inserted into the law. Under this loophole, if the sand, stone, or gravel was an uncommon variety, it would remain under the Mining Law of 1872.

Now, determining just what an ``uncommon variety'' is has since cost the American taxpayers countless millions of dollars in litigation. The legislation before us today eliminates the distinction and confusion. And we would make all of these mineral materials available through sales contracts. The gentleman's amendment would strike that provision.

In essence, the gentleman's amendment would continue to allow uncommon varieties of mineral materials to be claimed under the Mining Law as revised by this legislation.

I'm not sure the sponsor of the amendment realizes what the result would be for these uncommon variety mining claims to be then subject to the bill's royalty regime and the bill's environmental standards. As such, if we adopted the gentleman's amendment, an 8 percent royalty would then be slapped on any future production from these uncommon variety claims.

Be that as it may, I oppose this amendment. First, the American people receive a return from the disposition of mineral materials through the sales contract. Moreover, this distinction between uncommon and common varieties of sand, stone, and gravel is nothing but a scam. I well recall, as does the gentleman from Oregon, our colleague, Peter DeFazio, the ``great sand scam'' at the Oregon Dunes National Recreational Area. I conducted a subcommittee hearing in Oregon on this issue. One person plastered mining claims over 780 areas of the recreation area where the hearing was held claiming the sand was uncommon. As I recall, his contention was that it had unique silica virtues for making glass. He then demanded $11 million from the Federal Government to buy him out.

I well recall the ``stone-washed jeans scam,'' where this guy located mining claims for pumice in a wild scenic river in New Mexico. He claimed that the pumice was an uncommon variety because you could produce stone-washed jeans with it. Give me a break. I think the gentleman gets the idea.

And just because some special interests lobbyists got this loophole inserted into Federal law in 1955 does not mean it should be condoned today. I view it as a scam, a rip-off. I urge defeat of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time and merely would restate what I said earlier about the millions of dollars in litigation that the American people have shelled out to determine just what uncommon varieties are. And, therefore, the gentleman from Utah's amendment would merely continue allowing, without royalties being paid and allow being mined for free, these uncommon varieties of sand, stone and gravel being mined from Federal lands.

So I would urge opposition to the amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that the gentleman continues to push. We had it offered in full committee markup, had debate on it at that time.

When it was offered in committee, I advised him that it did not belong in this bill and perhaps should be considered as a stand-alone piece of legislation after the subject of a hearing. We have not conducted that hearing yet on this matter.

As I said in committee, I do remind my colleagues on the other side that when Newt Gingrich and Company issued their Contract with America, one of its tenets was to reduce the Federal bureaucracy. What the Republican majority ultimately achieved in this regard was the elimination of two Federal entities, the ICC, the Interstate Commerce Commission, which was then recreated as the STB within the Transportation Department. And the other Federal entity that the then- Republican majority eliminated was the Bureau of Mines at the Interior Department.

Now, in a stunning reversal, the Bureau of Mines would essentially be recreated under the guise of a Mineral Commodity Information Agency, I guess you would call that, MCIA. It would enlarge the bureaucracy and increase Federal spending. I repeat, it would enlarge the Federal bureaucracy and increase spending. I keep looking around for my colleague from Arizona (Mr. Flake). Where are you when we need you?

The gentleman's amendment would authorize $30 million a year for this new bureaucracy that the then-Republican majority eliminated when they ran the Congress. This new bureaucracy would have an associated administrator; it would have four assistant administrators; there would be an external affairs office, a public affairs office, even an international affairs office, and who knows how many other offices here and there.

The budget, financial, human resources offices, the human capital management office, the professional development office, the contract management office, yadda, yadda, yadda, I think you get the picture. So this is a whole lot of bureaucracy that would be created based on a proposal that never had a hearing and that was rejected by the Republicans when they were in the majority.

I urge the defeat of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have the right to close, do I not?

May I inquire as to the time remaining.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee on Interior appropriations and my fellow classmate, Mr. Dicks of Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, this is the day after Halloween and I recognize fully there are still tricks in the air, and this is another trick by the minority in this body. The amendment says report back to the House promptly. I am pretty sure that every Member of this body recognizes what the word ``promptly'' means. It is an amendment by the minority to substantially delay, if not outright kill, the pending legislation. So Members are well aware of this trick, and I urge defeat of this attempt to thwart passage by the House today of bipartisan legislation that has broad support at the local, State and Federal level.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the effect of this motion would also be to reduce the amount of royalties owed the American people under this bill, under the guise of advocating nuclear energy for that matter, and I see no relationship here. I urge defeat of this motion which would reduce the amount of royalties that would come in to the American taxpayers under this bill.

Now to the segment about loss of jobs.

Due to changes in demands today, it's every Member of this body's knowledge that we may see a decline in the hardrock mining industry and the demand for jobs because of the technology, because of the technologies that are coming online. There's not a one of us who is against those technologies. In many cases, they're cleaner. In many cases, they're safer and they're healthier for our workforce. But that technology does displace man and woman power. It's a fact of our economic realities today.

So the gentleman's motion to recommit is based on unfounded premises, scare tactics, and tricks that we should not adopt; and I would urge defeat of the gentleman's motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 2262, to include corrections in spelling, punctuation, section numbering and cross-referencing, and the insertion of appropriate headings.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 765, I call up the bill (H.R. 1483) to amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to extend the authorization for certain national heritage areas, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 1483.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, as America continues to grapple with the war and citizens throughout these United States deal with their daily struggles, I think it is important for us to harken back to our heritage and to celebrate our culture.

From the coalfields of southern West Virginia to the Land of Lincoln in Illinois; from the awesome beauty of Niagara Falls to the Muscle Shoals of Alabama; from the hallowed ground of the Virginia Piedmont, where battles were fought to unify this Nation, to the Santa Cruz Valley of New Mexico, this is the fabric of America. This is her heartbeat. Let us take time to listen to it and to celebrate it.

The legislation we are considering today was introduced by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Ohio, Representative Ralph Regula, who has been a strong and effective advocate for heritage areas, not only in the area he represents but also throughout the country, and I commend and salute him for that leadership.

Heritage areas help to preserve and interpret the geological history, the natural history and the human history of an area in a comprehensive fashion so that we and our children will better understand how our land has shaped our history and how our history has shaped our land.

National heritage areas are local community-driven preservation projects. Most of them arise out of the concerns of a core group of committed,

local folks who want to work together to preserve the places and resources that make their country or town or region unique. These citizens bring their proposals to their elected representatives in Congress because they need technical and planning assistance from their government and matching funds to use as seed money to help get their program off the ground.

Now, 23 years after the first national heritage area was designated, the program is at a crossroads. The Congress can either provide the program with the tools and support it needs to continue, maturing into a successful preservation model, or the Congress can turn our backs on heritage areas and leave local communities to fend for themselves as they try to save those things that make them special, that make America special.

We are moving this legislation today because we support national heritage areas and we want to see them succeed. Ever since Congress established the Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor in 1984, heritage tourism has been growing, and today it is a significant economic engine. These areas are worthwhile, not only as a way to help local economies, but also as a crucial tool for preserving our communities' and our people's links to the past.

By providing Federal recognition and financial support, we encourage preservation and interpretation of important periods in our Nation's history in a way that traditional units of the national park system cannot do.

Our initial investment ``primes the pump,'' if you will, and ensures that those areas get a solid start toward financial and operational independence. Given that each Federal dollar is matched by local funds, the Federal investment in the heritage area program is money well spent.

In addressing the Rules Committee Monday, my colleague Mr. Regula noted that the $8 million made in his heritage area has yielded more than $270 million in non-Federal funding. For affected local communities, heritage areas are a program that works.

H.R. 1483, as amended, would establish six new heritage areas, increase the funding authorization for nonexisting areas, and make mostly technical changes in the establishing legislation for several of those areas. The bill also includes a study of the Northern Neck of Virginia, requested by our late colleague, Representative Jo Ann Davis.

Bringing this bill before the House today responds to the frequent and energetic requests of numerous Members on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats. In total, H.R. 1483 includes bills that are cosponsored by dozens of Members in both parties, including the entire House delegation in Illinois and New Jersey.

We also had very helpful input from the administration on this legislation, including detailed studies of the suitability of each new heritage area. Most of the changes being made to existing heritage areas were added at the request of the National Park Service.

This is a good bill, Mr. Speaker, and I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for his commitment and leadership on heritage areas. We support passage of H.R. 1483 and urge its adoption by the House today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honored at this point to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady that the gentleman from Utah has already referenced, the chairlady of our powerful House Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from New York, Representative Louise Slaughter, who has been a true fighter for her Niagara Falls National Heritage Area.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Ohio 1 minute, also.

Mr. Speaker, continuing with the strong bipartisan support for this bill, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend and dear colleague, the gentleman from Peoria, Illinois (Mr. LaHood), whose bipartisan nature and friendly relations we're going to truly miss in this Congress next year.

I beg your pardon, it's your side of the aisle that should be yielding the time totally, but I'll be glad to yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Virginia, who has been very instrumental in crafting this legislation, and I appreciate his help.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer).

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is left on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) who has been very instrumental in crafting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, with the development of such strong bipartisan legislation of this nature, it obviously takes a lot of work by Members' staffs on both sides of the aisle and by members of the originating committee, our Committee on Natural Resources, as well.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Raul Grijalva, one of those gentlemen that has taken the reins of leadership this year as chairman of our Parks Subcommittee and done a tremendous job.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California, Mr. Sam Farr.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, as I understand I have the right to close.

That's correct. And I reserve the right to close.

Mr. Speaker, in summation, these are not good times for the ratings of the United States Congress in the public opinion polls. We all know that in this body; yet I think if the American people would see Congress in action this very moment that those poll ratings might very well go up.

We've seen examples on this legislation of Members on both sides of the aisle in a bipartisan, nonpartisan manner, working to preserve what is the best of America. I look at the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), I look at the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), I look at the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) on the other side of the aisle, and I look at the many Members on this side of the aisle from different parts of the country, south, north, west, that have joined together in bringing this legislation to the floor today.

Yes, we have respectful disagreements, and I respect the gentleman from Utah's position, but we also have worked very hard in what I think the American people want to see, and that is a nonpartisan effort to solve this country's problems.

Now, if you looked up the word ``red herring'' in Webster's Dictionary, the definition would be the property rights arguments that the critics of this bill are using against this legislation.

Heritage areas have no regulatory authority. Over 60 million Americans live in heritage areas. The entire State of Tennessee, for example, the entire State of Tennessee is a heritage area. Almost my entire congressional district is a heritage area. There have been no impacts on private property rights, mining, road building, economic development. I believe we've done quite well in each of those areas in my congressional district, most of which is a heritage area.

And the gentleman from Arizona, the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Grijalva, brought out very well where we've seen no instances where there have been private property issues, no instances where such problems have occurred.

Now, those that have expressed concern about property provisions in this bill, let me be clear. In the 20 years plus of this program's existence, opponents have not been able to identify one single instance in which someone has been deprived of the use of their property as a result of such designations as we're considering in this bill.

And nevertheless, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has quoted, we do, in this legislation, provide extensive property, private property provisions. These private property protections are the same language approved by the Senate, the same language proposed by the administration in heritage area systems bills under consideration in this Congress, and the same language included in heritage areas bills passed by the previous Congress under the other party's control.

The history of this program, as we have seen in repeated debate on the floor and in committee, not to mention the GAO report which has been referenced, has proven that there are simply no legitimate private property issues here. It's time to move on, stop flogging this dead horse and bringing up this red herring.

Now, the gentleman from Utah mentioned our late colleague, the gentleman that was elected to Congress with me, the late Representative Bruce Vento, the former chairman of the Parks Subcommittee. And the gentleman from Utah mentioned that he did not intend for the Federal heritage areas to last longer than 10 years. I'm reasonably sure, however, that our late colleague did not foresee these areas having to contend with close to $90 a barrel oil and the other increase in costs, I might add, that the numerous heritage areas created under Republican Congresses that were all authorized for 15 years. We have provided an increase in authorized funding for heritage areas to ensure that heritage areas have enough funds to get on their feet.

So the issue here is not private property rights. The issue is not gaming in these areas. The issue is not earmarks. I would say to my colleagues, imagine, for example, if Yellowstone National Park did not exist and Members of Congress introduced legislation to provide for such a crown jewel of our national park system. Would that be called an earmark?

The issue is not lobbying by local people, our local legislators. They have a right to try to secure that additional State and local funding necessary to match Federal funding. We provide

protections. Federal law prohibits any other lobbying by local groups.

So the issue, as I conclude, Mr. Speaker, is not about earmarking, not about lobbying, not about private property rights; it's about the American people and protection of what is theirs and providing our American people a place in which they can take their families, can spend quality time of life in these times when it's so hard to spend quantity time together, that they spend quality time together. And that's what we're talking about in this legislation. That's what we're talking about in our heritage areas, in America's heritage.

So I conclude by urging my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue the nonpartisan, bipartisan spirit that has brought this bill to the floor and pass this legislation by a tremendous margin.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise maybe not necessarily in opposition to the motion but, nevertheless, to claim time to speak.

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue, as is typical of a minority of the minority, that has not been mentioned one iota in any of today's debate, in any of the committee debate developed on a bipartisan, nonpartisan nature in bringing this bill to the floor, not in any way brought up in any of the extensive hearings held by our subcommittee chairman, Mr. Grijalva, and is brought up at this last second out of the clear blue, which, again, I say should not be surprising because it is typical of a minority of the minority to make such efforts.

But I would ask the gentleman from Utah, is he referring to all Federal lands? Because as I am sure he knows, the heritage areas are not part of the national park system, the chart that he just brought forward, nor are they under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. The heritage areas are part of a collaborative effort between Federal and State and local people with local governing units with matching dollars, not all Federal dollars, as I am sure the gentleman knows.

So I ask that question. Are you intending this language for all Federal lands?

I yield to the gentleman from Utah.

I am not sure we are talking about the same definitions here.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House in the motion to recommit, I report H.R. 1483 back to the House with an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 1483, to include corrections in spelling, punctuation, section numbering and

cross-referencing, and the insertion of appropriate headings.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 764, I call up the bill (H.R. 505) 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.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 505.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 505, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007. Without the hard work, dogged determination, persistence and leadership of our colleagues from Hawaii, we would not be where we are today on this legislation. Indeed, Mr. Neil Abercrombie has been at this for many years, and it is because of his dedication to his people that I have also agreed to strongly support this bill. I also want to commend Mazie Hirono for her work, and the entire delegation deserves words of praise for their leadership.

This bill has been years in the making and Mr. Abercrombie, in particular, never failed to take every opportunity to educate and encourage the rest of us on the need for this important legislation.

H.R. 505 would establish a process by which the Native Hawaiian governing body would be reorganized and the political and legal relationship with the United States would once again be reaffirmed.

Starting in 1920, Congress began passing legislation specifically for the benefit of Native Hawaiians. To date, over 160 laws have been enacted authorizing Native Hawaiian participation in government programs ranging from housing to the repatriation of Hawaiian bones from our Nation's museums.

Recent court challenges have necessitated the need for this legislation to codify a government-to-government relationship with the indigenous peoples of Hawaii. Simply put, this legislation will finally bring parity to the way the United States relates to Indian tribes, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians.

I will tell you a bit about what H.R. 505 does not do:

It does not allow for gaming of any kind. It does not provide for additional land to be transferred to Native Hawaiians. It does not change any current civil or criminal jurisdiction by the State or Federal Government.

It does not provide for any new eligibility for Native Hawaiians into Indian programs.

Mr. Speaker, Congress's authority to address the conditions of the aboriginal indigenous people, regardless of how organized, stems from our United States Constitution. In recognition of this authority, we passed similar legislation in the House under the suspension of the rules during the 106th Congress. My committee, the Committee on Natural Resources, has passed similar legislation three times, each time with overwhelming bipartisan support.

We need to make a clear statement. We need to pass H.R. 505 overwhelmingly, and I would urge all my colleagues to vote ``yea'' on this important bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm very happy to yield 6 minutes to the main drive behind this legislation, a valued member of our Committee on Natural Resources, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

Mr. Speaker, I'm very happy to yield to another Representative from Hawaii, the gentlelady, Ms. Mazie Hirono, for 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 5 minutes to another distinguished member of our Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

Mr. Speaker, how much time is left for each side?

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to my next speaker, I do want to certainly recognize the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) who has, for the first time in quite a few months if not this year, been so gracious and so kind to give us at least 5 minutes' notice of what the minority side's motion to recommit is going to be all about instead of at the last nanosecond receiving such recommittal motions as we have on so many bills before this body in an effort to play gotcha. So I do appreciate knowing what that recommittal motion is going to be ahead of time.

Thank you, Mr. Flake.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

Mr. Speaker, I have the right to close and I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, according to the American Bar Association, ``The right of Native Hawaiians to use of property held in trust for them and the right to govern those assets is not in conflict with the equal protection clause since it rests on independent constitutional authority regarding the rights of native nations contained within articles I and II of the Constitution.''

The ABA further adds, ``Our courts have upheld Congress' power to recognize indigenous nations and has specifically recognized that this power includes the power to re-recognize nations whose recognition has been compromised in the historical past.''

Indeed, I would note that this body, the Congress, has recognized 530 of the 561 federally recognized Indian tribes. It is clear that we have this power and this authority and that is simply what we are doing today with respect to Native Hawaiians.

I again want to commend the delegation from Hawaii, Mr. Abercrombie and Ms. Hirono, for the work that they have put into this legislation. I commend our Committee on Natural Resources and the staff that have worked so hard to, once again, bring this effort to the floor of the House in a nonpartisan, bipartisan piece of legislation. I join my colleague from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) in hoping that the motion to recommit is not offered by the gentleman from Arizona. But should it be offered, then I hope my colleagues will certainly recognize that what we are attempting to prevent by arguing against that motion is a discrimination against Native Hawaiians. And we are asking that we treat them no differently than other Indians.

I would close by again urging my colleagues to join, once again, in supporting this legislation in a strong bipartisan manner and I would urge a ``no'' on any motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Greg Gasperecz and Ms. Laurie Conner, in anticipation of the joyful event of their marriage on October 26th, 2007. The institution of marriage is one of the most sacred, cherished and effective traditions in society, and I am pleased today to pause and offer my congratulations to Greg, and best wishes to Laurie, as they approach this important milestone in their lives.

Greg and Laurie have been longtime companions and soul-mates, and they both cherish their proud heritage as lifelong residents of New Orleans, Louisiana. Side by side, in steadfast support of one another, they have celebrated the best of times, and weathered the worst of storms, as survivors of Hurricane Katrina.

In September of 2005, Greg and Laurie were each living the American Dream of home ownership, and Laurie owned a rental property as well, all in the Lakeview neighborhood of New Orleans. Although they were both able to evacuate in the days before the storm, they had to leave behind a lifetime of possessions in the homes they loved so much. By the time they were able to return, they found their homes defiantly still standing, but the structures and entire contents, were a total loss. All 3 houses, wiped out in a single day.

In December of 2005, my wife and I decided to celebrate our first wedding anniversary in New Orleans. And we decided to drive from southern West Virginia to southern Louisiana, so that we could better appreciate the storm's damage to the entire region. We went to New Orleans to show our support for the community in some small way, and to personally tell any survivors that we could find, that they had not been forgotten. '

It was on that visit that I came to know Greg Gasperecz and Laurie Conner, in what had to be the bleakest period of their lives. They were just beginning to comprehend the totality of their personal loss, and that of their beloved hometown. Yet they spent an entire day and evening, offering us an extended tour of the affected areas, including their homes, and they proudly took us on a tour of the unmistakable French Quarter; which was still proudly vibrant under the dire circumstances that persisted. That day, we stood atop the sandbags that had been dropped 3 months earlier at the breech of the 17th Street Canal, a stream of lake water still slowly spreading into the street below. Greg offered his insight and expertise as he explained the environmental implications of both the cause and the effects of the disaster.

Greg and Laurie had so much to be sad about at that time, but they were still the most charming hosts for which the city could ever hope. I was touched by their pride and compassion, and inspired by their stoic resolve to remain and to rebuild. And 2 years later, rebuild they have. It is my understanding that in the last week, they have finally been able to begin construction on a brand new home, in their same Lakeview neighborhood. And this week, in their beloved French Quarter, they will stand before their loved ones and recite their vows of marriage to one another. Greg and Laurie realize that they have been blessed; to have each other, to have survived this epic disaster, and to have been able to rebuild their home and their lives. They don't take any of that for granted, instead, have chosen to recommit to rebuilding their community, and give back to the city that has given them so much. This is so characteristic of the proud and tough West Virginia work ethic and belief in God.

Madam Speaker, I close my remarks today with congratulations to Greg and Laurie. I ask that you join me in wishing them well, and trust that they will have many happy years together in New Orleans, LA.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material on H.R. 1011.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 763, I call up the bill (H.R. 1011) to designate additional National Forest System lands in the State of Virginia as wilderness or a wilderness study area, to designate the Kimberling Creek Potential Wilderness Area for eventual incorporation in the Kimberling Creek Wilderness, to establish the Seng Mountain and Bear Creek Scenic Areas, to provide for the development of trail plans for the wilderness areas and scenic areas, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.

Scott) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. SCOTT of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

H.R. 1011, the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act, was introduced by my friend and neighboring colleague, Representative Rick Boucher.

The bill designates nearly 40,000 acres in the Jefferson National Forest as wilderness and nearly 12,000 acres as National Scenic Areas. These natural spaces represent some of the true wild gems of the Commonwealth of Virginia and my State of West Virginia.

H.R. 1011 is a strong bipartisan measure that is cosponsored by several other representatives from Virginia. H.R. 1011 also has broad support from Governor Tim Kaine, both Virginia Senators, four county boards of supervisors, local businesses, State organizations, hunters and faith groups.

Each of the areas within H.R. 1011 were either recommended for wilderness designation in the 2004 Jefferson National Forest Plan or have been endorsed by the local board of supervisors of the relevant county. All the areas of H.R. 1011 are located within the district of Representative Boucher, who has been a true leader and fighter for this legislation and deserves the commendation of us all.

All are located within his District, as I said, with the exception of a 555 wilderness-acre addition that I am proud to note is in my congressional district in Monroe County, West Virginia. Wilderness designation is not new to this portion of Virginia. In addition to designating six new wilderness areas, the legislation provides for additions to six existing wilderness areas.

The people of this area are well acquainted with wilderness, and H.R. 1011 reflects their desire to preserve these natural treasures. By designating wilderness, the Congress has long recognized that there are some places that should be left to the management of Mother Nature and that the all-knowing Creator's careful handiwork is something worth conserving and cherishing.

H.R. 1011 is a well-crafted and meritorious measure that has broad support for those who live in the area and their elected officials.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill in the House today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud to yield 5 minutes to my dear friend and the very powerful subcommittee Chair of Energy and Air Quality, Mr. Boucher.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Colorado's amendment would appear to be a restatement of what current law already is. And reading from that current law, it says, ``Except as specifically provided for in this act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this act and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment,'' et cetera, et cetera.

So there are exceptions in current law for health and safety of persons. So I would say to the gentleman that the gentleman's recommittal motion is redundant with current law.

I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the gentleman that if such were necessary, I would think that the Forest Service would come to us making these recommendations. But we have not received such recommendations from the Forest Service, and, therefore, the language is not necessary.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House in the motion to recommit, I report H.R. 1011 back to the House with an amendment.

Madam Speaker, West Virginia recently lost an outstanding son, Herbert Henderson. Herb passed away last week, but today I rise to celebrate a life well lived and to remember with fondness the accomplishments of a remarkable man who, over his many years, was a torchbearer in the dual causes of spreading equality and ensuring justice.

The unfortunate news of his passing has brought sadness to so many throughout West Virginia, including those who did not have the

opportunity to meet Mr. Henderson but who have come to benefit from his passionate support of civil liberties.

Herb was preceded in death by his wife of 49 years, Maxine Henderson. He graduated from Elkhorn High School in McDowell County, and from there he went on to attend West Virginia State College until his graduation in 1953. After college, Herb served two tours in the United States Army before becoming the first African-American to attend George Washington University School of Law. Upon graduation from law school, he returned with his family to Huntington, WV, where he eventually became senior partner in the law firm of Henderson, Henderson, and Staples.

From 1966 to 1986, Herb Henderson was the West Virginia State President of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). He went on to serve as General Counsel for the NAACP in 1984 and again from 1989 through 1990. The mission of the NAACP is to ensure political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination. This was a mission that Herb not only shared, but one that he also championed throughout his lifetime.

For 49 years, Herb was an active member of the Ebenezer United Methodist Church, as well as a member of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. and Church World Service. He was a solid supporter of West Virginia State University (WVSU) and served as President of the Huntington Chapter of the WVSU Alumni Association.

He will be greatly missed by his family, in particular his four daughters and 10 grandchildren, as well as, the community he served so faithfully over these many years. My thoughts and prayers are with the family of Herbert Henderson. I join with West Virginians in honoring his remarkable life and the legacy he left behind.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Betty Cleckley, a dedicated educator for her 17 years of service and leadership to Marshall University. She has been at Marshall since 1989 when she accepted the new position of Vice President for Multicultural Affairs in Huntington, West Virginia. For her years of service to the students, faculty and staff of Marshall University and the community of Huntington I offer my deepest thanks and gratitude.

A native West Virginian, Dr. Cleckley graduated from Douglass High School before going on to earn a Bachelor of Science degree from Marquette University, a Master of Social Science degree from Smith College, A Ph.D. degree from Brandeis University and a post doctoral certificate in Higher Education Management from Harvard University.

Before working at Marshall, Dr. Cleckley held a number of administrative and teaching positions in the health and higher education fields. She was Associate Dean and Associate Professor of the School of Social Work at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville; Assistant Vice President of Academic Affairs, Interim Vice President of Institutional Advancement and Executive Assistant to the President and Coordinator of Meharry's Centers of Excellence at Meharry Medical College, Nashville, Tennessee. She also served as the Director of the Black College Initiative at the Agency on Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration in Washington, DC.

In 1989, when Dr. Cleckley returned to Huntington, she did so with dreams of making a difference in her hometown community. The Harmony Institute at Marshall University was one of the many dreams she was able to realize during her tenure. The institute was conceived in 1997 with the mission to actively promote an appreciation for human and civil rights, social justice and racial harmony among students, administrators, faculty and staff, as well as among residents of surrounding communities so that they may have a global impact on achieving racial equality in this rapidly changing multicultural society. Over the years, the Harmony Institute has continued to fulfill that multicultural mission through community engagement and scholarly developments.

During her time at Marshall, she has been an active member of the community and has been honored many times over for her hard work and dedication. Dr. Cleckley served on the State of West Virginia Human Rights Commission and currently serves on the Martin Luther King, Jr. State of West Virginia Holiday Commission, Cabell Huntington Hospital Foundation and the Center for Aging and Health Care in West Virginia, Ins. She is also a life member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Some of the many honors she has received are: ``The WV Civil Rights Award'' from the Governor of West Virginia in 2003, the ``Celebrate Women Award in Education'' award by the West Virginia's Women Commission in 2003 and the ``Betty Jane Cleckley Minority Research Award'' which was established by the American Public Health Association and recognizes research on minority health issues, particularly among the elderly.

In her poem, ``Still I Rise'', poet and educator Maya Angelou writes:

Just like moons and like suns,

With the certainty of tides,

Just like hopes springing high,

Still I'll rise.

Time and again, Dr. Betty Cleckley has proven her ability to rise up and take on new challenges. Her time at Marshall has left an indelible footprint and a legacy that will be a hard act to follow. I wish Dr. Cleckley my best in all of her future endeavors and know that whatever new tasks she decides to take on, she will as always rise to the challenge.

Mr. Chairman, it has been over a decade since Congress passed the Interstate Commerce Clause Termination Act.

While I have the deepest respect for my colleague from New Jersey who sponsored this amendment, I feel his amendment is overly broad and violates the letter and spirit of the ICCTA.

According to the Gentleman from New Jersey's amendment, any State and local agency can regulate railroad-owned, solid waste rail transfer facilities.

Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.

Adoption of this amendment would mean that if a railroad were to try and establish a solid waste transload facility, local government authorities would have very few checks on their ability to regulate this industry.

There are no jurisdictional requirements in this amendment, no limit to the number of authorities which could mount challenges. It would begin to dismantle, piece by piece, the federal preemption that is integral to our national rail system.

Many of the individuals supporting this amendment today will tell you how states are unable to protect their citizens under the current guidelines set forth by the Surface Transportation Board.

What you may not hear, is that a State can protect the health and safety of their citizens.

Should companies violate the laws and regulations governing health and safety problems, a state can use its police power, take the offending railroad to court, or petition the Surface Transportation Board to halt the railroads operations.

New Jersey was able to shut down three waste transload facilities earlier this year, because the facility violated the fire safety laws.

These transportation facilities were not created through judicial fiat, they are defined in the very legislation we crafted a decade ago. They were addressed wholesale because we knew that to grant certain commodities preemption, and deny it to others, would create a daunting patchwork of regulation.

This amendment, as well intentioned as it may be, begins the path down that slippery slope. What's next? Will a state's department of environmental protection decide that it doesn't like the transportation of coal, or liquid natural gas, because of the pollution it may cause?

Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of this poorly crafted amendment,

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 634) encouraging participation in hunting and fishing, and supporting the goals and ideals of National Hunting and Fishing Day and the efforts of hunters and fishermen toward the scientific management of wildlife and conservation of the natural environment, as amended.

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

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

House Resolution 634, as amended, recognizes the contributions that American sportsmen and -women make in promoting wildlife conservation. The resolution calls on the President to issue a proclamation supporting National Hunting and Fishing Day.

There are an estimated 42.5 million Americans who hunt and fish, according to the most recent survey conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Aside from supporting efforts to protect our natural environment, these men and women also contribute to our economy. They spent $75 billion in 2006 on hunting and fishing activities.

I commend Congresswoman Gillibrand from New York for introducing this resolution, and I urge adoption of the resolution, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand).

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