Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as the ranking Democratic member on the Committee on Resources, it has been both a pleasure and an honor to oversee the management of our Federal public lands and resources.

It is not an exaggeration to say that our system of public lands--our parks, forests, refuges and wilderness areas--is second to none when it comes to providing world-class opportunities for Americans to enjoy outdoor recreation. That is, of course, when the general public is actually allowed to access and use their public lands.

Regardless of the fact that the Federal Government holds land in trust for the American people, sadly it appears that what the people own, the people may not necessarily ever get to use.

This is the case with two tiny islands in the Western Caribbean. Navassa and Desecheo islands have interesting histories, but I doubt most Americans even know they exist, let alone that the islands are, in fact, part of our very own country.

The story of Navassa Island is a classic tale of American capitalism. It came to be part of America in the late 1800's through the mining and sale of petrified bird guano--yes, guano--as fertilizer. It is also the site of one of our Nation's early, ugly labor disputes. Over time, guano went out of fashion, but the outpost served a new purpose for 80 years, as a light source to guide ships through the islands of the Caribbean. In 1996, with the advent of new technologies, the lighthouse went dark. The property, however, remained part of the U.S.

Eventually that island and Desecheo Island, a former military training range, were incorporated into the National Wildlife Refuge system. The designation rightfully recognizes the unique qualities of the two islands, which are rich in uncommon plant and animal life. But, in turn, it has also led to their being essentially fenced off from the people who own them--the American public. For in fact, today, the Fish & Wildlife Service bars legal access to these two islands apparently under any circumstance.

That might be the end of the story, were it not for a group of Ham radio operators, who, after having been granted special use access to these public lands for twenty years, were suddenly denied permission to visit the islands to broadcast

Indeed, for no sensible reason, the Fish and Wildlife Service--the same agency that had been granting access to these radio operators-- arbitrarily reversed course and denied permits for a non-controversial recreational activity that had been approved for two decades of responsible and uneventful public use.

Not only did the agency cut off these broadcasters, it did so even after they agreed to assume all liability, to submit to any regulation or permit condition, and even to pay all administrative, management and travel costs for the Federal agency to remove all financial and logistical hurdles.

This is an instance of outrageous administrative arrogance to deny a permit for a recreational use that has been shown to be harmless to fish and wildlife. Public recreation at our National Wildlife Refuges is as much a part of the history of Refuge System as the critters themselves.

The Secretary of the Interior has been given congressional authority to grant special use permits for just such circumstances, when a public use is not incompatible with the purpose of the refuge. Yet, for some reason that escapes me, this Secretary will not budge. In the case of these two islands, the Secretary's discretionary powers amount to guano.

Such hubris cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged. Along with my colleague, the Chairman of the Resources Committee, Richard Pombo, I am introducing today legislation to address this deplorable situation and to restore the public's right of access to its Federal public lands. The liberation of Navassa and Desecheo Islands begins today.

This legislation would accomplish two main goals. First, it would require the Fish and Wildlife Service to issue regulations within 120 days after the bill's enactment to resolve this particular dispute. Second, to ensure access at both refuges the legislation would require the Service to establish at least one period of time each year for public access for each island.

Language authorizing the Service to specify use periods and to attach reasonable permit restrictions in order to protect resources and public safety should provide adequate flexibility to balance the competing interests of resource protection and public recreation.

Also important, this legislation will help to harmonize existing use policies in regard to Navassa and Desecheo Refuges with three other remote refuges in the Pacific--Baker Island, Johnson Island and Jarvis Island. These three refuges, all accessible by way of special use permits, show plainly that controlled public recreational access is possible even at extremely remote and fragile refuges. In fact, the ham radio operators were successful in securing a permit to visit Baker Island as recently as 2002. In fairness, the same access should be provided to Navassa Island and Desecheo.

I am fully aware of the Service's need to balance public access with the Refuge System's overall ``wildlife first'' mission.

The Service cannot, however, be allowed to selectively choose to implement those parts of its authority it favors but ignore those requirements to provide for public recreation which are clearly stated in existing law.

I urge members to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today I ask a very serious question. Why is it, the Cheney-Bush bunch allow us to import foreign made flu vaccines, but won't allow Americans to shop for American made cheaper drugs across our borders?

We all know the importance of getting our flu vaccines every year. The Washington Post reports that last year's flu season was the worst flu season we've had in 4 years, and the flu killed 142 people. As all Americans are aware, there is another flu vaccine crisis in our country.

America's supply of the flu vaccine has practically been cut in half, because the world's second-leading supplier, The Chiron Corp. based in Britain, was shut down because of contamination reported in its batches of the vaccine.

48 million vaccines were due to be shipped before this shutdown. I repeat, 48 million doses of this vaccine were to be imported into this country, to help combat a life-threatening illness.

Mr. Speaker, I speak to address a glaring policy inconsistency on the part of the Cheney-Bush administration.

Why is it, that a long-standing health policy, that is wildly effective and successful, be permitted with respect to one killer, but denied to every other disease?

142 people died from the flu last year, and it causes outrage and action. 250,000 people die from heart attacks before they even get to the hospital each year, and it's accepted as just another statistic.

How many of these 250,000 could have been saved, if only they'd had medicine to lower their cholesterol?

How many of these 250,000 could have been saved, if only they'd been able to afford their medicine?

According to a recent press release from the University of Michigan Health System, nearly half of patients who have a prescription for any of the cholesterol-fighting drugs called statins fail to fill their prescription every time--or stop filling it altogether! The University goes on to say that the higher the prescription cost, the lower the number of prescriptions filled.

Let's ignore, for a moment, that Europe has been importing drugs safely and effectively for over 20 years.

Let us also ignore that countries like Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, and France also have higher life expectancies and lower child mortality rates than the United States does.

But let us not ignore a new FDA proposal. A proposal that would require customs agents to return all drugs sent from foreign addresses back to their senders.

William Hubbard, a senior associate commissioner at the FDA, told Congress on June 7th, ``We need to make a blanket assessment that these drugs are not safe for American consumers and they should be turned back.''

Unless, of course, it's the flu vaccine.

And then it's OK if they come from the United Kingdom, as in the case of the Chiron Corp. Or if it comes from the world's largest supplier of the flu vaccine, the French company, Aventis Pasteur.

Yes, there are criticisms about the safety of imported drugs. One might be able to look to this most recent flu vaccine scare and say that this is a perfect example of why we don't import drugs. The safety of the supply could be compromised.

I would say that this is a perfect example of why we should import from countries like Canada or the United Kingdom. They have safeguards in place, just as we do, that protect the integrity of the prescription drug supply.

On August 12th, the acting FDA commissioner Lester Crawford expressed his concern that al-Qaida may attack the supply of drugs coming into this country.

I will tell you that I am JUST AS CONCERNED about the 28 percent of older adults with diabetes who, as reported in the February 2004 issue of Diabetes Care, are going without food or other essentials to pay for their insulin.

Why, in the richest nation on Earth, with this so-called comprehensive new Medicare program, are people going without food to afford their drugs?

Why is the Administration so opposed to a program that would help so many?

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge not only the duly elected Representatives of the citizens in these United States, but also the President to do what is in the best interests of these citizens.

I urge both Congress and the President to embrace prescription drug re-importation and reject the influence of the pharmaceutical companies.

Mr. Speaker, as we draw to the end of this, 108th Congress, we are about to lose Bill Lipinski to retirement. A valued friend, a highly respected colleague, and a great representative for his constituents in the Third District of Illinois, the southwest side of Chicago and suburban communities, Bill's presence will be missed around here.

But our loss will turn out to be the gain of his lovely wife, Rose Marie, his two children and their spouses, and his two grandchildren, as he heads home to spend more time with his family and to reportedly lend his efforts to worthy causes around his lifelong home, southwest Chicago.

In additions to his duties as a longtime congressman and ward committeeman, Bill has been my close colleague on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee where I've personally been able to work with him and see him, up close, and in action.

Over the course of the 108th Congress, he has served the Transportation Committee in the critical role of Ranking Member to the important Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, which has crafted the major, bipartisan, surface transportation and jobs bill, H.R. 3550, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users.

Bill's contributions, along with those of my colleagues Don Young of Alaska, Jim Oberstar of Minnesota, and Tom Petri of Wisconsin, have been invaluable in getting us a bill that the House passed with overwhelming support from both sides of the political aisle, and that currently is being considered in conference by members of the House and the Senate.

In the past, he has effectively used his skills to deliver millions of federal dollars to build the Chicago Transit Authority's Orange Line, and to provide for improvements to both Midway and O'Hare airports.

Over the last 22 years, the time during which Bill has served both his constituents and this House so capably, he has won respect from his peers and established strong relationships with members on both sides of the aisle. The statements, here, of his colleagues in regard to his retirement provide testament to just how warmly he is regarded.

Now, he will have more time to devote to his family. But, even if he's planning on getting away from this House, I don't really think Bill will be totally detaching himself from the political profession in which he has made such an indelible mark. Politics is in the family blood; his wife, Rose Marie, has served as a presidential elector for their home state of Illinois, and his son Dan is the Democrat nominee to succeed Bill in the Illinois Third District. So, Bill will have no option but to remain connected, even if only to keep up with the rest of his family.

Bill, I salute you, and I will miss you, both personally and professionally, but I sincerely wish you well in your future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, Congress was supposed to reauthorize the major surface transportation and jobs bill, the successor to TEA 21, a year ago.

Now, because of the indifference of the Bush Administration and the Republican Leadership in Congress, we are about to embark on the sixth extension of TEA 21, rather than completing work on a bill that would address our current and future infrastructure needs as well as providing sorely needed jobs and economic stimulus.

The House and Senate versions of transportation and jobs bill passed both houses by margins larger than is required in Congress for amendments to the Constitution. But the bill is on a road to nowhere because the Cheney-Bush reelection bunch wants to make up for their Medicare debacle by trying to appear tough on spending. Meanwhile, we have the votes in both the House and the Senate to override a threatened presidential veto and pass a meaningful bill, but the Republican House and Senate leadership are just caving into the Bush Administration's reelection efforts. In so doing, they're failing to uphold the Constitutional obligation of Congress.

Although Americans are crying out loud and clear for the need to reinvest in our country, the Bush Administration and the Republican leadership don't bother to listen. As an example of what I'm talking about, I have an editorial from a widely-read newspaper in my district, the Beckley Register-Herald, which I would like to submit for the record to accompany my remarks. Yesterday, in response to Congressional inaction on the transportation and jobs bill, the Register-Herald ran the editorial appearing below:

[From the Beckley Register-Herald]

Highway Bill

While politicians play election-year politics, W.Va.

suffers.

Heard the latest? A multiyear highway spending bill,

crucial to progress here in southern West Virginia, appears

to be off until after the election.

The existing six-year highway and mass transit spending

bill, funded at $218 billion, ran out a year ago and has had

to be prolonged by several short-term extensions because of

differences over spending levels between Congress and the

White House.

The White House, citing the need for fiscal restraint,

recommended $256 billion and threatened to veto any bill that

would add to the deficit.

The Senate approved a $318 billion package. The House

originally came in at $284 billion, and recently the two

chambers united around a figure of $284 billion in guaranteed

contracts plus another $15 billion in contracts that have yet

to be carried out.

But politicians are playing election-year politics, and, of

course, nothing of substance is getting done.

As we pointed out a few days ago, no one can accuse this

Congress of overwork--it's only been in session roughly one

day out of every three.

Sadly, lawmakers sent to the president only a fraction of

the 13 spending bills necessary to fund the government for

the fiscal year that starts Friday. That includes the

transportation bill to fund highway and transit projects for

the next six years--vitally important to southern West

Virginia.

The Mountain State faces unique challenges when it comes to

building highways. It can cost up to $20 million to build one

mile of a highway here.

This state relies heavily on the federal program to build

highways. A total of $2.2 billion was secured for West

Virginia in the House version of the bill, $2 billion of

which are projects in southern West Virginia.

Interstate links developed here in recent years have

brought new jobs and the potential for attracting new

businesses. These roads provide modern access and position

West Virginia as a crossroads for business developers looking

for locations in the East. They provide our families a safer

means of getting to and from school and work.

Ordinary West Virginians can't afford to see these

opportunities go by the wayside, or even delayed. We suffer

while Congress engages in gridlock.

Enough is enough. Congress and the Bush administration need

to get in gear and produce a highway spending package that's

adequately financed.

Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as the Ranking Democratic Member of the Resources Committee, I would like to register my strong support of H.R. 3589, to create the office of chief financial officer for the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands. I commend the gentlelady from the U.S. Virgin Islands, Donna Christensen, for her tireless work in getting this legislation to the floor for our consideration.

As has been noted this evening, the financial condition of the Virgin Islands is in trouble. Skyrocketing deficits coupled with inadequate fiscal controls have left the local government struggling to provide basic services to the people of the Virgin Islands.

The potential financial insolvency of the territory did not occur overnight. Nevertheless the introduction of this measure, by the distinguished representative of the Virgin Islands, Donna Christensen, was still met with controversy and opposition from many local political leaders.

Donna Christensen has made it clear that this legislation is something that she would rather not have done, but the circumstances of her territory have made the choices for her. She is a brave woman for fighting for what she believes is in the best interest of her constituents and for her island and she should be commended.

Virgin Islands history will show that this legislation was a turning point in the fundamental approach that the territory handles its financial affairs. Indeed, this evening may one day be looked upon by the residents of the Virgin Islands as one of those rare moments when history itself seemed to hold its breath. When the voice of the people, on that beautiful Carribean island, rose louder and louder and thundered over various political obstacles and was heard, and acted upon, in this hallowed chamber that is the U.S. House of Representatives.

I have said it before, and I will say it again this evening. When the next chapter in Profiles in Courage is written, it will be about the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, Donna Christensen.

I urge my colleagues to support favorable passage by this body of

Mr. Speaker, as the Ranking Democratic Member of the Resources Committee, it is a pleasure and privilege to have H.R. 3257, sponsored by our esteemed colleague from Ohio, Tim Ryan, be considered on the floor today.

The dramatic tapestry of our Nation's cultural heritage is one which many of us are seeking to preserve for the benefit of not just current, but future generations, in the form of National Heritage Areas. We do this not just for educational or inspirational purposes, but also, because heritage areas are engines for economic development.

While the measure pending before us today is the logical first step, an authorization of a feasibility study for a proposed Western Reserve Heritage Area, I am confident that once completed, it will find that this particular region of Ohio deserves national recognition for the special cultural and historic resources values it contains. And when that day arrives, it will be a tribute to the untiring dedication and hard work of Representative Tim Ryan.

Indeed, although a freshman Member of this body, Tim Ryan has already garnered a reputation as a fighter for the people of the 17th District of Ohio. The bill we are considering today is reflective of their good judgment in sending a person such as Tim Ryan to Congress to represent them.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3257.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate our first Americans on this, the long awaited opening day of the National Museum of the American Indian. If, indeed, the last shall be first, this is a fine example as this museum dedicated to our first Americans is located on the last spot open on the National Mall.

This a joyous day. At this very moment, thousands of native Americans who traveled from all the corners of our country, Canada, and South America are participating in a procession on the Mall leading to the museum itself. They are dressed in unique traditional attire, stopping along the way to celebrate with dance, song, and drums.

I am honored to say that as a member of the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, I worked with then Chairman Mo Udall on the legislation to build a museum devoted solely to the culture, art, and history of our Native Americans. Although Mo is no longer with us, I am certain that he is smiling down upon us today.

I encourage everyone to visit this magnificent National Museum of the American Indian and use its resources to learn about the rich history and legacy of Native Americans, as well as contemporary Indian life. I promise your lives will be enriched by the experience.

Madam Speaker, few places possess both the scenic beauty and historical significance of Harpers Ferry. Enactment of this legislation is critical because it will enhance both the scenic and historic resources of this unique place.

Like my home State of West Virginia itself, the pivotal location of Harpers Ferry has allowed it to serve as the backdrop for many of the most significant events in American History. As a result, some of the icons of American freedom and discovery--George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Merriweather Lewis, John Brown, ``Stonewall'' Jackson, Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglas--have walked the ground that now makes up this Park.

From the earliest settlement of this great Nation, through the founding of the railroad, John Brown's raid, the Civil War, reconstruction, the industrial revolution and integration, Harpers Ferry has been the stage on which many of the most significant chapters in American history have unfolded.

As for the scenic beauty of the place, none could describe it better than a visitor did in 1783 when he wrote that, ``The passage of the Potomac through the Blue Ridge is perhaps one of the most stupendous scenes in nature.'' That awestruck visitor was, of course, Thomas Jefferson.

And during his distinguished career in the United States Senate, Harpers Ferry National Historical Park has had no better friend, no better protector, than Senator Robert C. Byrd. Back in 2000, Senator Byrd recognized the need for this Park expansion but was also well aware that units of the National Park System work best when the local community feels a sense of ownership and pride in the Park.

Senator Byrd directed the National Park Service to conduct extensive public outreach to provide the local community information regarding the needs of the Park and the impacts of any potential expansion. Once that process was complete, Senator Byrd had accomplished the near- impossible: Surveys show that 94 percent of the respondents support this legislation.

I share Senator Byrd's great love of history--West Virginia's history in particular. Harpers Ferry is an incredibly powerful tool for telling the great story of our State, our People and our Nation. These proposed additions will allow the Park to tell those stories even more powerfully and more completely.

I salute Senator Byrd for his tireless efforts on behalf of Harpers Ferry and West Virginia and urge my colleagues to support S. 1576.

Mr. Speaker, again I wish to discuss the Transportation bill. This time, I want to discuss this much-needed bill in light of President Bush's recent visit to my hometown of Beckley, West Virginia last Friday, July 16, 2004.

This week, Congress will again have to extend the authorization for the previous Transportation bill because we still do not yet have a reauthorization. The previous authorization originally expired almost a year ago. Now, we will be extending that previous authorization for the fifth time--that's right, the fifth time--because Congress still hasn't done its work and completed a new bill.

The reason Congress still hasn't done the Transportation bill is that the White House clearly does not want us to finalize this bill in an election year, and the Republican Leadership in the House and the Senate just follow the Administration's orders. As I have said repeatedly, we should complete the bill, and if the White House wants to veto it, it can go ahead; there are clearly enough Republican and Democrat votes to override a veto and get the Transportation bill finished. But by doing nothing, the House and Senate Republican Leadership are siding with the White House, and preventing Congress from carrying out its Constitutional role as a coequal branch of government.

As I said last week, here on the House floor, States like my home state of West Virginia have been waiting for far too long now to see just what, if anything, they could expect to receive from the Federal Government. This money will help finance important highway and transit projects such as the Beckley Intermodal Gateway, provide good-paying jobs that are sorely needed in this uncertain job market, and sustain our economic growth at this critical point in time.

Mr. Speaker, I have an editorial from a distinguished newspaper in my hometown, the Register Herald, which I would like to submit for the Record to accompany my remarks. This editorial from Friday, July 16, 2004, graciously welcomes the president to Beckley. Importantly, it also goes on to note how badly Southern West Virginia needs the highway funding that President Bush is blocking. The editorial reads as follows:

Mr. President--Welcome to Beckley

Today, for the first time in history, a sitting United

States president will be in Beckley.

President George W. Bush is scheduled to make a campaign

appearance around 4 p.m. today at the Raleigh County Armory

Civic Center.

The city, Raleigh County and all of southern West Virginia

are proud to have been chosen for a visit. We're happy to see

him in person and are most interested to listen to his

thoughts on the issues that face us as a Nation.

However, we want to ask Mr. Bush one thing in return. Soon

to come before him will be a highway appropriations bill

which he's threatened to veto if it carries a price deemed

too expensive. Included in this bill is more than $2 billion

to help finance a number of projects that are crucial to the

economic development of Berkley, Raleigh County and southern

West Virginia. If the economy is to continue the turnaround

that Mr. Bush says is gathering steam, we need this money to

keep it running.

We trust Mr. Bush enjoys his visit here. We wish he could

stay longer and enjoy the beautiful mountains we call home.

No matter which party you're supporting in the upcoming

presidential election, partisan politics should be put aside

when the president comes to town.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the Transportation bill. As the remaining days until the August District Work Period tick down, it is looking more and more likely as though we are not going to get a bill finalized this year.

This is a sad state of affairs. The White House clearly does not want us to finalize this bill in an election year, and the House Republican Leadership just follows the orders of the Cheney-Bush Administration. We should complete the bill, and if the White House wants to veto it, it can go ahead; there are clearly enough Republican and Democrat votes to override a veto and get the Transportation bill finished. But by doing nothing, the House Republican leadership is siding with the White House, and it is preventing Congress from carrying out its Constitutional role as a coequal branch of government.

To add insult to injury, the Washington Post reported on July 3, 2004, on page A9, that the White House has only spent $366 million of the $18.4 billion that it got Congress and the Republican Leadership to appropriate for Iraqi reconstruction. Why the Cheney-Bush White House won't now spend the money that it insisted it needed is anybody's guess. But this is money that could and should have gone to reinvestment in America rather than into Iraq in the first place. Instead, it lies unused and serving no purpose.

Under the Constitution, as my dear friend Senator Byrd has noted so many times, it is the responsibility of the Congress to decide how federal funds should be spent; it is not the White House's role. Yet, this White House has insisted on investing in Iraq rather than America, and it has gotten its way even if it doesn't know what it wants to do with the money.

States like my home state of West Virginia have been waiting for far too long now to see just what, if anything, they could expect to receive from the federal government in order to finance important highway and transit projects, to focus on congestion mitigation, and to provide good-paying jobs that are sorely needed in this uncertain job market.

Mr. Speaker, I have an editorial from a distinguished newspaper in my district, the Bluefield Daily Telegraph, which I would like to submit for the record to accompany my remarks. This insightful viewpoint from yesterday's paper demonstrates quite clearly the problems with which we are saddling the states due to Congressional inaction. The article reads as follows:

Funding Setback: House Delays Highway, Streetscape Work

Not only did the U.S. House's extension of the federal

highway funding bill last week cause a slow down on financing

new or continued construction on I-73/74 through the West

Virginia coalfields area, it also causes problems for

existing programs that rely on the bill.

One such project is the downtown Streetscape project in

Bluefield.

The program is ready for Phase II, a refurbishing of

Chicory Square between Bland and Federal streets.

The city earlier received funding for an extensive project

in downtown that involved sidewalk replacement, new lighting

and the installation of high-tech communications

infrastructure. Phase I got underway in 2003.

City officials said the Coal Heritage Authority has three

projects that can't be started until a new highway bill is

approved.

Bluefield officials were hoping for a smooth transition

between the first two phases of the downtown Streetscape

project with the passage of a new six-year federal highway

administration spending bill.

But, for the fourth time, the majority party in the House

has decided to use its power to delay consideration and

passage of the bill.

Needing even more funding, the King Coal Highway

Association, which joins Tolsia Highway in the 1-73/74

project through the southern coalfield counties from

Huntington to Bluefield, is awaiting millions of dollars to

carry through with work already planned on the $2 billion

undertaking. They had hoped to be able to move forward with

those projects this summer.

Most political observers think there will be no action on

the new federal spending act until after the November

presidential election. That means communities like Bluefield,

Kimball, Mount Hope and all those anticipating construction

jobs for I-73/74 have lost a year in financing.

Maybe voters should find out which Representatives are

holding up the bill and remember them in November.

Mr. Speaker, as Ranking Member of the Committee on Resources, today I am introducing a bill that would bring the management of our Nation's ocean fisheries into the 21st century. In this regard, l am pleased to note that the ``Fisheries Management Reform Act of 2004'' is being introduced with 15 original cosponsors including the gentleman from California, Sam Farr, who serves as co- chair of the House Oceans Caucus.

For my part, I am introducing this measure for two fundamental reasons. First, I believe that we have a responsibility to ensure that our fish stocks--a public resource that belongs to all Americans--will be managed sustainably and based on science, not politics. More importantly, because without sustainably managed fisheries, there will be no fishing industry at all. I do not come to this point lightly, and I appreciate the importance that this issue holds for many Members and their constituents.

As it stands, two separate and well-respected commissions--the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Ocean Commission--were both charged with reviewing our ocean management systems and both made recommendations regarding the need to reform our fisheries management system. Their reports represent several years of research by ocean experts who traveled to coastal communities dependent on commercial and recreational fishing. The Fisheries Management Reform Act of 2004 represents the first legislation proposed to implement those expert recommendations. This is a small step of many that we, as Congress, can take to remedy a system of governance that has not done enough to protect our oceans and, consequently, the communities that depend on them.

In this regard, the ``Fisheries Management Reform Act of 2004'' would require a broader public interest representation on the Regional Fishery Management Councils, the bodies that are stewards of our Nation's fisheries and are currently dominated by commercial and recreational fishing interests. I am aware of no other public trust resource where management decisions are being made by the very industry that is to be regulated. The bill would require training of all appointed members in fishery science and basic stock assessment, social science and fishery economics, and the legal requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and other pertinent laws. Not only will these two provisions diversify the interests on the Council, but also ensure that those appointed are knowledgeable about fisheries management.

Second, the bill would strengthen current conflict of interest provisions in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. An individual would not be allowed to vote on a Council decision affecting

their financial interests. Understanding the unique nature of fisheries management, I fully support and appreciate the participation of fishermen in the Council process. In instances where fishermen, commercial or recreational, are faced with decisions affecting their livelihood and simultaneously, the sustainability of the fishery, the current process puts these individuals in the compromised position of serving two masters. Generally, it is the fish stocks that pay the price.

This legislation also would ensure science-based management of our fisheries. By allowing scientists to recommend appropriate catch limits and the Councils to determine how that catch should be allocated, this bill would remove council members from that untenable position of choosing between the health of the resource and catching enough fish to pay their health insurance. Scientists are better suited for determining sustainable harvest levels, while fishermen, who will remain an integral part of the Council process, should not have to be experts on the vast complexities of ocean science. Their expertise can be used best in managing and allocating the resource, and in developing improved fishing methods and technologies, without also being responsible for the status of the stocks.

Not the timber industry, not the mining industry--as a matter of fact, no other industry I can think of is allowed to regulate itself like the fishing industry does. This system may have made sense when Congress first put it in place more than two decades ago, but it's clear now that a chronic condition of conflict of interest has created a system that is not working for fishermen or for the fishery resources. In fact, 76 stocks are overfished--over 35% of known stocks.

I do not assume that this bill alone will ``fix'' in its entirety the current system. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy was clear that changes are urgently needed. This bill addresses just one of many problems plaguing ocean resource management. However, the principles of the bill--to manage fisheries for the public good, to reduce financial conflicts of interest, and to ensure that fisheries management is based on the best available science--are indisputable.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill in a bipartisan fashion. The fish do not vote, so I can not offer them as political capital. But if this bill were enacted, we will be better able to ensure sustainable fisheries on a continuing basis, as is required by law, but all too rarely accomplished under the current system. The long-term benefits would affect the constituents of every district in this country. Fishermen would be able to pass on their trade to their children. Our inland states would enjoy more fresh seafood caught in our domestic waters. And everyone would be able to catch a big one on their summer vacation.

Madam Chairman, reserving the right to object, I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado agreeing

to withdraw his amendment. Of course, I would have spoken very vehemently in opposition to it.

The gentleman has mentioned that my home State of West Virginia is not necessarily being improved by the ARC. I would submit those conditions from whatever report the gentleman is quoting are based on other conditions, other than what ARC has done for our region, because the Appalachian Regional Commission has dramatically improved life in Appalachia, and it has helped us get back on our feet in many depressed areas of this country.

It is a program that works, it works from the grassroots up, not from the top down. So I would submit to the gentleman that the ARC is still vitally needed in many Appalachian poor rural parts of this Nation.

My home State of West Virginia happens to be the only State that is totally within the 13-state ARC region, and we strongly support the program.

Madam Chairman, I rise to protest the amendment to gut the Appalachian Regional Commission ARC, just as we prepare to cut the ribbon on a new wastewater treatment system for Baghdad paid for by the American people. The ARC provides vital infrastructure investments throughout Appalachia, a historically distressed area of the country that spans 13 states including all of West Virginia, my home state.

In the 1960s, President Johnson carried out a promise to help raise the Appalachian region out of its crushing poverty when he formed the ARC. His efforts created a federal-state partnership that works with the people of Appalachia to create opportunities for self-sustaining economic development and improved quality of life.

Today, the ARC plays an integral role in providing for development and jobs throughout 410 counties across a 200,000 square mile region. And, the Appalachian region is dramatically improved because of this effort.

Madam Chairman, some have questioned the value of the ARC. In response, I would like to note a few examples of the good work the ARC has done most recently in Southern West Virginia:

$1 million grant to the Wyoming County Commission and the eastern Wyoming Public Service District (PSD) for construction of a new water treatment plant that will allow the consolidation of seven local providers into a regional water system serving 1549 customers. Six area communities are currently served by small private water systems (originally built to serve coal camps) that chronically violate water quality standards.

A $250,000 grant to West Virginia Citizens Conservation Corps, Inc. to the Twin Branch Recreation and Environmental Education Center near Davy, located on reclaimed mine lands, and with the purpose of developing a sustainable outdoor recreation center that would attract visitors to McDowell County. The complex will ultimately include trailheads on the Hatfield-McCoy trail system, campsites and cabins, a retreat center, and an environmental education center.

Other recent ARC projects about which I have proudly spoken in the recent past include:

A $100,000 grant to the Prichard, WV Public Service District to construct a wastewater collection and treatment system that will provide water to 225 customers and create 148 jobs in Wayne County, WV.

A $1 million grant to the Glen White/Trap Hill Public Service District in Raleigh County, WV, will fund construction of a three water storage tanks and replace some existing water lines while extending service to surrounding communities that had to rely on underground wells.

In Boone County, WV, a $680,000 grant from the ARC is being used to extend waterlines to Julian, WV.

A $75,000 grant to the West Virginia Access Center for Higher Education in Bluefield, WV, to help increase the number of high school students who go on to attend college.

Now, I don't think the people who live in Wyoming County, Twin Branch, Prichard, Glen White, Julian, or Bluefield will claim that the ARC is somehow not worthwhile.

However, Madam Chairman, Mr. Speaker, there remains more work to be done to fulfill the promise made. We're still struggling to get on our feet.

But the amendment will undo all of those efforts. At a time when the Appalachian people need the sustained help to achieve their potential, this amendment would pull the rug out from underneath them.

Madam Chairman, that's just wrong. It's crass, and it's craven.

Madam Chairman, that great West Virginian, Senator Robert Byrd, is the sponsor of a Senate bill to complete construction of the Appalachian Development Highway System. I proudly note that I am the sponsor of the House version of the same bill, H.R. 2381, which is cosponsored by my fellow West Virginian and close friend, Alan Mollohan, and that stalwart ARC supporter from Ohio, my friend Ted Strickland. Each of us recognizes the value of the Appalachian Regional Commission.

I urge my colleagues recognize that value too.

I urge my colleagues to remember the ARC is a worthwhile program that has benefited so many lives, and continues to do so.

Vote against this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we passed a fourth extension of the highway bill that expired last fall. That is all fine and good, but no longer can we leave the States holding the bag because of a veto threat from the Bush administration and a reluctance by the Republican leadership to lend the necessary investment that industry, commerce and the workers of this Nation want in our infrastructure.

Investment in our infrastructure spells jobs. Tell me what is wrong with a bill that creates jobs. One would think that Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush would jump on a chance to create jobs.

Since the first day the Cheney-Bush leadership took over in Washington, 9.9 million private sector jobs have been lost. Today, 8.2 million people are looking for work, and 4.7 million people are working part-time for economic reasons.

Unfortunately, this highway bill has fallen victim to political differences within a divided Republican party. Even though we have had enough support to pass this bill since last year, the divided Republican party has held up passage of a fully funded bill for months.

The President opposes congressional Republicans from both the House and the Senate. House Republicans are divided against each other. The President has even gone against his own Department of Transportation when they say what is necessary for investment in infrastructure in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California for obtaining the extra time, as well as the gentlewoman from Florida for yielding that extra time to this side.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to state in the beginning, as one who has rather regularly opposed what in the past have traditionally been grossly one-sided resolutions, inappropriate, in this gentleman's opinion, for U.S. best interests in the Middle East, I do find the current resolution a minute, itsy bitsy, tiny bit headed in the right direction. And I do say that, taking into perspective what I view is in America's best interests in this region.

Mr. Speaker, it has well been documented, and many in this body have always pointed out, how U.S. credibility and morality across the world is at an all-time low today. I do not think there are many countries that would doubt that statement; and it is due to many, many factors: our go-it-alone approach to the war in Iraq, unprovoked attacks, an in- your-face type of attitude to our allies, many of whom we badly need at this point in time. There were no weapons of mass destruction found, false reliance upon the neoconservatives, bosom buddy, Ahmed Chalabi who gave us shabby information; an insurgency in Iraq that was more vigorous than even the neo-cons in the Pentagon could ever imagine, far from the statement that Americans would be greeted as liberators. We found no direct involvement of Saddam Hussein on 9/11, and I could go on and on.

But there is one particular false perception we were lead to believe that is tied directly into this resolution today. We were told by the administration that the victory over Saddam Hussein would lead to a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We are still looking for that statement to be proven correct. And, indeed, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is linked to our actions in Iraq, linked to the view of Americans around the world, linked to our morality and credibility. It is all linked together.

Peace on the Palestinian-Israeli front I hope and pray is near; and perhaps in secret channels that may be the case. We have not had any suicide attacks, for example, in the last 3 or 4 months. There has not been, thank God, in this period an Israeli to lose his or her life in these horrendous, condemnable suicidal bombs that go off.

So now we come forth with this resolution from the U.S. Congress: ``Regarding the Security of Israel and the Principles For Peace in the Middle East.'' I agree. Except I would add one word in that title, and that is Regarding the Security of Israel ``and Palestinians'' and the Principles of Peace in the Middle East.

The resolution goes on to state: ``whereas, President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon have subsequently engaged in dialogue with respect to this initiative.'' My question would be, where were the Palestinians in this dialogue? Is it not their future at stake as well? Where were the Palestinians in this dialogue?

The response will come back, of course, that there is no credible Palestinian with whom to negotiate. There are credible Palestinians and moderate Palestinians and those who condemn suicidal bombings and terrorism as much as me and any other Member of this body. And they are the ones we should be reaching out to involve in these negotiations.

Continuing further to quote from the resolution, on the second page, second whereas clause: ``but realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.'' Again I ask, where are the Palestinians in discussions about these ``mutually agreed upon'' efforts?

The very next paragraph: ``any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a permanent alternative and settlement of Palestinian refugees there rather than in Israel.'' True. I would not dispute that. But where is that permanent alternative? Again, where are the Palestinians involved in discussions upon the no- return issue? Is their future not at stake here? Should they not be involved in the negotiations?

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with paragraphs in this resolution. On page 3, the second and third paragraphs, yes: two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security; and in the next paragraph, yes: all Arab states must oppose terrorism, support the emergence of a peaceful and democratic Palestine.

But there is a disconnect between those whereas clauses and the first paragraph of the resolved clause: stating the security and well being of the State of Israel, and again I would say the words ``and Palestine'' should be inserted therein.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I would respond to the gentleman that I condemn those attacks as well, and I would say that there have been attempts thwarted by the Israeli security forces.

Mr. Speaker, the Israelis have not done that alone, they have had a great deal of information submitted to them from a lot of other countries, and from moderate Palestinians, working within whatever security apparatus they have left. The Palestinians who truly want to see peace and recognize how horrendous these actions are want to help stop terrorism.

In addition, let us not forget innocent Palestinians. I am sure the gentleman would agree there have been a number of those that have lost their lives since the Intifada and many other skirmishes.

I would say to the gentleman as well, I am sure he recognizes that under this administration, there have been over 900 Israelis and foreigners who have lost their lives during the last 3 or 4 years, which is 10 times more than the number of Israelis and foreigners that lost their lives under the Clinton administration.

So let us help this President take advantage of the opportunities that are presented to him to achieve a breakthrough in the region. I hope and pray to God such may be on the table today being worked through back channels.

Mr. Speaker, clean water is again flowing into the Tigris River thanks to the U.S. Taxpayer and the good people from my home State of West Virginia. How grand, how good, how generous the Cheney- Bush bunch can be, until it comes to investing between America's shores.

Yes, health and welfare is on the mend from Baghdad to Kirkuk, but for our communities in Southern West Virginia, this Administration has no money.

I recommend to my colleagues a story on the front page of the New York Times this past Saturday by James Glanz. According to the article this project has been cloaked in secret for security reasons. I agree, it's for security alright, to secure the Cheney-Bush reelection. They don't want the American people to know that they build in Baghdad while we weep in Appalachia for clean streams, a healthy environment, and a safe harbor for our children.

Last week, another decision was made to deny the people of West Virginia, and of Appalachia, clean water, better health and education, as the House Appropriations Committee voted to cut the Appalachian Regional Commission's (ARC) funding by 40 percent following on the heels of an effort by the Cheney-Bush boys last year to cut it by 50 percent.

Apparently the Cheney-Bush bunch, including their cronies in Congress, don't think twice about sending $4 billion to Iraq for their water infrastructure needs, but are unwilling to provide the ARC less than 1/100th of that amount for services that do the same and more for West Virginia.

I can name a few better places to spend our taxpayers money.

In Raleigh County, just one of our wastewater projects is going to cost $22.5 million to serve 1200 new customers in the Glen Daniel/ Fairdale area. This is a matter of public health, of bringing in new jobs, fueling the economy. Where is the money for that program?

Greenbrier Valley Airport in Lewisburg is 35 years old, and in need of a new terminal. The upgrade is expected to cost $15 million. Where is the money for Lewisburg?

Greenbrier Valley Airport's parking apron used for housing aircrafts, also needs a $10 million upgrade. Due to lack of funding availability, this project has already been broken into six phases in the hope of completing it. But where are funds for these phases?

In Wyoming County, $1 million is needed for a water project to serve 200 customers in the Crouch Farm area who presently have no water service at all. Where is their money?

The Cheney-Bush bunch wants to rebuild the oilfields of Iraq and expect the coalfields of West Virginia to pay for it. West Virginians are told by this Administration and this Congress that we can't afford to meet our wastewater needs, not when we're investing in other countries rather than our own.

What in the dickens is going on here, Mr. Speaker? I recall our not too distant history, when this Nation was able to fight and win a world war, rebuild the western European continent, and Japan to boot, and college educate a generation of Americans who fueled the greatest economic boon to which the world had never laid witness.

Now the Cheney-Bush bunch and the House leadership tell us again and again, there is no room for investment in America, and that the American people must take a back seat to the citizens of Baghdad.

I say no more. This Administration continues to show indifference to our Nation's infrastructure needs, including threatening to veto a highway bill that will bring over $2 billion to my home State of West Virginia, money we need to build roads in a mountainous terrain.

Mr. Speaker, I recall--shortly after the bombs fell in Baghdad and the President pledging that America would rebuild Iraq--on a trip back home, folks in an economically hard hit county in West Virginia, in all seriousness, asked me to tell the President to send the bombers to them, so then they could apply for help from America.

It was a sad moment for me, Mr. Speaker, even sadder for America.