Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material regarding H.R. 3667.

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

H.R. 3667, the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River Study Act, was introduced by our colleague from Vermont, Representative Welch. This bill would amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to authorize the National Park Service to study specific sections of the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers in Vermont for their potential inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

I want to thank our colleague from Vermont, Congressman Welch, for his hard work on this measure. This is a good piece of legislation, which will help showcase the natural heritage of Vermont.

We are coming upon the 40th anniversary of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in October. It's important to celebrate the legacy of this act, the preservation of some of our wildest rivers and the safeguarding of our scenic waterways for generations to come, and to acknowledge the essential role that stewardship and a conservation ethic play in the management of our Nation's rivers and streams.

The Missisquoi is a tributary of Lake Champlain, located in northern Vermont. The Trout is a tributary of the Missisquoi. With its headwaters in Lowell, Vermont, the Missisquoi extends almost 100 miles, flowing north into Quebec, then returning to Vermont to flow west before finally ending its journey at Lake Champlain.

As it runs its course through open pastoral fields, scenic gorges and native hardwood forests, the river is a remarkable example of a northeastern ecosystem. It is bordered by the largest and perhaps highest quality silver maple floodplain forest remaining in the State of Vermont. American elm, white ash, white oak, and red maple are found along its banks.

The river is home to diverse fish and wildlife, including native rainbow and brown trout, rare freshwater mussels, spiny soft-shell turtles and river otter. While on the river's banks, bobcat, white- tailed deer, and moose can sometimes be spotted, and the surrounding marshes host large flocks of migratory birds.

In addition to these natural qualities, there are numerous Abenaki Indian archeological sites along the floodplain.

And the river is well-known for its outstanding recreational opportunities as well. It is part of the Northern Forest Canoe Trail--a historic 740-mile water trail through New York, Vermont, Quebec, New Hampshire, and Maine--and outfitters consider the northern part of the river to be the preeminent flat-water paddling spot in Vermont.

It is also renowned for its waterfalls, and the Great Falls on the upper river is recognized as Vermont's largest undammed waterfall.

Simply put, this river is a superb illustration of Vermont's postcard perfect national scenery.

During a hearing on this bill, the administration testified in support of the bill, but recommended that changes be made to clearly specify which segments should be included in the study, as not all of the sections of the river in the original bill were appropriate for consideration. They recommended other technical changes as well.

The Natural Resources Committee amended the bill to respond to those recommendations and clarified which sections of the river would be studied for the wild and scenic attributes.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3667 simply authorizes a study of this river. It is a preliminary step, not a final designation.

Its enactment would simply trigger a process which will allow the National Park Service the opportunity to gather information from, listen to, and coordinate with State officials and local communities; with farmers, business owners, and river outfitters; and with hunters, anglers, birders, paddlers, and hikers--all those who value this river. Only then, after careful consideration and with input from all the stakeholders, will the National Park Service provide recommendations to Congress about the potential of this river.

That is all the legislation does. It is that simple. Let's not lose sight of what this bill is about.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3667.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I'm encouraged by the newfound populism of my good friend from Utah. And I agree that a comprehensive approach to energy has to be something that this Congress accomplishes within the week. This does not negate what I believe to be a good piece of legislation that is before us.

And it is considerable work. We have to unravel 8 years of failed energy policies. We have to unravel the relationship between Big Oil and the administration so that the consumer, the average Joe out there, will get the kind of break and attention that he needs and she needs with regard to energy costs and the rising cost all around us.

Having said that, let me now turn to the sponsor of this good piece of legislation, the gentleman from Vermont, Congressman Welch, for as much time as he may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I realize the political statements that are being made by my friends on the other side of the aisle. I understand them. I think relative to this bill I don't appreciate them, but I really believe that there has to be an understanding that our leadership and the Democrats on this side of the aisle can actually walk and chew gum at the same time, that we can deal with an issue that we are dealing with here today that affects the State of Vermont and deal with the very pertinent issue which is the energy policy for this country.

With that, Mr. Chairman, let me yield to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter) for such time as she may consume.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Let me yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Ohio, Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of our full Resources Committee, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds.

We have no additional speakers.

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

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion let me say I associate myself with the comments that our chairman, Mr. Rahall, made about transparency and about the deeply needed reform in that agency, given the disclosure and the investigation by the Inspector General. This is a good piece of legislation. I urge its approval.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer the amendment as the designee for Mr. Rahall.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would require that the study authorized by H.R. 3667 analyze any potential impacts a wild and scenic river designation for this river might have on the possession or use of a weapon, trap or net, including a concealed weapon.

As with many of the amendments offered today, I do not believe this amendment is necessary. The underlying legislation already is more than sufficient in what it directs the Secretary to study when considering a wild and scenic river designation. Further, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act already makes perfectly clear that these river designations are not intended to infringe upon existing State authority to manage hunting or fishing.

Nevertheless, Chairman Rahall has filed this amendment in an overabundance of caution, and as a good-faith effort to dispel any rumors that this bill will impact existing policies on hunting and fishing. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, just as a friendly correction for the gentleman from Georgia, nada is spelled N-A-D-A. So none of the above doesn't quite fit the acronym, so there might need to be a search for an appropriate balance.

The other thing, and he mentioned a good point. Under the jurisdiction of the Natural Resources Committee are 68 million acres under lease and not in production under the public lands of this country. So under that jurisdiction, I think the committee has made that effort to try to extend the public lands as a source for energy.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I just want a point of clarification, that we didn't attack the 2005 Republican energy bill because it was done behind closed doors. I think the point on the attack is relative to the fact that it was shortsighted, Big Oil driven, and an utter failure.

I thank the Chairman.

With regard to the Bishop amendment, we have no opposition after reviewing it, and we would accept this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Upon review of the amendment of my good friend from Arizona (Mr. Flake), we are prepared to accept it and will not oppose the amendment.

I reserve.

I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.

Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the motion.

Madam Speaker, I make a point of order that the motion to recommit contains nongermane instructions in violation of clause 7 of rule XVI.

Let me add, Madam Speaker, the Office of the Inspector General just released an investigation that they conducted on the office responsible for protecting the taxpayers in the royalty collections on our public lands. Let me just give a couple of quotes from the summary of the report.

``A culture of ethical failure. The single most serious problem our investigations revealed is a pervasive culture of exclusivity, exempt from the rules that govern all other employees of the Federal Government. In other cases, the results of our investigation revealed a program taxed with implementing a business model program, such as royalty-in-kind marketers, donned a private sector approach to essentially everything they did. This included effectively opting themselves out of the Ethics in Government Act, both in practice, and at one point even explored doing so by policy or regulation. We also discovered a culture of substance abuse and promiscuity in the RIK program, both within the program, including supervisors who engaged in illegal drug use and had sexual relations and consort with industry in the oil business.''

I mention those because the gravity of this particular problem, this pathological behavior, should be noted and looked into by this Congress. When we get our new energy policy on the floor--soon--I hope that the other side will join with me in ensuring that ethical reform of the agency responsible for the protection of the taxpayers' investment are part and parcel of any comprehensive energy reform.

With that, I insist on the point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I move to table the appeal of the Chair.

I object.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Morning Star Missionary Baptist Church on celebrating 50 years in Tucson, AZ.

Morning Star Missionary Baptist Church was founded and organized by the Reverend Charlie Hunter, August 1958 in Tucson, Arizona, who served in this capacity until the 70s.

Morning Star became a steadfast church in the midst of Tucson's Southside. Members of the Hunter Family and others stood with Reverend Hunter including, Everline Hunter, Leroy Hunter, Sr., Beulah Hunter, Charles W. Hunter, Lorece Hunter, L.B. Hunter, George Hunter, Rosie Hunter, Sister Brown, Linnie Burns, Reverend and Sister Barnes, Orvie Thomas and Florence Hill in establishing the church's foundation.

In 1978, the church expanded its responsibility and established a Head Start center, helping to provide a strong foundation for the children in the community.

Over the last 50 years, Morning Star has worked to help those in need of counseling, resources, support, or the needs of the families of the community.

Morning Star has strived to be more than just a church, it has worked hard to make itself a community and home; a place where people can find help, love, and family in a time of need.

I commend the congregation and leadership at Morning Star Missionary Baptist Church for their work to ensure the successes over the last 50 years.

Morning Star is a testament to the very best in all of us.

Thank you, Chairman Miller, for your work on this very, very important piece of legislation, the first time in a decade Congress is going to pass a Higher Education Act. I'm happy to support this long past-due improvement to higher education.

This legislation is about inclusion and not exclusion. The bill simplifies the means by which students and families can research colleges, apply for help, and gather information to aid in the important decisions we all must make.

It expands access and support for poor students and students of color through changes to Pell Grants and improvements to TRIO and GEAR UP, additional support for students who have with disabilities, additional support for veterans and their families.

This piece of legislation is a hallmark of the work of this Congress and this session. I'm proud to be on the committee and proud to serve in the development of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today, for the first time in a decade, Congress will pass a higher education act, and I am happy to support the long past- due improvements to higher education that will be put into effect by the passage of this bill.

This Higher Education Opportunity Act demonstrates a commitment by this Congress to inclusion. The bill simplifies the means by

which students and families can research colleges, apply for student aid and gather information to aid in the important decision making process.

It expands access and support for poor students and students of color through changes to Pell Grants and improvements to TRIO and GEAR UP, making college accessible to first-generation students and those who are most likely to be expensed out of college.

It offers expanded support for veterans and their families to honor their continued sacrifice by creating new scholarships and by establishing education support centers and other services to aid in access to education.

It establishes more opportunities for students with disabilities to gain equal access to college by offering national centers of support, aiding colleges in recruitment and retention of students with disabilities, and expands Pell Grant eligibility. Additionally, one of my priorities will create model demonstration programs to improve the access to quality materials for students with print disabilities. It will also create a commission to consider ways to better distribute these materials.

The rising cost of a college education means that students now more than ever must be informed about their decisions as they relate to living expenses and borrowing for education. This bill will add a number of mechanisms to aid students in making these choices, including a provision I worked hard to add that will improve the way cohort default rates are calculated. These changes, though more modest than I had hoped, will encourage schools and lenders to provide better financial literacy to guide students with post-college debt.

The Higher Education Opportunity Act marks a significant improvement in our national commitment to inclusive access to higher education and expresses our continued efforts to make college more affordable and accessible.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material regarding H.R. 415.

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

H.R. 415 would add a 40-mile segment of the Taunton River in Massachusetts to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Back in 1999, local residents approached their congressman, our late colleague Representative Joe Moakley, about securing a wild and scenic designation for the Taunton. Representative Moakley supported the idea and introduced legislation in the 106th Congress to formally study the river. The study was released last year and found the following:

All 40 miles of the main stem of the Taunton River have been found eligible for Wild and Scenic River designation based upon free-flowing condition and the presence of one or more outstanding remarkable natural or cultural resource values . . . Outstandingly remarkable values including fisheries, history and archeology, ecology and biodiversity, and scenery and recreation.

Specifically, the study recommended 26 miles of the river for scenic designation and 14 miles, including the lower Taunton, for recreational designation.

Between November of 2004 and July of 2005, all 10 communities abutting the river adopted resolutions supporting the Federal designation. The Taunton Wild and Scenic River Study Advisory Committee, representing the local communities and State and nongovernmental partners, also voted unanimously to support the designation.

So based on years of study and nearly unanimous local support and collaboration, Representative Frank introduced H.R. 415 in January of last year. The legislation is cosponsored by the entire Commonwealth delegation in the House, and the companion bill, which passed out of committee in the other body by voice vote, is sponsored by both Commonwealth Senators. H.R. 415 was favorably reported by the Natural Resources Committee by voice vote.

In short, Mr. Chairman, this proposal has cleared every single procedural hurdle placed in its path, and I believe it's high time we approve the legislation.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, a word about the proposed Weaver's Cove LNG plant. If the need arises, we can provide more detail, but for now let me simply enter the following facts into the Record: The Coast Guard captain of the Port for Southeastern New England denied approval for the proposed plant based on safety concerns in December of last year. In May of this year, the First District Coast Guard commander, Rear Admiral Timothy Sullivan, upheld that decision on appeal with a thorough review that included more than 50 pages.

In addition, the Commerce Department issued a decision last month finding that ``the national interest furthered by the project does not outweigh the project's adverse coastal effects. Of greatest concern are the effects on navigational safety resulting from LNG tanker traffic called for by the vessel transit plan for the project.''

These decisions by the Coast Guard and Commerce Department prohibit the Weaver's Cove proposal from moving forward for one simple reason: The proposal is unsafe.

The bottom line is this, Mr. Chairman: The Taunton is deserving of this designation and this has nothing to do with the safety concerns that killed the proposed LNG facility in the area.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 415.

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

Just one point of clarification before I recognize the sponsor of the legislation is the issue with the LIHEAP reference. LIHEAP doesn't address the ability to get energy. It creates a situation where people can afford to buy energy.

With that, let me introduce the distinguished Congressman from the Commonwealth, Mr. Frank, the sponsor of the legislation, for as much time as he may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to reaffirm that the United States Coast Guard has found that the Weaver's Cove LNG proposal was unsafe. The Department of Commerce came to that same conclusion. On appeal, it came to that same

conclusion. As a result, the Weaver's Cove LNG proposal is already dead. Decisions have already been made on that subject, and have absolutely nothing to do with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act or designation.

Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and also cosponsor of this legislation, Mr. McGovern.

I yield to the gentleman.

I yield an additional 1 minute to Mr. McGovern.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains at this point?

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Chairman, let me yield to the sponsor of the legislation, Mr. Frank, for such time as he may consume.

Let me yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to close. Let me inquire of my colleague how many speakers he has.

I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the wonderful personal attributes of Mr. Frank, this bill, in and of itself, has tremendous merit, and that is why we brought it here for support by our colleagues. I should remind all our colleagues that this particular scenic river, the Taunton, was studied under the 1968 law, met the criteria for designation and, consequently, that is what the study recommended after 7 years of study.

Another point I think is important, as I pointed it out in the opening statement, the lower portion of the Taunton River from Muddy Cove to the Route 195 bridge in Fall River is being designated a recreational river, rather than a wild and scenic designation.

This designation is reserved for river stretches that are accessible by road or railroad, may have development, may have undergone some impoundment or diversion, but that offer outstanding opportunity for recreation.

The lower Taunton fits that description perfectly. The National Park Service, as I mentioned, spent 7 years studying this river, working with local communities. And I mention that because if we are going to value opinions, as my colleague from Utah was speaking, then I think a very democratic response needs to be a supportive response as well to the near unanimity of support for this designation by local communities, the elected officials, and the delegation from the State. I think that merits a value, and that value should be to extend support and credibility to their desires to have this designation occur.

I would also caution, on that note, caution my colleagues against substituting our own judgment when we do not represent the area, have not participated in or reviewed the study. This is an 80-page study that found this designation appropriate and recommended that designation.

Further, we were talking about precedent. There are several examples of other rivers, the Lower Delaware in New Jersey, the Allegheny in Pennsylvania, the Sudbury, Assabet and Concord Rivers in Massachusetts, which have similar levels of nearby development and represent very successful designations under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. At least, I might mention, at least two of these rivers I just mentioned, by the way, passed the House under Republican rule on suspension.

H.R. 415 is an important piece of legislation. It incorporates the designation, it incorporates the use by urban communities of the designation. It is fitting and it has been verified through study and through the cooperative work of all the communities and the delegation. I ask for its support and urge a ``yes'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Let me state my opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague from Utah.

As I stated before, the portion of the Taunton River which will be struck out by this amendment is deserving of this designation and has nothing to do with the decisions that have already stopped the Weaver's Cove LNG facility. As we pointed out, the lower portion of the Taunton River is being designated as a recreational river, rather than a wild or scenic designation.

The designation is actually intended for river stretches that look like the Lower Taunton because they are accessible and may have some development and undergone some impoundment or diversion.

The designation is similar, as I mentioned before, to other urbanized river segments in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Massachusetts.

There has been 7 years of study. The National Park Service thinks this segment qualifies for this designation. The towns along the river think it qualifies, and the Members of Congress from the State think it qualifies.

And I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and preserve the integrity of the legislation that is before us.

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

The amendment offered by Mr. Bishop for Mr. Pearce is unnecessary because the designation of the Taunton River is not going to have any impact whatsoever on energy resources in the country. As a result, this amendment requires a report that will likely be only a sentence or two long.

The energy debate is ongoing in this country and here in Congress, and I can assure you that no matter where you come down on the issues raised by the debate, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act does not even make the top 100 list of the reasons we're paying so much for gas at the pump. Reports on the impact of the Bush-Cheney energy policies or the energy policies enacted by the former Republican majority would provide significantly more insight into the problems we now face than a report on one wild and scenic river designation.

To go even further, we will debate, and I hope adopt, an amendment sponsored by Representative Boyda making it absolutely clear that H.R. 415 will have no impact on the supply of domestically produced energy. However, Mr. Chairman, as with most amendments that are completely unnecessary, this amendment does no harm to this legislation, so we will not oppose it.

I yield back the balance of our time.

I rise to claim time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, let me just read an amendment that passed this House unanimously just previous to this discussion, the amendment to H.R. 415 offered by Mrs. Boyda of Kansas, ``section 3, domestically- reproduced energy resources. Nothing in this Act shall impact the supply of domestically-produced energy resources.''

The point being that this motion to recommit has nothing to do with the protection of domestic energy resources. It has to do with the ability by putting promptly in the motion to recommit to effectively kill this legislation.

This legislation has the support, almost unanimous support, of communities, elected officials, the delegation of the State, the Governor, and has had 7 years of study in order to receive the recommendation for the designations that are before us in this legislation.

I understand the need to talk about energy on any topic. This particular legislation has nothing to do with the high cost of gas. It has nothing to do with domestic energy supply. If we are looking for reasons, perhaps we could walk over the last 8 years of this administration and a Republican-controlled Congress and look at the failed efforts at really bringing an energy policy to the American people. That is the root cause of our problem. The root cause is not this designation today.

Let me yield now to the sponsor of the legislation, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Madam Speaker, I would like to submit the following statement for the Record. The presentation was given by Colonel John Bullington, Commander with U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground, in recognition of Monsignor Richard O'Keeffe's work in the community.

Presentation to Msgr. O'Keeffe on June 13, 2008

(By Col. John Bullington, Commander, U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground)

I'd like to take a few moments to extend a very sincere

tribute to a man who is a true treasure to those of us at

YPG--Monsignor Richard O'Keeffe.

Since June 1978, thirty years ago this month, the

Monsignor, a man of great integrity, energy and sincerity,

has faithfully served YPG as Catholic chaplain. He drove from

town most Sundays to celebrate mass at the post chapel and is

here at least one weekday each week to make visits, perform

counseling, conduct baptisms, and perform other duties

carried out by a chaplain. He was instrumental in expanding

our religious education program and has been an inspiration

to all with whom he's come in contact.

I might also mention that Monsignor O'Keeffe is one of the

most influential cheerleaders for YPG in the community. He

maintains a network of contacts from both political parties,

and his advice is always right on the mark. I personally

value his input and welcome what he has to say. He represents

a rare combination of judgment, fidelity to truth,

intellectual force, and clarity of interpretation.

For thirty years, Monsignor O'Keeffe has been there without

fail for the people of YPG--of any faith. We could have asked

for no better friend, for no better man. Ireland's loss was

definitely our gain.

Madam Speaker, today, we rightly honor the hard work and achievements of this year's valedictorians, salutatorians and graduates all across the Nation. I wish to recognize their dedication and the contributions to their community. By completing a high school diploma, the future for these students has become considerably brighter.

I also wish to take a moment to reflect on largo group of valedictorians, salutatorians and graduates who, despite high school success and graduation, will be shut out of many of the opportunities for a prosperous future that we promise to our children for their hard work.

I am referring to the many valedictorians, salutatorians and graduates who have worked hard in the communities they have known their whole lives, played by the rules, excelled in school and, because of their undocumented status, will be systematically cut off from the opportunities that are afforded to successful students like them. Through no fault of their own, these bright, intelligent, model students will be caught in limbo--denied an opportunity to pursue success and, in so doing, to serve our country.

These students are confronted with a lesson that high schools do not teach--that because of a status that was not of their choosing, their achievements are worth less than the achievements of their friends and classmates. This is a cruel lesson indeed; the lesson that they have grown up in a social caste; that despite America's promise of prosperity for hard work, that no matter what their educational success--they will be branded ``untouchables''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5781, Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2008.

Work and family are pillars of our society, and a sensible and humane government should seek to relieve the stresses one can place on the other. For this reason, I am glad to support this important piece of legislation, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2008.

This Act will grant guaranteed paid parental leave to federal workers who do not presently have it. This is especially important for younger workers who have not had time to accrue an adequate amount of paid leave.

Paid leave is critical to new families so that new parents can worry about the care of their child and not their financial security. The possibility of a relatively relaxed immediate post-natal period is necessary for parent-child bonding, and ultimately for the well-being of the child and the family.

This Act also makes the Federal Government a much more competitive employer. This law is not just humane, it is necessary as a practical matter for the Federal Government. According to a March 2008 report by the Joint Economic Committee Majority Staff, nearly all Fortune 100 firms offer working parents some paid time off when they have a new child. Bringing the Federal Government in line with the personnel practices of the most competitive employers will also pay further dividends by reducing costs related to worker turnover, replacement and retraining.

H.R. 5781 is a necessary and welcome step in making the federal workplace more family-friendly, and, ultimately, strengthening families and building a just, prosperous, and healthy society. I am glad to vote for its passage and look forward to seeing it go into effect.

Mr. Speaker, over the past year, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, have introduced a series of Medicaid regulations that have caused grave concern to our States and beneficiaries. States are struggling as the economy sinks into recession, and these proposed regulations, if not suspended, will add billions in Medicaid costs to our States at a time when their tax revenues are falling and Medicaid caseloads are growing.

The seven regulations issued by CMS erode the foundation of the Medicaid system by preventing beneficiaries from accessing the care they need. These proposed regulations would endanger access to care by severely limiting payments to public hospitals, eliminate coverage for outpatient services that keep beneficiaries from unnecessary emergency room use, and by restricting support for transportation services for children with disabilities.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Dingell for his superb leadership on this issue and for introducing and garnering bipartisan support for this unfortunate but very necessary moratorium. This important legislation will help protect beneficiaries from harmful cuts and alleviate the immediate concerns that the Medicaid regulations cause for long term care patients, residents and providers alike. The bill also establishes an independent review of these regulations prior to the expiration of the moratorium next year. In addition, it provides $25 million to HHS each year, beginning in FY 2009, to fight fraud and abuse in the Medicaid program.

This moratorium is a temporary fix, allowing Congress an opportunity to review these regulations as thoroughly as possible before they are implemented and the burden is borne by our constituents.

While CMS argues that these changes will create efficiencies in the program, there is no evidence to support this claim. What is known is that these changes will cause extreme harm to our most vulnerable citizens--low-income children, the disabled, and the elderly. By utterly disregarding the immense public outcry surrounding the enactment of these rules, this administration is placing desperately needed services in jeopardy without thoroughly weighing the effects these regulations will have on States.

Now more than ever, in the face of major State budget deficits, we cannot allow the Federal Government to make major regulatory changes to Medicaid that will result in billions of additional costs to states.

I am a proud, original cosponsor of Chairman Dingell's H.R. 5613, the Protecting the Medicaid Safety Net Act of 2008 and urge all my colleagues in this 110th Congress to stand with me and stop this Administration from implementing these foolish and potentially devastating regulations.

Madam Speaker, distinguished colleagues, I rise today to honor an environmental leader whose work and passion has made the Sonoran Desert truly a better place.

Richard Edward Genser, known as Rich, Rex, and to many of his good friends as Geronimo, was born in Newark, New Jersey and spent his childhood in South Orange, New Jersey. He served in the Air Force during the Vietnam war.

Rich came to Tucson, Arizona in the late 1980s. Although in the real estate business, his passion was preserving natural areas, protecting wilderness, and ensuring that development was directed away from the most sensitive lands.

Rich was a lifelong member of the Sierra Club and served the organization in several capacities including as chair of its Grand Canyon Chapter as well as its Rincon Group in southern Arizona. He helped to found the Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection and was key in the efforts to Save the Scenic Santa Ritas from mining threats, a threat that has not yet been extinguished.

Rich was a good friend to many and there was no one who was more full of life. He loved Arizona, he loved the Earth, and he loved the Sierra Club and all of his many friends there. Rich also loved a good fight (for the environment) and helped with numerous efforts, including a successful effort to promote Pima County's Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan.

Richard Genser passed away on February 27, 2008 at the young age of 63. He is survived by his wife, Claire; father, Lester Genser (Agnes); son, Jordon Genser; sister, Susan Bulger; brother, Jon Genser (Annie); step-daughters Carol Bailey Stevens (Eloy), Ashley Ronen (Shlomi); four grandchildren, Zaida, Blue, Hailey, and Samantha; three nieces, Laura, Jane, and Courtney, a nephew, Gregg; several great-nieces and nephews, and his ex-wife Jill Genser.

Rich leaves a legacy that cannot be adequately expressed in words, and gives all of us who have known him and worked with him inspiration to follow our passion and know that one person can make a difference for the better.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2016.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2016 is simple, straightforward legislation. The bill would provide statutory authorization for a conservation system which was established administratively nearly a decade ago. This is not a land management policy bill, rather, it seeks to finally grant the National Landscape Conservation System the congressional recognition that it truly deserves.

The NLCS covers approximately 26 million acres, about 10 percent of the land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, including all national scenic and historic trails, national conservation areas, national monuments, wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, and wilderness study areas managed by the BLM.

The individual lists which make up the National Landscape Conservation System are unique and beautiful. Canyons of the Ancients in Colorado, Craters of the Moon in Idaho, Agua Fria and Vermillion Cliffs in my home State of Arizona, these are poetic names for poetic landscapes. And Mr. Chairman, these units are truly nationally significant, ecologically, scientifically and culturally. For example, Agua Fria National Monument is remarkable for its natural splendor, with the Agua Fria River cutting through Sonoran Desert mesas, and for its unique and diverse wildlife, which includes pronghorn antelope, javelina, and the gila monster, among many others. But the monument also preserves significant and intact pueblo ruins, some with more than 100 rooms, terraced agricultural fields, which bear witness to the lives and stories of those that came long before us.

Like Agua Fria, each of the units included within the NLCS was created to conserve unique cultural and natural resources. But while the individual monument or wild and scenic river or other designations which make up the system are about conservation, creation of the NLCS itself has more to do with accomplishing the full mission of the Bureau of Land Management. From 1946 to 1996, very large, new national monuments created under the Antiquities Act was removed from BLM management and turned over to National Park Service.

The National Landscape Conservation System was created to assure that these valued public lands remain in the BLM system, allowing the agency to manage them and fully realize the conversation aspect of its multiple-use mandate.

The NLCS has been enormously successful. Visitation to these areas is increasing as more people are learning about BLM's spectacular landscapes. From its red rock deserts to its rugged coastlines, NLCS units provide unique and world-class outdoor recreation opportunities for hikers, hunters, anglers, climbers and bird watchers, among many others. Sportsmen consider these areas essential not only for their recreational value, but also because the NLCS is critical to the conservation of fish and wildlife habitat on BLM lands.

Mr. Chairman, opponents of this bill seem to be concerned that it will somehow change or alter the current management of these lands. This is simply not true. Included in H.R. 2016 is a section that specifically states, ``Nothing in this act shall be construed to enhance, diminish or modify any law or proclamation (or regulations related to such law or proclamation) under which the components of the system identified in section 3(b) were established or are managed, including but not limited to the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the Wilderness act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the National Trails System Act, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.''

After almost a decade of success, it is time for Congress to finally put its stamp of approval on this system by formally authorizing NLCS. H.R. 2016 does nothing more or less than write the NLCS into statute. The bill will not alter management of a single acre of Federal, State or private land. Enactment of this legislation will not change the management of these areas, but it will change the perception; it will not upgrade their protection, but it will upgrade their stature.

The coalition of organizations supporting 2016 is as diverse as the system itself, including environmental groups, the American Hiking Society, the National Council of Churches, American Sportfishing Association, Boone and Crockett Club, National Trust for Historic Preservation, National Wildlife Federation, and the Outdoor Industry Association. The Bush Administration has enthusiastically supported the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, what we have here are uniquely American places that should and must be recognized. The NLCS deserves congressional sanction, and we should grant it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of our full committee, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), an original cosponsor of H.R. 2016.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey, a sponsor of the legislation (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

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

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, let me recognize Congressman Inslee, a member of the Resources Committee, a sponsor of the legislation, for as much time as he may consume.

May I inquire as to how much time remains.

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

I think in the course of the debate on H.R. 2016 we are going to hear a lot of claims, a lot of allegations, of how H.R. 2016 will change the management of these public lands, how H.R. 2016 will restrict uses in the future for these public lands. I want to remind Members of section 4, Statutory Construction, the savings clause, which in fact codifies the existing management and codifies the existing uses. But we are going to continue to hear that, the generalizations. And with those generalizations come half-truths and untruths as to what this bill does and does not do.

What this bill does not do, it does not encroach on private property rights. What this bill does not do, it does not change grazing and oil and gas development on these lands. It does not threaten recreational and traditional uses of the land, including hunting, rock climbing, hiking, camping, rafting and motorized use. It does not make the conservation system park-like or eventually managed by the national parks. It does not provide additional protections for Wilderness Study

Areas in the conservation system, and will not designate new wilderness. It does not create a new level of bureaucracy. It does not take money away from national parks. It does not increase spending on government land acquisitions. And it does not impede border security.

I find it ironic that the now-minority, having been the majority for the past 7 years, has not been able to change some of the land designations that they are so upset about today. This vehicle, H.R. 2016, should not be the vehicle for them to vent their frustration. H.R. 2016 has gone through a rigorous process and has bipartisan support.

With regard to border security, the failure of this Congress to comprehensively grapple with the security issues, the border issues and the immigration issues that are facing this country, a broken immigration system that all of us can agree to, that failure to enact those should not be now made the responsibility of H.R. 2016, for the crisis that has been created by the inaction and the fearful reaction of many Members of Congress to try to deal with border issues and border security.

H.R. 2016 is a good piece of legislation. Specifically, the savings clause protects the intention of those lands, the management of those lands and the uses of those lands.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mahoney).

Mr. Chairman, I mentioned earlier the discussion of what H.R. 2016 does not do. I think it is worth mentioning what it does do. It is very important. And I am only going to concentrate on one point. I think we will deal with the values issue in the amendment process.

H.R. 2016 unifies separate units into a coherent system. It ensures permanency, and I think that is the most important point. It will permanently establish perhaps a last great American conservation system in statute, and those lands will continue to be managed by the Bureau of Land Management and prevent any future attempts to get rid of the system. It enhances the statute of this system, and it deserves to be enhanced.

It is a good piece of legislation. It has good support from Members of Congress and from interest groups who care about the conservation issues that we face in this Congress.

Mr. BROWN of Georgia, Mr. Chairman, seizing land infringes on the most fundamental of Constitutional rights and endangers property owners across our great Nation. NLCS will eternally lock land into Government control and prevent Americans from their right to property ownership.

Our Federal Government already owns 653,229,090 acres of land. Does it really need to control any more? NLCS would take control of 26 million acres of land--13 percent of the nation's surface. This land will be forever taken and the right to own land denied. There is no justification to consume more land.

Second Amendment Rights are also under assault in this legislation. Nothing in this legislation protects hunting, fishing, or gun rights on NLCS land--even though they have traditionally been allowed.

The Constitutional right to own property should always be protected. Citizens should be allowed to utilize and prosper from the land. As chairman of the Property Rights Action Caucus, I believe that no legislation should ever infringe on property rights or attack the Second Amendment. Protect these fundamental Constitutional rights of land and gun use by voting ``no'' on H.R. 2016.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment states in its entirety that nothing in this act shall impede any effort by the Department of Homeland Security to secure the borders and enforce the immigration laws of the United States.

Let me be clear, the recent decision by DHS Secretary Chertoff to waive more than 30 bedrock environmental laws, including the Safe Drinking Water Act and the National Park Service Organic Act, in order to build a wall along our southern border was, in my opinion, an abuse of discretion granted to him by the previous Congress.

I have introduced separate stand-alone legislation, H.R. 2593, the Borderlands Conservation and Security Act to, among other things, repeal this waiver authority because, in my view, there are better ways to secure our borders than requiring them to waive laws which protect the water we drink and the air we breathe.

I have also joined with Members of Congress in filing a notice of our intent to file briefs before the United States Supreme Court because I believe the waiver provisions violate our Constitution.

However, the bill currently before the House, H.R. 2016, is not an appropriate vehicle for addressing these concerns. This is simply an authorization bill for a conservation system. It is not intended to impact the management on any of these units, including management decisions regarding border security.

The amendment I am offering here simply makes this as clear as possible. I oppose the law, and I am using every opportunity to make that opposition plain, but this is not the bill for those opportunities.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, make sure the debate on border security takes place in the appropriate time in an appropriate manner under the appropriate legislation, and then we can move forward on this straightforward conservation bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, the amendment is straightforward, the amendment restates the obvious, and the question about taking initiative is an appropriate question. The initiative should be taken with a committee that has been formed to deal with the issues that are of great concern to some of my colleagues that have spoken.

That committee is the Homeland Security Committee, to take legislation there that would deal with the issues they were concerned about. This is not the vehicle for that legislation.

My amendment states the obvious, reiterates the obvious.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Not necessarily.

Mr. Chairman, as with most of these amendments, the Cannon amendment is clearly unnecessary. Once again, we have, in this bill, an ironclad savings clause which I demonstrated earlier. That would be, after the enactment of H.R. 2016. Nothing in this act would diminish or enhance that.

The ability to sue plaintiffs that they have under current law, that would not be changed by H.R. 2016, and nothing in this act would change that. Nothing we do here creates a Federal cause of action. Since the creation of the system in 2000, nothing ever has. The proponents of this amendment are looking for a problem where a problem doesn't exist.

However, if the proponents of this amendment will feel more comfortable that we include language that simply states the obvious, then we will not oppose the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman from Utah's amendment because it would undermine not only this legislation, but the mission and the mandate of the Bureau of Land Management.

The language this amendment would strike reads as follows: ``In order to conserve, protect, and restore nationally significant landscapes that have outstanding cultural, ecological, and scientific values for the benefit of current and future generations.''

These words are not new, nor are they undefined. The NLCS already exists and has existed for nearly a decade and the Bush administration supports these words as a summary of the management goals already in place for these lands under existing law.

Versions of this language are found in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, in the Wilderness Act, in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, in Presidential proclamations and specific statutes creating these conservation units.

Restating these goals in this authorizing legislation is an appropriate mission statement and preserves the status quo. In contrast, striking them

would send a terrible message. Cutting these words out of the bill implies that these are not worthy management goals.

In effect, this amendment suggests that the BLM should no longer ``conserve, protect or restore'' places like the Canyons of the Ancients or the Vermillion Cliffs.

Cutting these words out of the bill suggests that the Grand Canyon Parashant and the Sonoran Desert are no longer ``nationally significant'' and no longer include ``outstanding values.''

Cutting these words out of the bill suggests that ``providing benefits for future generations'' is no longer a worthy goal of the BLM to pursue at Colorado Canyons or Santa Rosa and San Jacinto.

The language this amendment would strike is not a secret attempt to create a new management standard. Rather, it is simply a restatement of the way these lands are already being managed according to mandates already approved by Congress.

The gentleman may not like it. He may even be surprised to learn it, but these words are accurate reinstatements of BLM's existing conservation mandate. Striking them is an attempt to strike at the heart of that mandate, and it must be defeated.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment for the same reasons I opposed the previous amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah.

Like the previous attempt to strike the purposes of this bill, this amendment would strike language instructing the BLM to continue managing these BLM conservation units in a ``manner that protects the values for which the components of the system were designated.''

Mr. Bishop argues he simply does not understand what this term means, and he worries that the BLM doesn't know what it means either. Let me assure Members that this is not a new standard and that the BLM clearly understands what it means to manage land and to protect its values. In fact, they have been doing so for years.

I have here at least 10 instances in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 in which the term ``values'' is used. Not only does it appear in the declaration of policy section of that law, it actually appears in the definition of the term ``multiple use.''

If that is not clear enough, most, if not all, of the laws or proclamations creating the individual units of the NLCS refer to the ``values'' to be protected.

I have three examples. There are many more, but we have selected three because they were approved by majority-Republican Congresses. The Black Canyon of Gunnison and Santa Rosa National Monuments and the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area, all units of the NLCS, all mention ``values'' in their enabling legislation.

The section this amendment would strike is an accurate reflection of the current management standards applied to these lands. To strike it would be to downgrade these conservation areas.

For a better understanding of what this standard means, I would encourage all of my colleagues to read the law, rather than simply trying to disregard language with which they are not familiar. The amendment needs to be defeated.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me read from the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976: ``the public lands to be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values.'' I repeat, this is not new language. This is language which has been part of the management of these units from its inception.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

At this point, not necessarily.

As we have mentioned, H.R. 2016 already contains an extensive savings clause which makes absolutely clear that the simple act of writing the NLCS into statute will not change the way individual units are managed.

The inclusion of this savings clause should relieve Members of the need to come to the floor today and further amend the bill to enumerate each and every possible use of public lands for specific mention in the legislation.

The underlying bill already makes plain the fact that energy development, along with other authorized uses of these lands, will continue in those areas where they are currently allowed, even after H.R. 2016 is enacted.

Apparently, this broad savings clause is not plain enough. This amendment would single out energy production for special mention as one of those uses not impacted by the bill.

From the standpoint of writing clean, clear legislation that avoids redundancy and needless repetition, I oppose the amendment.

However, if this language provides an extra level of assurance and comfort for some Members, this amendment does not really change the bill, and I am prepared to accept it.

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

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

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

Grazing is obviously allowed in the units of the NLCS where it is appropriate, and nothing in this legislation would change that. The savings clause makes that fact as clear as it could possibly be. The underlying bill makes no changes to existing grazing rights.

Were this amendment written simply as an extension of the savings clause, as many other amendments offered today have been, it would be unnecessary, but not harmful to the bill. This amendment goes much, much further, however. It is not as simple as a savings clause specific to grazing. Rather, this amendment would operate to prohibit the BLM from maintaining current standards, dictating the location and the management of grazing on these lands.

This amendment goes beyond simply saying that nothing in this act shall impact grazing, to say that the presence of these areas in the NLCS cannot affect the operation of grazing. Talk about an invitation to litigation.

Does this mean the BLM would lose the authority to manage grazing on 800 or so units in the system?

Does this mean that those NLCS units where grazing is not allowed under current law would have to be opened up, whether it was appropriate or not?

The Pearce amendment could operate to force grazing into sensitive conservation areas where it is currently prohibited, and for good reason. Arguably, this amendment's an attempt to use this simple authorization bill to undermine provisions of existing grazing law that have been on the books for years.

If the gentleman from New Mexico wants to make sweeping amendments to the grazing law, he should do so directly, not by means of an amendment on this bill.

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

We reserve our time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, these are not tired excuses. I think my attempt has been an exercise in trying to drill the facts of the legislation into those that don't want to hear it.

The underlying bill makes no change to existing law regarding grazing. The amendment, in contrast, could be interpreted as expanding existing grazing into areas where it is not appropriate. We tried to work with the gentleman from New Mexico to draft his amendment more clearly, but because this amendment is unacceptably broad, it must be defeated.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Thank you very much.

I am very well aware of the efforts made by you and the rest of the Oregon delegation to create one of the most unique pieces of Federal land management legislation in the Steens Act. You sought a balance of land protection, multiple historic uses, citizen involvement, and the creation of the first grazing-free wilderness in the country.

I can clearly state to you that H.R. 2016 will not in any way supersede, undermine or be used as a reason to change any of the purposes established in section 1(b) or the objectives established in section 102(b) of the Steens Act, Public Law 106-399.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

Mr. Speaker, as was indicated by the gentleman from Utah, the Altmire amendment, which was endorsed by the NRA and the NRA supported the bill with the inclusion of that amendment in its present form, dealt with this issue and dealt with it effectively by reaffirming the right of gun owners and hunters in those public lands. Also in the legislation is a savings clause which guarantees that management prerogatives that are on the land now will remain on the land.

This to me is clearly a bait and switch. It's a gotcha move. These issues have been dealt with in the legislation. It is not a second amendment threat that we are talking about here. We're talking about, more importantly, the issue of public lands and their management. And it might be added that the use of the word ``promptly'' in the motion to recommit would effectively kill this legislation, a decent, well- crafted, bipartisan legislation supported by many Members in this House.

Let me just read from the letter sent out by the NRA:

``Because of our longstanding support for our hunting heritage and sportsmen's rights, the National Rifle Association will consider the vote on this amendment,'' the Altmire amendment, ``in our future candidate ratings and endorsement. If the Altmire amendment is adopted, the NRA will withdraw our current opposition to H.R. 2016.''

I repeat again, this motion to recommit is not about protecting the second amendment. This motion to recommit is a ploy to effectively kill the bill. If you cannot win arguments, it appears, through facts and through rational discussion and debate, then you try to win votes by using scare tactics and ploys. This is a ploy to kill the bill.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit.

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