Floor Statements

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I rise with my colleagues today to remember a great American on his birthday. Cesar Chavez was born 83 years ago and would have been 83 years old yesterday. He devoted his entire life to the betterment of this Nation and to its people. He gave voice to the voiceless. In working with the farm workers, in organizing their union, in fighting for their dignity, respect and equal treatment on the job, he worked for farm workers who were not considered equals in any sense. He gave voice to the voiceless.

And in these times when we see these disturbing trends going on in our Nation, where even on the floor of this great people's hall we hear disturbing trends where people are marginalized, demonized, dehumanized because of who they are and the circumstances of their life, these disturbing trends should remind us of Cesar's legacy. His legacy was not about creating a situation where people are treated less than but creating a society where people were treated as equals, with respect and with dignity. Cesar insisted on the best for us and on the best in us. He insisted on a sense of faith about the future and our families and our Nation. He insisted on tolerance, that we as human beings should understand and respect each other and with that respect comes understanding and with that respect comes a better nation.

He insisted on equality, that all humans are created equal under our Constitution, all people are created equal under our Constitution, and he fought his entire life to make that value a reality for all of us.

So when we celebrate his birthday and we celebrate his legacy, let us not forget that Cesar's legacy is a living legacy, a legacy that calls upon us day

after day to continue his work, to forward his vision and to make this Nation the best it can be and to make ourselves the best we can be.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 47th anniversary of the Peace Corps.

Since 1961, when the Peace Corps was created by President John Kennedy in Executive Order 10924 and subsequently authorized by the Congress, 139 host countries have invited 190,000 Peace Corps volunteers into their territories and homes to serve those in need and build mutual understanding, cooperation and respect. Peace Corps volunteers have contributed to improving health, education and basic essential services for an inestimable number of persons in dire need.

I am proud to say that this year, nine Peace Corps Volunteers from the seventh district of Arizona have applied and been chosen to carry on this vital legacy, serving abroad over six continents on this ever- smaller planet.

Of course, the Peace Corps is a uniquely precious legacy of our martyred President, John F. Kennedy. The idea of the Peace Corps is forever linked in American hearts to the spirit of those one-thousand days that were inaugurated with the words, ``my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country.''

This message still rings out strong and true in this new century. Love of country still has a powerful and appropriate role in motivating our young people to take up service, and the people of this Nation take proper pride in the noble mission carried out by these young women and men.

I also choose to believe that in this new century, we can also take a broader view of the challenges facing the global community of nations, in the face of global warming and environmental degradation, global health pandemics, and denial to billions of the rights enumerated in the Universal Declaration Human Rights. I choose to believe that we have today a greater capacity to think deeply and act vigorously in response to a new call to service: Ask what you can do for your neighbor, and for your planet.

I offer my deepest respect, gratitude and praise for those many courageous women and men who have answered this clarion call to service, and a special note of recognition to my colleagues, Mr. Farr and Mr. Honda and their service to this Nation and to humanity.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to welcome Monsignor O'Keeffe as our guest chaplain today.

Monsignor O'Keeffe has been tending to the spiritual and human needs of people in Arizona for over 40 years, of which the last 30 has been in Yuma, Arizona. It is fitting that he provides today's blessing, as we also memorialize the passing of Congressman Lantos, a great champion of human rights.

Monsignor O'Keeffe is highly respected in Yuma and all of Arizona for the work he does on behalf of human rights, civil rights and advocating for the underrepresented in our community.

He is an active member of the community, encouraging community leaders to take responsibility for social justice, recruiting young and old to engage in civic participation. His experience and passion has led him to be a founder of the Yuma Interfaith Organizing Committee.

I am honored to work with him and receive spiritual and community guidance from him. He is a source of strength for all of us who interact with him.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my friend Monsignor O'Keeffe to the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the Day of Remembrance. This marks the 66th anniversary of the executive order which authorized the incarceration of over 120,000 Americans, primarily of Japanese descent, but also Italian and German Americans.

I stand today to remember those that were taken from their home and their communities, citizens and residents of our country that were victims of an unwarranted and unjust political paranoia.

In 1988, Congress apologized for that internment and took steps not to allow this black mark in our history to happen again.

Mr. Speaker, in rising today, it is also important to remind ourselves in these times where scapegoating and fear-mongering against a certain people is becoming more and more prevalent, this day reminds us not to allow this to happen again and to, above all, protect everybody's rights, protect everybody's inherent rights in this country, and not to allow this to happen again.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time, and let me also thank Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren for the very important resolution, H. Res. 954, that she introduced.

I rise in support of H. Res. 954 and to honor the life of senior Border Patrol Agent Luis A. Aguilar who lost his life in the line of duty near Yuma, Arizona, on January 19 of this year. He lost his life on a border filled with dangers for agents who confront organized drug and people smugglers on a daily basis, smugglers who are prepared to go to great and dangerous lengths to protect their profit and to protect the illegal activities they are conducting on the border.

First, let me give my condolences to Mr. Aguilar's family who gave the ultimate sacrifice, his wife, son, and daughter, who have lost an American hero. I'm proud to say that Agent Aguilar lived in Somerton, Arizona. He was originally from El Paso, Texas, but was raising his family in the district that I have the privilege to represent in this Congress.

His life was devoted to this country as he served in the U.S. Border Patrol for more than 5 years. He protected this country and enforced its laws.

For his wife, children, and family, he provided them with a great foundation. He was a devoted family man, actively involved in the lives of his children and his family, making sure that his family was first. Community members could always count on him being there on a T-ball or soccer field cheering on his children and other children.

Luis Aguilar will be remembered as a quiet, yet strong, man who always had a smile on his face for his friends and family.

Mr. Speaker, we may disagree on the nature, the content and the future of an immigration policy for this Nation, but there is no disagreement on the bravery and value of the men and women who carry out this policy for us. In honoring Luis Aguilar and his family, we honor all of them and respect them all.

I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 954 in memory of Luis Aguilar and in gratitude for his service and the service of his colleagues in the Border Patrol.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2251) to extend the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission, to provide improved visitor services at the park, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2251 was introduced by my good friend from Maine, Representative Mike Michaud. The legislation addresses several housekeeping matters at the Acadia National Park. Acadia, located on Mount Desert Island on the coast of Maine, is one of our most popular and most visited national parks.

This bill would authorize the park to participate in the construction of a new transit center. Currently, visitors can only catch the park bus at their hotels, meaning that day visitors have no access to the system. The bill would allow the park to participate in the establishment and operation of a planned intermodal center to be located just off the island. This center would provide visitor services, parking, and bus access to day visitors. A variety of Federal, State, and local agencies are involved in establishing the center.

H.R. 2251 would also extend the authorization of the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission for another 20 years, continuing this important forum for the park and local communities to jointly consider issues of importance.

Finally, H.R. 2251 would authorize an additional $10 million for the park's land acquisition budget to enable the park to keep pace with rising property values and providing for prompt payment to willing sellers who regularly offer their lands to the park.

At the hearing in the last Congress, the National Park Service testified in support of similar legislation, and that measure also passed in the Senate. The measure before us today has been updated to address several concerns by the National Park Service, and to cap NPS contributions to the intermodal transportation center.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will significantly improve the experience of visitors to one of our great national parks. Representative Michaud and Representative Allen are to be commended for their hard work on this legislation.

I urge the House to support H.R. 2251.

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

Let me thank the gentleman from Utah for allowing me to try to clarify this point.

The Island Explorer transit system at Acadia is entirely voluntary and, I might add, very, very popular. I can categorically assure the gentleman that there are no plans to ban autos from Acadia. Visitors who want to drive the park's loop roads are welcome to do so, but many have found that riding the bus is much more convenient. So there is a categorical assurance that the intention of this legislation is not now or will be to ban automobiles from Acadia.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield as much time as he may consume to Representative Michaud, the sponsor of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3332) to provide for the establishment of a memorial within Kalaupapa National Historical Park located on the island of Molokai, in the State of Hawaii, to honor and perpetuate the memory of those individuals who were forcibly relocated to the Kalaupapa Peninsula from 1866 to 1969, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3332 would provide for the establishment of a memorial within the boundaries of the Kalaupapa National Historic Park on the island of Molokai, Hawaii. It will serve as a remembrance of thousands of Hansen's disease patients who were forcibly separated from family and friends and interned at this site.

Beginning in 1866, when the Hawaii Islands were still an independent kingdom, and continuing through 1969, residents of the islands who were infected with Hansen's disease, also known as leprosy, were isolated from the rest of society at the settlement. In all, 8,000 Hansen's patients were forcibly relocated to the settlement where they struggled to create new lives. The majority succumbed to the disease while living there.

Today, less than 20 percent of the graves and headstones of these former patients can be found in the peninsula. The remaining 80 percent are forgotten on the landscape. A nonprofit organization made up of family and friends of former patients will be responsible for funding and constructing the memorial which will contain the names of all 8,000 patients who were forced to call this settlement their home.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend our colleague, Congresswoman Hirono of Hawaii, and her cosponsor, Congressman Abercrombie, also of Hawaii, for their efforts to ensure that all families of former residents have a fitting commemoration of their deceased loved ones.

Mr. Speaker, we enthusiastically support H.R. 3332 and urge its passage today as a tribute to the present and past Hansen's patients.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono) for as much time as she may consume.

Mr. Speaker, at this time let me yield to my good friend from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) such time as he may consume.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 868) recognizing the 100th anniversary of the declaration of Muir Woods National Monument by President Theodore Roosevelt.

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

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

House Resolution 868, introduced by our colleague from California, Representative Lynn Woolsey, recognizes the beauty and the significance of Muir Woods National Monument on its 100th anniversary. Muir Woods National Monument preserves one of the last remaining ancient redwood forests on the Pacific Coast and in the world.

The coast redwood is the tallest species of tree in the world and one of the oldest. The mature trees of the Cathedral and Bohemian groves in Muir Woods reach heights of 250 feet and average between 600 and 800 years in age, with the oldest believed to be at least 1,100 years old.

In 1905, Congressman William Kent, who later went on to introduce the bill that would establish the National Park Service, purchased the land where Muir Woods stands, recognizing the beauty, value, and significance of an uncut, old-growth redwood forest. Eventually, Congressman Kent donated 295 acres to the Federal Government.

On January 9, 1908, using the Antiquities Act, President Roosevelt declared Kent's donated land a national monument, proclaiming that the groves of the redwoods were of ``extraordinary scientific interest and importance because of the unique character of the forests and the character, age, and size of the trees.''

President Roosevelt wanted to name the new monument for Congressman Kent, but Kent insisted that it be named after the venerable conservationist John Muir, who sought to protect some of America's most iconic landscapes for their inherent national beauty. These ancient trees now offer a silent, yet powerful, testimony to Muir's ideals.

Mr. Speaker, I commend and congratulate my colleague Representative Woolsey, for her commitment and leadership on this matter. We strongly support passage of House Resolution 868 and urge its adoption by the House today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 209) expressing the sense of Congress that the Museum of the American Quilter's Society, located in Paducah, Kentucky, should be designated as the ``National Quilt Museum of the United States''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the concurrent resolution under consideration.

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

House Concurrent Resolution 209 would express the sense of Congress that the Museum of the American Quilter's Society in Paducah, Kentucky, should be designated the ``National Quilt Museum of the United States.'' The concurrent resolution was introduced by our colleague, Representative Ed Whitfield of Kentucky.

Since its establishment in 1991, the Museum of the American Quilting Society has collected and displayed quilts made by quilters from 44 of the 50 States. Today, with a permanent collection of more than 180 quilts and three galleries totaling 13,400 square feet of exhibit space, the facility is the largest museum in the world dedicated to the artistry of quilting and illustrates the significance of quilts and quilting to this Nation.

A friends' group comprised of members from all 50 States has provided the museum with a broad national fundraising support and advocates since its inception 17 years ago.

Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 209 would grant recognition of the House to this museum and the art form it seeks to preserve. A museum of this size, scope, and significance appears worthy of designation as the National Quilt Museum of the United States. We have no objection to House Concurrent Resolution 209 and urge its passage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 29) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct facilities to provide water for irrigation, municipal, domestic, military, and other uses from the Santa Margarita River, California, and for other purposes.

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

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

H.R. 29 was introduced by our colleague, Representative Darrell Issa, and would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct facilities to provide water for irrigation, municipal, domestic, military, and other uses from the Santa Margarita River in California and for other purposes. Similar legislation introduced by Congressman Issa passed the House in the two previous Congresses.

Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to this noncontroversial bill, and I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 29.

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

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record an exchange of letters on this particular piece of legislation.

Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, January 4, 2008.

Hon. Nick J. Rahall II,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Longworth House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Nick: On October 10, 2007, the Committee on Natural

Resources ordered H.R. 29 to be reported. As you know, this

measure contains certain provisions that are within the

jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Services, and thus,

was sequentially referred to the Committee on Armed Services

by the Parliamentarian for the House.

Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 29 and the

need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore,

while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over this

legislation, the Committee on Armed Services will waive

further consideration of H.R. 29. I do so with the

understanding that by waiving further consideration of the

bill, the Committee does not waive any future jurisdictional

claims over similar measures. In the event of a conference

with the Senate on this bill, the Committee on Armed Services

reserves the right to seek the appointment of conferees.

I would appreciate the inclusion of this letter and a copy

of the response in your Committee's report on H.R. 29 and the

Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on

the House floor.

Very truly yours,

Ike Skelton,

Chairman.

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

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Forest Landscape Restoration Act. This Act establishes the ``Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program'' to develop, select, and fund landscape-scale forest restoration projects on Federal lands. This would include 10 collaborative forest restoration projects annually on a landscape-scale of at least 50,000 acres of Federal lands.

While there is more discussion to be had on the particulars, I think that the framework of this measure addresses some fundamental and critical concepts.

First and foremost, this bill at its core focuses on restoring the ecological integrity of our Federal lands. Restoration proposals must address a number of key ecological restoration components, including improving fish and wildlife habitat, improving water quality, maintaining and decommissioning roads, and addressing invasive species problems.

Second, this bill is built around a collaborative process. Collaboration is not only required for the development of restoration proposals, but continues through implementation, playing a key role in project execution, monitoring and reporting. By requiring that forest restoration follows a collaborative process, we are ensuring that people work together on the future of our Nation's public lands.

Third, this bill will also reduce the threat of wildland fire and control escalating fire management costs. Restoration proposals must address forest thinning to reduce hazardous fuels, and also analyze the anticipated reductions in wildfire management costs.

Lastly, this bill encourages the use of forest restoration byproducts to foster local economic development. Byproducts from forest restoration can be used in a variety of ways, such as for woody biomass energy, pellets for home heating, value-added products, and more. This bill encourages biomass utilization and development of small businesses in rural public land communities. Furthermore, in order for a forest restoration project to be eligible, the landscape must be accessible by existing or proposed wood-processing infrastructure.

I am introducing this bill as a companion measure to a Senate bill introduced by Senator Bingaman. I introduce this measure today as a means to work with my colleagues in the other body and move this process along. I certainly realize that forest legislation in particular takes considerable work to craft. I therefore introduce this measure today not as a final product, but as the first step forward in a process. I look forward to gathering information and hearing more about this important topic as we work together on this measure.

Madam Speaker, the American people treasure their public lands and care deeply about their future. Our Federal lands are in need of ecological restoration, which would help us accomplish the goals of restoring the ecological integrity of our Federal lands, reducing the threat of wildland fire, fostering community collaboration and involvement, and creating jobs in rural communities.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1528.

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

H.R. 1528 amends the National Trails System Act to designate most of an existing trail system in Massachusetts and Connecticut as the New England National Scenic Trail. In 2002, Congress directed the National Park Service to study this trail for potential addition to the National Trails System. The draft study, completed in 2006, supports designation of the trail, with some changes to the route to address landowner concerns. The administration has testified that no major changes in the study are expected, and expressed support for the measure in testimony before the Natural Resources Committee.

The trail runs 220 miles through the heart of Connecticut and Massachusetts, past some of the most spectacular vistas and landscapes in New England. The trail offers some of the world's best opportunities to view volcanic and glacial geology, including fossil and dinosaur footprints. The proposed trail also fulfills another requirement of the National Trails System Act by being close to population centers. This trail has over 2 million people that live within 10 miles of the route, and this accessibility makes the trail a wonderful recreational opportunity.

The route of the trail crosses land owned by State and local governments and by private landowners. No Federal land is involved. Local trails associations have obtained permission from landowners allowing existing trails to cross their lands. If a landowner requests that the association close the trail on his or her property, the association honors that request. The NPS study identified no need for direct Federal trail ownership or direct Federal trail management.

If H.R. 1528 is enacted, the role of the National Park Service in implementing the designation would be to provide technical and financial assistance to

the existing trail partners, including State, tribal, regional and local agencies, the Appalachian Mountain Club, and the Connecticut Forest and Park Association. H.R. 1528 is cosponsored by Members representing all the affected districts in Connecticut and Massachusetts, and enjoys energetic support from the affected local communities.

Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, and I want to commend my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) for his commitment and leadership on this matter. We support the passage of H.R. 1528, and urge its adoption by the House today.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments that the gentleman from Utah, the ranking member of the subcommittee, made. There is a point of consistency, too. As we talked about the effects, I thought we were talking about a trail bill, not a farm bill, but the effects of the Federal Government on private land.

I would suggest that part of the consistency would be to quit incentivizing extraction of mining claims and mining rights on private property, that that would be consistent. It would be consistent also to not have eminent domain and condemnation with regard to road construction of Federal roads and energy corridors. I think that kind of points out the fact that we are talking two different things here. We are talking about a trail that has already been through the process and the study and that merits our support today.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), a cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield to the sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) such time as he may consume.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

(Mr. LARSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, it's a good piece of legislation, well crafted, well worked. Many of the doomsday scenarios we've heard about condemnation have no relationship to this legislation. I would urge its adoption.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this draft report that I'm holding is entitled The National Scenic Trail Feasibility Study and Environmental Assessment.

Like many products of the Federal Government, it's lengthy and complicated. But let's be perfectly clear. We're not waiting for a separate environmental assessment. It's all done and it's all in here.

Even though it's labeled a draft report, the National Park Service doesn't do drafts like a high school assignment does drafts. This is a 75-page bound document, eight full color fold-out maps. It draws on more than 90 sources, from books on dinosaur footprints to books on the pioneers who first set foot on those trails, from scholarly histories of the ancient Earth to histories of the small communities along the trail. This study is done.

In reality, the process of changing the study from a draft into a final report is a bureaucratic one; it is not a substantive one, which makes this amendment dilatory, at best, and not a substantive one.

The draft study was completed in August of 2006. It has been under review at the Department of the Interior for 17 months. The National Park Service tells us that it needs approximately one dozen signatures from various Interior officials in order to be considered final. That's all we're waiting for.

In effect, therefore, the amendment could have us abdicate our authority and responsibility to designate trails and pass that authority over to the Secretary, so that whenever he and the various Deputy Assistant Secretaries at Interior get around to signing off on the study, then the trail would be designated. Such an abdication would not lead to a better study; it would just lead to delay.

It might be different, Mr. Chairman, if my good friend from Utah could point out something that is lacking in this study, if he wanted to wait because he felt the analysis of the affected environment on pages 61 and 62 were not entirely complete, or if he was contending that the book The Indian Tribes of North America by John R. Swanton and the Smithsonian Institution Press should not have been relied on in this study.

That is not the case, Mr. Chairman. The work of the study is done. The administration came before the National Parks, Forest and Public Lands Subcommittee in May and testified they do not anticipate any substantive changes to this document and that they support the designation.

Congress has, in this study, more than sufficient documentation to establish this trail. There is no reason to delay this designation. Only if you simply oppose the trail, then that would be the reason for delay.

Mr. Chairman, it's not the role of the Secretary of the Interior to designate trail. It's the role of this Congress, and we should get on with it. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me just say that this amendment is completely unnecessary. The trail crosses State land that is State- owned, local, and the property of willing private landowners. That's all. State and local hunting and fishing laws clearly govern all of these lands.

What's more, this amendment refers to ``all designated and future designated land within the New England National Scenic Trail, including all Federal lands.''

Mr. Chairman, once again, there are no Federal lands involved here.

So in addition to being unnecessary, the amendment is drafted and applies to land that does not exist.

Secondly, we are perplexed as to why we would single out State and local laws on hunting and fishing and the possession or use of a weapon, trap, or net. Why would we state that these laws, which, as I have already said, obviously apply to the lands along the trail, why would we state that these laws apply but not mention other equally applicable State and local laws.

The amendment could legitimately cause someone to wonder, because we mention only these activities, are other State and local laws somehow rendered inactive by this bill?

A Federal trail designation does not preempt State and local laws. But this amendment might make some believe that it does.

This amendment is not intended to solve what I believe is a real problem. It's, rather, an attempt to inject a made-up issue into a simple, straightforward trail designation. In the end, this amendment really only confuses the issue.

Having said that, however, if the language makes Mr. Bishop comfortable enough to support this legislation, we are willing to consider it. We do not believe that it is needed or really even helpful. It will burden the bill, despite its redundancy, only slightly; and in the spirit of bipartisanship, we accept Mr. Bishop's language.

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

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

Madam Speaker, we accepted a motion on hunting and fishing that was consistent with State laws because that seemed to be the most pressing issue in the discussion and debate over this legislation. Now we have a motion to recommit that tries to solve a problem already dealt with which is easily and simply dealt with with the underlying legislation.

The bill specifically prohibits condemnation, so there is no legitimate concern regarding private property rights. There is no legitimate reason to say the same thing over and over again. But now we're in a whole other realm. We're in a conspiracy theory, Federal bogeyman kind of discussion where proponents of the bill say, Well, sure, you have stopped Federal condemnation, but what about our doomsday scenario where the Feds and a State or a locality team up in some secret plan to have the State condemn the land and then give it to the Feds. We better stop that scenario as well.

The point of the matter is that this motion is about usurping local control and, indeed, giving it to the Federal Government. I want to say enough is enough. At what point have we gone far enough to deal with any legitimate problem?

Supporters of this amendment and the motion see condemnation under every rock and around every corner, and there could never be enough language in this bill or any other bill to satisfy them.

Even worse, proponents of this language know full well that neither this motion nor anything else we do here in Congress can stop States from exercising their condemnation authority. Here we have a motion that is both completely unnecessary and completely ineffective. There is no condemnation under this bill. Proponents of this motion need to move on.

I urge defeat of the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

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

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

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise to thank Dean Aguillen for the service he has provided to this Congress and the American people.

Dean's final day with us is today; however, I believe that a friendship and working relationship will continue for years to come.

During my first term in Congress, Dean was a great assistance to my office and me. He helped with the transition and acclimation from being a local county supervisor to Congress.

Dean has accomplished quite a bit in his career within the Capital, but I want to take time to thank him for the way in which he became successful.

Dean is an extremely hardworker and he does the multiple jobs and responsibilities with a smile, patience, respect, and understanding. He has taken care of all of the Democratic members, but I have also seen him take time to recruit and help young staff learn the ropes so they too can be successful.

Dean has made a great impact on many Members and staff.

I wish him the best of luck and know that success will continue to be a part of his life.

Thank you Dean for your patience, kindness, and commitment to this country and to our community.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate El Casino Ballroom's 60th anniversary.

For sixty years, El Casino Ballroom in Tucson, Arizona has been a community and culture center in Tucson and much of Southern Arizona.

El Casino has touched the lives of many generations; it is a place where families and friends celebrate weddings, quinceaneras, anniversaries, and major events in our lives. It has been a center of culture and history for generations.

For the community, El Casino is the place you look forward to going for concerts, where you hope to see your child celebrate his or her marriage, and where you know any event will bring together new and old friends. For the young, your first celebration at El Casino is a rite of passage.

To celebrate and thank El Casino Ballroom for their service to the community is also to remember how and why El Casino started. Three friends--Ramon Siqueiros, Benjamin Jacobs and Adolfo Loustaunau-- brought their vision for a place for Mexican-American families to gather. The friends purchased the land and were part of the construction team that built the ballroom on 26th Street between 2nd and 3rd Avenues. They were the owners, the builders, the managers, and--with their families--the cooks.

For Tucson, El Casino Ballroom is a safe place. In 1947, places throughout Tucson were discriminatory, posting signs of who could and could not frequent the clubs. El Casino was open to all--Mexican Americans, Anglos, African Americans, and anyone who wanted to dance, listen to music or celebrate.

Local and famous artists have performed throughout the years in the ballroom. Among the notables are: Little Joe, Vicente Fernandez, Perez Prado, Fats Domino, Little Richard, Pedro Infante, Javier Solis, Jose Alfredo Jimenez, Los Tigres del Norte, Los Lobos, Mariachi Vargas de Tecalitlan, Duke Ellington, Ike and Tina Turner, Chuck Berry, Queen Ida and local son Lalo Guerrero.

El Casino Ballroom was sold to the Latin American Social Club, a group that is celebrating its 75th Anniversary this weekend. The Latin American Social Club is an organization committed to improving the community needs, and since 1968, they have kept El Casino open.

In 1991, El Casino was temporarily closed due to roof damage. From that temporary loss, the community had a void to fill. After much work, fundraising, construction, and community support, El Casino opened its doors again in 2000. The resurrection of this historical landmark was celebrated throughout Tucson.

When the doors opened, the regular crowds, enthusiasm, and celebrations commenced. The return of El Casino Ballroom was like the return of the most treasured family member.

I congratulate El Casino Ballroom on its anniversary; I wish them many more years so that current and future generations will continue to share in its cherished memories. El Casino is in our hearts. It is a strong part of our community, and is a natural extension of most Tucson families.