Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, this is a very aupicious time for affordable housing advocates. For the first time in far too long, we

have significant progress on this critical issue with this new majority in this people's House. Chairman Frank and Chairwoman Waters have been true leaders on this issue, and I would like to recognize their efforts.

Today, we also gather to recall a past leader, who 20 years ago brought about a major increment of progress. I speak, of course, of Stewart B. McKinney and Bruce Vento, and the law that bears their name.

There are really very few, extremely few, cases of an elected official committing themselves to accompaniment of those in need the way Congressman McKinney did. Indeed, the late Congressman lost his life as a result of his commitment. And while we commemorate his work and recall the circumstances of his passing, we should not lose sight of the many thousands who died in a similar way, and those who are still on the streets today, and at risk.

Many Americans have passed out of this world in lonely alleys, on top of grates, isolated from friends and family, and then been buried in unmarked plots. Indeed, as noted in the resolution commemorating McKinney-Vento, the condition of homelessness on average causes the loss of 30 years in life expectancy.

The McKinney-Vento programs have been critical in addressing this great American tragedy, and it is worth reflecting on this progress and recognizing this achievement of dedicated leadership. Across the board, McKinney-Vento has addressed the core issue of housing and deeply intertwined issues of health care access, education, job training, and reaching out to homeless youth and getting them back in school, this law has made a difference.

This is an important precedent to keep in mind as we move forward with a new agenda. After all, this was an emergency response, and while necessary and just, it was not claimed that this would put an end to homelessness, and certainly the Federal response to homelessness should not be limited to these programs.

So I look forward to working with advocates like you in this session and continually as we strive to address this problem and better this society. What we are doing, really, is increasing the decency of this country, our level of morality, our concern for our fellow man. When we conquer homelessness, which is fundamentally a problem of social isolation and abandonment, we are truly rebuilding the moral foundation of this great Nation.

Madam Chairman, the Act of August 25th, 1916, more commonly referred to as the National Park Service Organic Act, states that, ``there is hereby created in the Department of the Interior a service to be called the National Park Service, which shall be under the charge of a director, who shall be appointed by the President.''

Since 1916, the National Park Service created by the Organic Act has grown to include 22,000 people, conserving and interpreting 391 units in a National Park System that will welcome more than 270 million visitors this year. Our National Parks are a source of enormous pride for millions of Americans and examples for the world regarding the conservation of places and resources which make a Nation and a people unique. And of course, Madam Chairman, much of the credit for the tremendous success of the National Park idea is due to the professionalism, commitment and expertise of the men and women working for the NPS.

As the centennial of the Organic Act approaches, there is consensus-- among policy-makers and the American people--that this 100th anniversary must be viewed as an opportunity to recommit ourselves to building a stronger, more diverse, better trained and better equipped National Park Service. In February, the Bush Administration proposed legislation to increase funding for the NPS over the next decade in recognition of this milestone. Two of my colleagues on the Natural Resources Committee--full committee Ranking Member Don Young and subcommittee Ranking Member Rob Bishop--have introduced that legislation, by request, as H.R. 2959.

Today, with the support of Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall, I am honored to introduce H.R. 3094, legislation we believe will best commemorate this 100th anniversary while also preparing the National Parks and the National Park Service for another 100 years. H.R. 3094 authorizes mandatory spending expected to total $100 million a year for ten years. The bill creates a process whereby the Executive Branch will coordinate annual proposals for how best to spend this new funding and the Congress, through the Interior Appropriations bill, will allocate the funds.

In contrast to the Administration's proposal, H.R. 3094 identifies six specific program areas within which this increased funding is to be spent. These areas include education in the parks, diversity programs, an environmental leadership initiative, professional development, resource protection an construction. This mix of funding priorities-- investing in natural resources, bricks and mortar and human capital-- will insure our parks and park employees can meet the challenge of the next 100 years successfully.

Also in contrast to the legislation proposed by the Administration, H.R. 3094 provides this new spending without requiring private matching funds. While we recognize the critical role private giving has played in creating and sustaining the National Park System, we remain concerned regarding the ever-increasing reliance on private funds. H.R. 3094 encourages private giving but makes absolutely certain that NPS spending priorities are determined by the Congress and the Administration without regard to which projects might, or might not, be most attractive to private donors.

And finally, Madam Chairman, H.R. 3094 differs from the Administration's proposal in that all of the spending in our bill is paid for--meaning this bill addresses the stringent PAYGO requirements instituted by the Democratic majority. The Administration's failure to identify a source for the mandatory expenditures in H.R. 2959 makes that proposal simply unrealistic.

Madam Chairman, the American people treasure their national parks and care deeply about their future. The funding levels we provide for the National Park Service, at this critical milestone in its history, should reflect that. The initiatives funded through this legislation-- especially those which will use our national parks as classrooms for young people--will create new generations of stewards to safeguard our national parks for the next 100 years.

Madam Speaker, I am glad to rise in support of House Resolution 426, recognizing 2007 as the Year of the Rights of Internally Displaced Persons in Colombia.

Internal displacement is a massive problem in Colombia. As noted in this resolution, the number of displaced over the past 20 years is roughly equivalent to eight percent of the Colombian population. If we applied this ration to the population of the United Sates, this would equal twenty-four million displaced persons roughly the population of the State of Texas.

Unfortunately, this tragically large number continues to grow by about 200,000 every year.

The civil conflict, of course, is at the root of the problem, but this explanation is worth a closer look. There is a guerrilla war being waged by the group calling itself the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, in conflict with the Colombian government and their paramilitary allies and surrogates, and combat has displaced many Colombians. Also, resorting to violence as a means of resolving conflicts over land and other resources has become commonplace and exacerbates the problem.

Afro-Colombians, whose rights to communal land holdings were not properly recognized until 1991, have been hit particularly hard by deliberate displacement aimed at securing valuable or strategic land areas, principally by paramilitaries and the Colombian state. The FARC has also been known to engage in this reprehensible practice. Often the land at issue is stolen from its residents because it is favorable to agriculture, has sub-surface resources, or is needed for the completion of large construction projects.

Due to economically motivated displacement and other factors, including their general political marginalization in Colombian society, Afro-Colombians are disproportionately over-represented in the displaced population, as noted in the resolution.

Because of their marginal position, Afro-Colombians, therefore, find it even more difficult than other Colombians to access the resources and assistance they need to rebuild their lives. In this dismal context, a return to their land, to their proper home, may be a deeply held hope, but it is difficult to imagine.

The plight of the displaced deserves our immediate attention. Not only have we involved ourselves in the Colombian civil conflict and armed the Colombian state--a government which our own State Department has stated cooperates with the pararmilitaries, but this nation's appetite for cocaine has inflamed the situation by generating income for all sides in the conflict.

I wholeheartedly support this resolution and hope for an overwhelming vote in favor of its adoption. I call on my colleagues to support this resolution and to pay sustained attention to the plight of the displaced throughout this year and beyond, as we work to redirect our policies toward building a just peace for the people of Colombia.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to take the opportunity to honor an environmental leader who has given southern Arizona many reasons to be proud. Arriving to Tucson after years split between Hawaii and Flagstaff, AZ, Jenny received her masters degree in public administration from the University of Arizona.

In Tucson, Jenny fell in love with the Sonoran Desert, and dedicated her professional career to protecting the native ecosystems of the Borderlands region.

Ten years ago, Jenny began working for a diverse coalition of neighborhoods, community groups, and environmental organizations called the Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection. Focused on producing the best Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan ever assembled under the Endangered Species Act, Jenny became a leader in advocating for sound public policy, the incorporation of science, and public oversight in Pima County's Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan.

Her contributions to the southern Arizona community and the U.S.- Mexico borderlands go much further. In 2001, Jenny took a position with Defenders of Wildlife, a nationally respected wildlife and habitat protection organization, in their southwest regional office. Over the last 6 years, Jenny has become a national leader in speaking out for wildlife and public lands in the ongoing immigration debate. She has continually advocated for an open and fair process behind the construction of border infrastructure, while pointing out the impacts that fence and wall construction have on the natural ecosystems that sustain our quality of life and environment.

Jenny builds alliances, and through her border wildlife work at Defenders of Wildlife, she brought together a diverse coalition of human rights, indigenous rights, environmental, and labor representatives to call for comprehensive immigration reform and the reversal of decisions to build walls on our southern border. In 2007, Jenny was honored with Derechos Humanos' Corazon de Justicia award for her commitment to justice and social change.

Jenny Neeley leaves her post as a professional land and wildlife conservationist this month as she heads to University of Arizona law school. Whether she returns to environmental advocacy work or not, she will leave a legacy that cannot be adequately expressed in words, and gives all of us that have known and worked with her hope that we can truly achieve the goals that we set out to accomplish together. The Tucson community and the wildlife of the Sonoran Desert will sorely miss Ms. Neeley, but I have no doubt she will go on to accomplish great things in her future endeavors. I wish her the best of luck.

Mr. Speaker, many of our soldiers returning from service in Iraq and Afghanistan suffer from a loss of limb or other serious wounds. Our VA and military hospitals have state-of-the-art facilities to treat these wounds and to help our soldiers make a recovery that they need and deserve.

But the same is not true for those soldiers who return from combat suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome. A Washington Post series chronicled the struggles faced by many of our soldiers seeking psychological assistance and support from our medical facilities and from the VA. The Post writers concluded that Walter Reed lacks sufficient psychiatrists and clinicians to properly treat the growing numbers of soldiers returning with combat stress.

I am proud to say help is on the way. The historic VA funding which passed the House last week provides 600 million more than the President requested to treat PTSD and finally, finally, begin to address a disturbing problem. Let us not repeat the mistake we have made with our Vietnam veterans and begin to help our veterans now.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 154) recognizing Stax Records for enriching the Nation's Cultural life with ``50 years of soul,'' 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 resolution under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the influence of soul music on this Nation and the contributions of the city of Memphis, Tennessee, and Stax Records for enriching the Nation's cultural life with 50 years of soul.

Soul music became a new genre of American music in the 1950s and incorporates various types of music including gospel and rhythm and blues. The origins of Southern soul music can be traced back to Memphis, Tennessee, the home of Stax Records.

Stax Records produced some of the earliest recordings of soul music legends including Isaac Hayes, Otis Redding, and B.B. King. Over time, other important recordings were produced at their studios, including works from the Reverend Jesse Jackson, Bill Cosby and Richard Pryor.

Throughout 2007, the Memphis Convention and Visitors Bureau, Concord Music Group/Stax Records, and the Soulsville Foundation will celebrate American soul music and the 50th anniversary of the founding of Stax Records with an event titled ``50 Years of Soul.''

Mr. Speaker, soul music has greatly contributed to the music culture in our Nation and has a lasting influence on current art forms, such as contemporary rhythm and blues. I would like to thank the city of Memphis and Stax Records for their commitment to this inspirational music, and I encourage my colleagues to pass this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), the sponsor of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

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. 475) congratulating the University of Arizona Wildcats for winning the 2007 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Softball Championship.

Mr. Speaker, I ask 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 rise today to congratulate the University of Arizona Women's Softball Team on their eighth national championship. The Wildcats won their title June 6, 2007, giving them back-to-back championships over the University of Tennessee Lady Volunteers.

The road to the championship was not easy for the Wildcats. The Wildcats climbed out of the loser's bracket turning the tournament to face off in the best of three championship series against the Lady Volunteers of Tennessee. After losing the opener of the series, the Wildcats won the second game 1-0. The final game of the series was the most-viewed women's college game on television and was played in front of a sold-out audience. The game was 0-0 until the fifth inning, when the Wildcats scored five runs. Ms. Mowatt, the pitcher, continued to pitch a no-hitter, leading the Wildcats to their second title in a row.

For those of us that are alumni and have the pleasure of living in the community where the Wildcats Women's Softball Team has brought us great honor and prestige, know that the effort and the victories are due to great team effort. It's about teamwork, but there are individuals that must be acknowledged, and it begins with the head coach, Coach Candrea, who has taken the team to every one of their championship titles, in addition to leading the United States team to a Gold Medal in the 2004 Olympics.

Acknowledgment has to be extended to the pitcher, Ms. Mowatt, who threw 1,035 pitches in eight games in 7 days, setting a new women's college record for pitching 60 innings.

The members of the team that were selected to the all-tournament team due to their performance were the shortstop, Ms. Fox; third basewoman, Ms. Leles; and second basewoman, Ms. Lowe.

In addition to the team and support staff, I would like to recognize the endless support of family, friends and fans who give to the university and support the university throughout the whole season. The victory for U of A Wildcats Women's Softball Team is celebrated throughout my district and by Wildcat alumni across the world.

But I think their victory is more than a championship title. It is a testament of the ability of women and the need and the importance of the continued investment in title IX. The victory

reminds us of that importance every time that a women's team at a collegiate level is as successful as the University of Arizona Wildcats and other teams.

My congratulations to the University of Arizona Women's Softball Team for their great victory, for the honor that they bring the State, and for the honor that they bring women athletics across this Nation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I don't have any other speakers on the subject. And I would like to acknowledge the comments, and I'm very appreciative of the comments of Mr. Bishop.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), and just indicate to him that both teams presented themselves, not only athletically, but as fine sportsmanship, fine athletes and fine universities. And I appreciate his comments.

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. 485) expressing appreciation for the profound public service and educational contributions of Donald Jeffry Herbert, fondly known as ``Mr. Wizard''.

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 rise today to honor the life of Donald Jeffry Herbert and to express appreciation for his great educational contributions.

Donald Herbert was born in Waconia, Minnesota, on July 10, 1917. He graduated from La Crosse State Teachers College in 1940, where he studied to become a science teacher. Before Don Herbert could make an educational contribution, he first served in the United States Army Air Force in World War II. During his service to our country, he earned the Distinguished Flying Cross and the Air Medal with three oak leaf clusters.

Don Herbert is best known for developing an idea which became ``Watch Mr. Wizard,'' a live television show which introduced many children to science. This show aired from 1951 to 1964. Don Herbert, who came to be known as Mr. Wizard, also produced another children's show from 1983 to 1990 titled ``Mr. Wizard's World.''

Mr. Wizard was able to explain seemingly difficult science to children with visually stunning experiments. Mr. Wizard amazed all of us that watched that show. He could make a Bunsen burner change colors by the elements that he used on there. He could take two colored solutions, pour them into a beaker and it would become clear.

And today, when there is such an emphasis across this country and by this Congress to instill an appreciation and a love for science among our students, and among the children of this country, Mr. Wizard stands as a great example and a wonderful show that did just that, stimulated interest and created appreciation among children for science.

Don Herbert's television programs inspired generations of children to become knowledgeable in science. These educational television programs earned Don Herbert a Peabody Award in 1954. He also won three Thomas Edison National Mass Media Awards and the Robert Millikan Award from the American Association of Physics Teachers.

Don Herbert realized that an education including science and technology is a necessary component in forming a productive and competitive society. While he passed away on June 12, 2007, his great contributions to advancement of the education in the field of science will continue to have effects for many, many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to reserve.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Arizona's wild horses living in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests.

The residents of the State of Arizona deeply value these magnificent wild horses.

These beautiful wild horses are truly the ``Living Symbols of the West,'' as described by the Wild Horse and Burro Act passed by Congress in 1971 to protect the wild horses of the United States.

The Rim Country wild horses date back to mounts brought by Father Eusebio Kino, who began his 1653 mission to eastern Arizona by setting out from the lands of my constituency in southern Arizona and traveling across our State northeast to the ``borders of the lands of the Apacheria which border on New Mexico.''

These original Spanish horses are the great ancestors of the Mogollon Rim country wild horses. They were the mighty Andalusian war horse, whose origins go back more than 28,000 years to the original Iberian horse; the magnificent Spanish Barb; and the graceful and fluid Spanish Jennet, the mount of many of the great kings of Europe; and the strong bloodlines of these original horses appear almost unchanged in our Rim wild horses 400 years later.

Our Arizona Rim wild horses are the direct descendents of the Spanish horses prized by the conquistadors so highly that the foals were carried in hammocks to protect their legs until they were old enough to travel on the forced marches; and prized by the early cattlemen for their endurance and heart and were the very mounts of the U.S. Cavalry as they rode to protect and expand the American west.

The Arizona Rim Country wild horses living in Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests are a most precious natural resource to be preserved for our children and grandchildren who will be able to see them for generations to come.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1100.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1100 authorizes a boundary expansion of 115 acres at the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site, a unit of the National Park System in western North Carolina. The bill was introduced by my colleague on the Natural Resources Committee, Representative Heath Shuler, in whose district the Sandburg National Historic Site is located. Representative Shuler has been a strong advocate for the bill, and I commend him for his enthusiasm and the dedication to this important piece of legislation.

The 264-acre Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site preserves the farm where the two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning author and his family lived for the last 22 years of his life. Carl Sandburg was one of America's most versatile and recognized writers whose stories, histories, and poems captured and recorded America's traditions, struggles, and dreams.

H.R. 1100 authorizes a 115-acre boundary adjustment that is recommended in the historic site's 2003 General Management Plan, a plan developed through a 4-year process that involved extensive public input. The boundary adjustment is necessary to allow construction of a visitor center and a parking lot as well as to protect the pastoral views from the Sandburg estate.

H.R. 1100 authorizes the Secretary of Interior to acquire land from willing sellers only, and I would note that all of the affected landowners have agreed to have their parcels included in the proposal to expand the historic site.

H.R. 1100 is important for the continued protection and operation of this historic site, and it has bipartisan support. At a hearing on the bill last month, the administration testified in support of the legislation, as did a local county commissioner. In the Senate, companion legislation has been sponsored by Senator Dole and Senator Burr.

During the markup of this bill, the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands adopted an amendment that made several technical changes and standardized the bill's language. The amended bill was forwarded to the full committee by voice vote. The bill, as amended, was ordered favorably reported to the House by the Natural Resources Committee by voice vote.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1100 is a result of a lengthy public planning process. It has extensive and enthusiastic community support, including the support of the landowners involved. It also has the backing of the Bush administration and North Carolina's Republican Senators. Given all this, we have to wonder why there are those who would try to make this, a straightforward bill, controversial.

Mr. Chairman, I would again commend Representative Shuler for his hard work on behalf of this important and worthy legislation, and I strongly urge the passage of H.R. 1100, as amended.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Rahall.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the author and sponsor of the legislation, Congressman Shuler.

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

Mr. Chairman, as we go into the discussion and the debate on the amendments, let me just remind my colleagues that H.R. 1100 is supported by the Bush administration, State and local governments, citizens, and North Carolina's Republican Senators. I would also note that the 115-acre addition was developed through a 4- year planning process.

And, yes, Carl Sandburg is beloved in North Carolina, but his significance is of national importance. That is why our cosponsors from east coast to west coast are part of this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I would say that the preservation of the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site and the enhancement of that site is a national responsibility, and that is why this legislation is important, to extend that national responsibility.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is clearly intended to stop the boundary expansion at the Carl Sandburg home historical site from ever happening. It imposes excessive, ill-defined requirements on this historic site, standards that we have never imposed on any other national park or government agency, and that I suspect most of us would never impose

on ourselves. Could you, as a homeowner, certify that all maintenance on your home is ever complete? Isn't there always a light bulb to be changed, a wall to be painted? Would we expect the Department of Defense to certify that maintenance on every piece of equipment in their inventory is complete before allowing them to purchase new equipment? Of course not. So why is the Carl Sandburg Home Historic Site expected to meet that standard?

The minority has had 12 years to do something about the National Park Service maintenance backlog and failed to act, but that failure should not be allowed to hinder the continuing needs of the National Park System.

The new majority in Congress is committed to addressing the past budget shortfalls, while managing and growing the National Park Service responsibly. We can do both, and we must do both.

Further, Mr. Bishop's amendment requires an unspecified person to determine that all deferred maintenance at Carl Sandburg has been completed, but fails to define not only who makes the determination, but also what the definition of ``deferred maintenance'' is. Therefore, I don't see how a determination can ever be made. Even the Director of the National Park Service herself has testified before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands that deferred maintenance is an ongoing process, just like it is for every other Federal agency or a homeowner.

The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources has already purchased 22 of the 110 acres proposed to be added. They would like to donate these lands to the National Park Service, but Congress must authorize this boundary adjustment first. This amendment would require the State to continue to hold the land indefinitely, something they should not have to do.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment will have no impact on whether the backlog of maintenance on the national parks is managed effectively. Rather, it was simply introduced to kill this boundary addition. I urge defeat of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from North Carolina, sponsor of the legislation (Mr. Shuler).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the Bishop amendment arbitrarily slashes the boundary adjustment at the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site by 95 percent. This reduction is based on no science, no studies, and would substitute the judgment of a few for those of the many.

The National Park Service has invested 4 years and tens of thousands of dollars in a public planning process to determine the future of this very important historic site. With extensive analysis and public input, a 115-acre boundary adjustment was determined to be necessary to protect park resources and provide for the enjoyment of the public. Mr. Bishop's amendment simply ignores this, undermining good public policy.

The amendment flies in the face of the wishes of the local community, including the village council and the local county commissioners. It defies the many State and Federal agencies that participated in and supported the outcome of the multiyear planning process. It contradicts the wishes of the Bush administration, who testified in support of this legislation at a hearing just last month. And it goes against the desires of two Senators from North Carolina, both Republicans, I might add, who have sponsored companion legislation in the Senate.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment also flies in the face of the desires of landowners in question who have agreed to have their properties included in the proposed boundary expansion. It virtually guarantees these lands will be developed. The owners would like the opportunity at some future date to sell their property or an easement on their property to the historic site for conservation purposes. If and when these landowners are ready to sell their land, this amendment assures that the Federal Government would not be at the table, but a developer surely will.

Mr. Chairman, the Natural Resources Committee has moved this year Republican-sponsored park expansion bills that have added more than 3,000 acres at a cost of millions of dollars with no amendment of this type offered. Money and expanding parking are clearly not the real issue here. The Bishop amendment has no science, no studies, no local support, and it should be defeated.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Shuler).

Just in closing, on the issue of cost, CBO scored this bill as costing $7 million because they included the cost of the future visitors center that was estimated at $3.5 million. Just for the record, I note that both Mr. Bishop's amendment and Mr. Heller's amendment allow the $3.5 million to be spent on the visitors center.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is inconsistent and unfair. As I stated earlier, the enhancement and preservation of this site is a national responsibility. This amendment abdicates that responsibility by prohibiting the use of Federal funds to fulfill this role. Strangely, it allows Federal funds to be used for development but requires State and local landowners to shoulder the costs of protecting the historic viewshed.

Philanthropy has and will continue to play an important role in the care of our national parks and is something that we are all thankful and grateful for. A perfect example is the State of North Carolina. Recognizing the importance of protecting the historic viewshed, it has purchased 22 of the 110 acres identified as needing protection and would like to donate them to the National Park Service. The National Park Service will, of course, continue to welcome any donation of land or money to help protect the remainder of this land.

However, it is irresponsible to expect the State to shoulder the total responsibility of purchasing all 110 acres, nor should small landowners have the responsibility to donate their property to the National Park Service. We need to maintain the option to purchase the land from willing sellers, so that when it is on the sale block, the Federal Government's hands are not tied.

The amendment is not about the availability of Federal funds. This is a funding source specifically set aside for Federal acquisitions of land identified as important for conservation. The Land and Water Conservation Fund has a current balance of $16 billion. I would say that is sufficient to allow the possibility of using appropriated funds for this 110-acre addition.

This amendment is also inconsistent. It allows the use of Federal funds to purchase 5 acres for construction of a visitor center, yet does not allow the use of Federal funds to purchase 110 acres of land or easements to protect the historic viewshed.

Finally, this amendment is unfair. Committee Republicans raised no objections nor offered any amendments when the Natural Resources Committee favorably reported a Republican bill that would add more than 3,000 acres to the Jean Lafitte National Historic Park. That bill allows appropriated funds to be used, and the CBO estimate put the cost at up to $5 million. Why should appropriated funds be available for that bill but specifically protected in this bill?

Mr. Chairman, land protection at a national historic site is a national responsibility, as recognized by my Republican colleagues in the Jean Lafitte legislation. The Heller amendment is inconsistent and unfair. I believe Mr. Shuler's predecessor did not recognize the importance of enhancing and protecting this valuable viewshed. We should not penalize the author of this legislation for recognizing it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Shuler for his comments.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, this legislation, H.R. 1100, went through full committee hearing, it went through subcommittee hearing, was referred to this floor by voice vote, and this whole discussion we have had on the bill today and the debate was under an open rule. So I fail to understand why we need a motion to recommit. I believe it is a red herring. It is a non-issue.

I remind Members that in the legislation itself under section 3, acquisition authority, let me quote: ``The Secretary may acquire from willing sellers,'' willing sellers, ``by donation, purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or exchange of land.''

Willing sellers. The concept of willing seller means that you cannot use eminent domain. I think the legislation before us is good legislation. The motivation for its defeat is something that we have not been able to get to the root of that reason. But the legislation has merited support from the full committee, the subcommittee, and through the discussions today.

I would continue to urge that we defeat the motion to recommit and pass the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the author of the legislation,

the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Shuler).

Mr. Speaker, this motion is an attempt to kill the legislation. The use of the word ``promptly'' in the motion to recommit effectively kills the bill. The issue of this motion to recommit is redundant, not necessary, and I would urge its defeat and urge passage of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 407) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of establishing the Columbia-Pacific National Heritage Area in the States of Washington and Oregon, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 407, sponsored by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of designating a national heritage area in western Washington State. Specifically, the study would examine coastal areas in Clatsop and Pacific Counties at the mouth of the Columbia River, as well as inland areas along the river in two adjacent counties. The bill includes standard criteria for national heritage area studies, and requires completion of the study 3 years after the date funds are made available.

Mr. Speaker, the area included in this proposed study is not only beautiful, but is rich in Native American and European history. The area was a busy stop on European trade routes many years before Lewis and Clark famously visited the west coast. Representative Baird is to be commended for his hard work on behalf of this legislation. We look forward to working with him on the designation of a national heritage area should the study support such an action.

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

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

I would first point out that almost identical legislation, H.R. 5485, was the subject of a subcommittee hearing in the Resources Committee during the previous Congress.

During that hearing, the Bush administration and local business leaders expressed support for the legislation. That hearing, organized by then-Republican majority, featured no testimony opposing the bill. Further, the companion to this bill was sponsored by the Republican Senator from Oregon. Given that bipartisan and noncontroversial legislative history, and the fact that the bill simply authorizes a study, it is perfectly appropriate that the measure be before the House today. We have used similar procedures to bring other measures left over from the previous Congress to the floor, measures sponsored by both Republicans and Democrats.

The one organization mentioned as opposing the bill failed to make their opposition known to the committee or the sponsor, nor did they testify at last year's hearing. Further, the group has no real relevance because it opposes all heritage area study proposals on ideological, rather than substantive, grounds which have nothing to do with this specific proposal.

Lastly, this legislation simply authorizes a study, not a national heritage area. To oppose the study because you assume you will oppose what the study will recommend is premature at best. There is no real controversy regarding this legislation, and we urge our colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), for such time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), the sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me thank the sponsors, Congressman Baird and Congressman Wu, for this fine legislation and to remind our colleagues that this is the beginning of a process for a designation. This is the study process, and it is noncontroversial. And as mentioned before, the organization opposing it has a protected record of opposing any heritage area, without any substantive qualification to that opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1080) to modify the boundaries of Grand Teton National Park to include certain land within the GT Park Subdivision, and for other purposes.

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, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 1080 was introduced by our colleague from Wyoming, Representative Barbara Cubin. The legislation would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to expand the boundaries of the Grand Teton National Park to include approximately 50 acres that landowners in the adjacent Grand Teton Park Subdivision wish to donate to the park.

The subdivision is located adjacent to the park's eastern boundary and is visible from the park's main road. According to the National Park Service, the land is similar in character and quality to the adjacent parklands and offers unobstructed views of the Teton range and across the broad valley of Jackson Hole.

One lot in the subdivision was owned by the Gerald Halpin family. The remaining seven lots were donated by the Halpin family to private organizations, including the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the National Park Foundation, and the Grand Teton National Park Foundation.

All of these owners would like to donate their land to the park, but the parcels lie outside the existing park boundary. The 1950 law creating the park includes a provision forbidding expansion of any national park or monument in Wyoming without the express authorization of Congress.

H.R. 1080 would authorize the Secretary to accept the donation of lands within the subdivision and, upon acquisition, adjust the boundary of Grand Teton National Park. The bill would also prohibit the future sale, donation, exchange or other transfer of the acquired land without congressional approval.

Related legislation passed the other body in the 109th Congress and has been reintroduced by Senator Craig Thomas of Wyoming and approved by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee earlier this year.

Mr. Speaker, the National Park Service has testified in support of the bill, and it cleared the National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee, and the full Natural Resources Committee on voice votes without any amendments.

Mr. Speaker, Representative Cubin is to be commended for her work on this legislation. We support passage of H.R. 1080 and urge its adoption by the House today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 886) to enhance ecosystem protection and the range of outdoor opportunities protected by statute in the Skykomish River valley of the State of Washington by designating certain lower- elevation Federal lands as wilderness, and for other purposes.

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. 886, introduced by the gentleman from Washington State, Representative Rick Larsen, would designate a 106,000-acre wilderness on national forest lands in the State of Washington. The proposed wilderness, to be known as the Wild Sky Wilderness, has probably been more studied and reviewed than any recent wilderness considered by the Natural Resources Committee.

This is not a new matter. Nearly identical legislation was approved by the committee in the 107th Congress. This message was subject to a hearing in 2004, at which time the administration testified they do not object to its passage.

Further, similar legislation has passed the Senate in each of the last three Congresses. The proposed wilderness includes significant low-level elevation wilderness that is home to important fish and wildlife populations. This new wilderness would link with previously designated wilderness in the national forest and would be within a few hours' distance from half of the population of Washington State.

The Wild Sky Wilderness has significant State and local support in Washington. State officials, local elected officials, businesses, and church groups have all gone on record supporting the wilderness designation.

Mr. Speaker, the time has come to designate this wilderness. I would like to commend my colleague, Representative Larsen, and other Members of the Washington delegation for their perseverance in seeking a wilderness designation for this magnificent area.

We support passage of H.R. 886 and urge its adoption today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague, the sponsor of this legislation before us today, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, a member of the committee, Representative Jay Inslee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington State, Representative Baird.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, Representative McNerney.

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