Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I unfortunately rise in opposition to this rule because I believe it is a missed opportunity for this Congress to substantively have a say in the most important issue facing our country today and that is the course of the war in Iraq, but also our strategy in combating global terrorism.

But instead of offering a real policy discussion, the Republican majority today offers a political document just before the fall elections.

My question to my friends across the aisle is very simple. What are you afraid of? Why are you not allowing any other amendment to be offered during this 10-hour debate? Why are you not allowing our side to have an alternative resolution so we can get into the very troubling aspects of this administration's conduct of war in Iraq and our strategy on global terrorism.

Many of us have grave concerns about how this administration has based its decisions in Iraq. These concerns are shared by many Americans and our constituents throughout the country today. Yes, we can kill Zarqawi, but are we defeating Zarqawiism?

Many of us today have grave doubts. Yet, instead of having an open and honest debate, we get this charade. We deserve better. The American people deserve better.

I encourage my colleagues to defeat this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the important and essential role oncology nurses play in providing quality cancer care. These nurses are principally involved in the administration and monitoring of chemotherapy and the associated side- effects patients experience. As anyone ever treated for cancer will tell you, oncology nurses are intelligent, well-trained, highly skilled and kind-hearted providers of quality clinical, psychosocial and supportive care to patients and their families. In short, they are integral to our nation's cancer care delivery system.

On behalf of the people with cancer and their families in Wisconsin's 3rd Congressional District, I would like to specifically acknowledge Diane Otte from Onalaska, Wisconsin for her service on the Oncology Nursing Society Board of Directors and her role as Director of the Cancer Center at Franciscan Skemp Healthcare.

The Oncology Nursing Society has five chapters in my home state of Wisconsin. Located in Edgar, Green Bay, Oak Creek, Pewaukee, and Madison these chapters serve the oncology nurses in the state and support them in their efforts to provide high quality cancer care to patients and their families throughout Wisconsin.

Since 1975, the Oncology Nursing Society has been dedicated to excellence in patient care, teaching, research, administration, and education in the field of oncology. The Oncology Nursing Society is the largest organization of oncology health professionals in the world, with more than 33,000 registered nurses and other health care professionals. The Society's mission is to promote excellence in oncology nursing and quality cancer care. I commend Diane and her organization for all that they do in the field of oncology.

Cancer is a complex, multifaceted and chronic disease, and people with cancer are best served by a multidisciplinary health care team specializing in oncology care, including nurses who are certified in that specialty. According to the American Cancer Society, one in three women and one in two men will receive a diagnosis of cancer at some point in their lives, and one out of every four deaths in the United States results from cancer. This year approximately 26,390 people in Wisconsin will be diagnosed with cancer, and another 10,650 will lose their battles with this terrible disease. Every day, oncology nurses see the pain and suffering caused by cancer and understand the physical, emotional, and financial challenges people with cancer face throughout their diagnosis and treatment.

I would like to once again acknowledge and thank Diane Otte for her hard work and leadership on the Oncology Nursing Society Board of Directors. As a nurse and leader in the field, Diane has made it her life's mission to help others and she should be applauded for all she has done.

Will the chairman be kind enough to yield me his 30 seconds?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I rise to enter into a colloquy with the chairman.

I rise to express appreciation for the very clear direction provided in the committee's report to the Agency for International Development with regard to the continuation of the East Central European Scholarship program in Albania and Macedonia. Over the last several years, I have become very familiar with this highly effective program because for more than a decade, the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, through this program, has been able to provide training to some 300 financial managers from all the participating program countries.

The program has provided the managers training with bank risk management, financial management, and supervision of financial institutions, all of which are critically important to stable market economies. This training has helped create financial sectors with improved protections against corrupt and fraudulent activities and has facilitated integration by these economies with the broader European economy.

As the chairman may be aware, however, USAID has not been responsive to the committee's views with regard to the program, as laid out in recent earlier reports. With that in mind, I would appreciate getting the chairman's assurance that the subcommittee will follow up on this excellent report language to impress upon the agency the seriousness of our congressional intent here.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that; and I, too, want to echo the sentiments and the appreciation for the gentleman's many years of fine service to this body, this institution.

Madam Speaker, we will hear a lot of discussion today about how drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for our oil needs is nothing but an illusion, a fraud being perpetrated on the American people, because it is not going to be an answer either in the short term or the long term in regards to the energy challenge that we face. I believe that.

Why drilling in one of the most pristine, untouched areas of the world is something up for consideration in the House for the 12th time is beyond me.

But I also want to raise a very important issue, because there are a lot of gimmicks being played with the budget on this issue. At the very least, you think we would be honest and truthful and decent with the American taxpayer in regard to the hopeful revenues that this will generate.

In this legislation, it calls for a 50/50 split with the State of Alaska on royalties, but we all know this is not going to happen. The State legislature in Alaska last year passed a resolution saying, no, it will only agree to a 90/10 split. If we don't get it, we are suing you. Given the States' rights make-up in the court, they will in all likelihood prevail. Tens of billions of dollars are on the table over this important difference.

Even our friend and colleague in Alaska has publicly made it known his intent to fight this 50/50 split that is contained in this legislation. Yet they will roll out the statistics on the budget revenue enhancers with royalties that we are going to be collecting by drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge when they know it is false.

So at the very least, we should at least pin down the State of Alaska and our colleague from Alaska into whether they are going to accept the 50/50 split or whether they will tie this up in courts and probably have the courts rule against us under the Alaska Statehood Act. That is something that should be clarified before the ink is dry on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, just a few moments ago, Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling were convicted on all counts for cooking the books at Enron, yet that is exactly what is going on with this legislation today by perpetrating this fraud on the American taxpayer that they can expect a 50-50 split on the royalties received up in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, when we know today that is not true and it is not going to happen.

In fact, the State of Alaska, the legislature, last year, passed a resolution saying 50-50 is not acceptable, and

under the Alaska Statehood Act, they demand a 90-10 share. Our own friend and colleague from Alaska, Mr. Young, was recently quoted in the Anchorage Daily News, and I quote, ``I have to say 50-50 is something I don't relish. I think it's totally illegal. I believe we can win it in court.''

This will cost the American taxpayer tens of billions of dollars if we don't get something in writing now before this legislation advances. I guess it is a good thing there is a Speech and Debate Clause in this Congress, because there is a whole lot of cooking the books in regards to the royalty that the American taxpayer can receive from private oil companies drilling in this pristine national wildlife refuge.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the chairman of the subcommittee, and I know he has a very tough task given the allocation that he has to work with under the budget, but this amendment is not only necessary, it is fair and reasonable.

The offset would be from the facilities account which is increased even more than 175 percent from our calculation.

But the reason it is fair is because the organic industry today commands well over 2 percent of market share in this country. As my friend from New Jersey indicated, they have been growing on average 20 percent every year. The demand is growing even faster than that. Yet under agriculture appropriations funding, they are receiving approximately 0.2 percent of the funding under the agriculture bill even though they command well over 2 percent of market share.

What we are saying is that the organic industry is here and it is time to start treating them more fairly. They are growing and commanding a bigger share. Consumer demand exists, and that is why I am proud to offer this amendment with the gentleman from New Jersey, along with our colleagues, Mr. Leach and Mr. DeFazio.

I personally have witnessed this growth in my congressional district in western Wisconsin, which has more organic producers than anywhere else in the entire country. In fact, it is the home of Organic Valley which has seen their sales increase, on average, roughly 50 percent every year. Last year alone, Organic Valley had an increase by 173 in the membership of their coop, bringing their total number up to 730. Today, based on a recent communication I had with them, they have over 600 applicants wanting to join Organic Valley and the cooperative, so they can sell their organic products.

But as we know, the transition to organic is very difficult, very expensive and it is very lengthy. The transition is a 3-year period where they see a tremendous drop in income during that time period until they are certified organic. That is why I think this amendment addresses a very specific need that exists, and it is helping with the transition costs into organic by the competitive grants that this amendment would offer. The increase in funding is something that I think is long overdue.

I think we in this body need to recognize the growing strength and the impact that organic is having in the market today. But this is not a question that organic is scientifically more healthy. We are not alleging that.

What organic represents is a choice: A choice that producers get to make on how they want to work their own lands, and a choice that consumers can make when it comes time to buying products for themselves and their families, and more and more consumers are choosing organic. In fact, more and more large retailers throughout the country are choosing to offer organic products on their shelves, and this will only continue to grow. Therefore, the demand will continue to grow, and the necessity for this amendment will certainly grow.

That is why I am hoping as we move forward with the reauthorization of the next farm bill in the next session of Congress, we will be able to engage the chairman of the subcommittee and other Members of this Congress in recognizing the growing need and vitality that exists in the organic industry today, and that we will be able to do some innovative and creative things to assist organic producers, but especially those smaller producers that are making that difficult and expensive transition into organic today so that there is a place in the farm bill for short-term assistance to enable them to make it.

But we can take an important step today by supporting this amendment, again with the appropriate offset that we have identified, which is a lot less than the increase in funding under this transition program.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the organic industry has never come before the Congress asking for a heck of a lot. That has been the history of them. God bless them for doing so. This is one small program in the overall agriculture appropriations bill that they have come to us asking for greater assistance, because their need has grown exponentially.

We believe that with the appropriate offset we have identified, moving from roughly $1.8 million in these competitive grants up to $5 million will help relieve a little pent up pressure in that need that exists today. Because the organic industry has the potential of growing much faster and much larger than it is, even in recent years. I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to stand with the National Breast Cancer Coalition (NBCC) and the three million women living with breast cancer in the country today and urge all my colleagues to push for passage of the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act (H.R. 2231) by the end of this year.

The bill authorizes $30 million a year for five years to establish multi-institutional, multidisciplinary centers. The centers would include institutions with different areas of expertise working together to look at different aspects of the issue. Furthermore, this bill would create a new mechanism for environmental health research, and provide a unique process by which up to eight research centers are developed to study environmental factors and their impact on breast cancer. Modeled after the DOD Breast Cancer Research Program, which has been so successful, it would include consumer advocates in the peer review and programmatic review process.

This federal commitment is critical for the overall, national strategy and the long-term research investments needed to discover the environmental causes of breast cancer, so that we can prevent it, treat it more effectively, and cure it. It is generally believed that the environment plays some role in the development of breast cancer, but the extent of that role is not understood. More research needs to be done to determine the impact of the environment on breast cancer, which has been understudied in the past.

Fewer than 30 percent of breast cancers are explained by known risk factors; however, there is little consensus in the scientific community on how the environment impacts breast cancer. Studies have explored the effect of isolated environmental factors such as diet, pesticides, and electromagnetic fields, but in most cases there is no conclusive evidence. Furthermore, there are many other factors that are suspected to play a role but have not been fully studied. These could provide valuable in understanding the causes of breast cancer and could lead to prevention strategies.

We need to enact this bill this year, and I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill and bring it to the House Floor for a vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Chabot-Andrews amendment to the FY 2007 Interior Appropriations bill to block taxpayer spending on new commercial logging in Alaska's Tongass National Forest. Facing massive Federal deficits, every dollar counts, and we must take a stand against the Forest Service's fiscal mismanagement of the Tongass.

In addition, I would like to state my disappointment with the deep cut proposed in this bill for the State Wildlife Grants Program. This bill includes only $50 million for this program, a cut of $17.5 million below FY 2006 and nearly $25 million below the President's request.

The State Wildlife Grants program is not just a ``Grants Program'' it is the Interior Department's core program for preventing wildlife from becoming endangered by working in partnership with State Wildlife Agencies. The deep cut included in this bill will have a dramatic impact on Wildlife conservation efforts in Wisconsin and across the country.

State Wildlife grants program has strong bipartisan support from every corner of the country. Earlier this year 170 representatives joined together on a letter of support for $85 million in funding for this program. This program has also been championed by the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, the largest caucus in the House. Across the Capitol, 56 Senators joined together on a similar letter.

Further, this program is championed by the teaming with Wildlife Coalition, which includes hunters and anglers, environmentalists, wildlife agencies and others. In Wisconsin, this coalition includes almost 200 organizations, including the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, Audubon Chapters, and local businesses. and there are similar coalitions in every state.

Again, I urge my colleagues to support the Chabot-Andrews amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, just in quick response to my good friend and colleague from New Jersey and his income tax chart, that really shouldn't be surprising to anyone here in this Chamber, because the whole basis of our income tax system is based on progressivity. Meaning, those who can afford more, those who are most wealthy, are asked to contribute more, and that is the fair and decent thing to do in our society.

But the one thing that that chart does not show is one of the most regressive taxes in the entire country, which is the payroll tax, the FICA tax, which is cut off at $90,000. And that is something that everyone under that 50 percent category is paying taxes on based on every single dollar that they earn. Yet they conveniently ignore that fact, and the fact that they are robbing those trust funds right now, both Social Security and Medicare, which comes from the FICA tax in order to help pay for the tax breaks for the most wealthy.

I agree with my friend from Florida, who I serve on the Budget Committee with, that we do have a challenge with entitlement spending. We have to lock arms in a bipartisan fashion to get those growing costs under control. But his party has forfeited any basis of fiscal responsibility related to entitlement spending by passing the largest expansion of entitlement funding in over 40 years with the new prescription drug plan, something that is not paid for, something that in fact has no cost containment measures in; it specifically prohibits any price negotiation with the drug companies, and it is blowing a hole in the Federal budget. And that is outrageous.

And what is even more outrageous is something that my ranking member on the Budget Committee, Mr. Spratt, pointed out on page 122, and that is the fifth increase in the debt limit ceiling in the last 6 years. This has been the largest, the fastest expansion of national debt in our Nation's history under this Congress and this current administration. And what is even more alarming is we no longer owe this debt to ourselves. China is the number one purchaser of our government deficits today, and they are soon to be followed by Russia and Saudi Arabia. Why? Because of the petro dollars that are flowing to those two countries and who are

in turn starting to buy more of our debt.

The amount of debt that is being accumulated is truly staggering, and deficits do matter. And this is something I am going to point out during general debate, because of who suffers when we run deficits? I will tell you who suffers. It is the children and the students of this country who are suffering, when we are going to see another $4.5 billion worth of cuts based on current funding levels for higher education programs under this budget, where they are defunding special education funding, going from 17.8 percent down to 17 percent when the bipartisan goal has been funding it at a 40 percent federal cost share. Those are the people who are suffering when we run deficits. We have a better alternative with the Democratic substitute, a substitute that pays-as-we-go and I hope our colleagues support that.

Mr. Speaker, I am still trying to decipher that colloquy. And it sure looked, smelled and felt like sleight of hand, so chances are it probably was.

But, Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in support of the Democratic substitute, mainly for two reasons: because of the values and the priorities that are reflected in our budget, but also because of another important reason, and that is the budget disciplinary tool that we have called pay-as-you-go that they refuse to implement in their budget. Pay-as-you-go was something that worked very well in the 1990s, which gave us 4 years of budget surpluses where we were actually paying down the national debt, not becoming more dependent on China to be financing our deficits, which is the fiscal policy that they are pursuing. These are real choices that we have to make and pay-as-you-go is one real choice that is distinguished in the Democratic substitute.

The reason why their numbers don't add up is because there is a complete disconnect between their tax-and-spending policy. It is because too many of them believe in this concept of dynamic scoring which means four minus two equals three, not two. And if any third grader today taking their No Child Left Behind math test submitted an answer, four minus two equals three, they would fail and their school would be labeled as a failing school. And that is the problem with the fiscal policies under the majority today. They are failing the American people by leaving a legacy of debt for our children.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good friend and colleague Mr. Spratt for giving me this time, but also for the leadership he has shown on the Budget Committee of which I am a member and for helping us present an alternative, an alternative for a different direction for our Nation, but also, I think, passes the tests of fairness and decency and reflects the values and the priorities that we have as Americans coming together.

Mr. Chairman, people are entitled to their own opinions, they are entitled to their own ideology, they are entitled to their own spin, but they are not entitled to their own facts. As President Reagan was fond of saying, facts can be a stubborn thing.

The fact of the matter is they have presided over the largest and quickest expansion of our national debt in our Nation's history. Their budget moves forward without pay-as-you-go rules in place, something that we have embraced with our own budget, which led to 4 years of budget surpluses in the 1990s, which actually helped us start paying down the national debt, rather than increasing our dependence on China to be financing these deficits of today.

People are wondering, well, what is the big deal about borrow and spend, borrow and spend, a philosophy they seem to have embraced. The problem is that the borrow-and-spend philosophy asks those who can contribute the least to sacrifice the most, and nothing is more apparent than the difference in our philosophy in regards to our support for the investment in the future of our country, in education, and what they are doing to education programs under their budget resolution.

Their budget calls for another $4.6 billion of education funding cuts from current funding levels. This follows on the heels of a $12 billion raid on student aid in the budget reconciliation that they passed earlier this year.

Their budget resolution, which tracks the President's number, calls for the elimination of 42 education programs such as Safe and Drug Free Schools, Education Technology, Even Start Family Literacy program.

Their budget calls for underfunding No Child Left Behind by an additional $15 billion, leaving that unfunded Federal mandate for States and local school districts to wrestle with, which increases the property tax burden in States like Wisconsin, we are finding.

Their budget also reduces funding for special education from 17.7 percent cost share at the Federal level down to 17 percent cost share, even though we have had a bipartisan attempt in this Congress to reach a 40 percent Federal cost share in special education. Again, another unfunded Federal mandate falling on the laps of local school districts.

Our substitute saves these programs. In fact, it also calls for the reduction of the student interest rate burden that our students are facing when they go on to postsecondary education, making it easier to afford higher education.

Our budget is fully paid for with pay-as-you-go rules. It recognizes the key investment that we have to make in the future of our country, to make sure that higher education is not just a dream for some, but an opportunity for all, because right now under current education policy, close to one-half of low-income students in this country who are qualified and want to go on to school don't because they cannot afford it. That is a recipe for economic disaster.

Our budget addresses that, and I encourage our colleagues to support the Democratic substitute.

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

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

Madam Speaker, H.R. 586 has a checkered history. While there has been no action by the Resources Committee on the legislation in this Congress, questions and concerns were raised about identical legislation in the last session of Congress. In fact, the Bush administration has gone on record saying the legislation was both unnecessary and unwise.

Numerous recreational uses occur on our public lands, including hunting, fishing, hiking, camping. Singling out the recreational use of pack and saddle animals for special treatment creates the potential for conflict with these other recreational uses and complicates resource management of the public lands. At the very least, I think the Resources Committee should take time out of our schedule this session to explore the ramifications of what is being requested here. This will be the only recreational use codified in law.

With this noted, however, I will not object to the further consideration of this measure at this time. I appreciate my good friend and gentleman from California's interest in the subject. In fact, our office has received some e-mails and letters on this very subject ourselves.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, simply put, H.R. 2978 brings much-needed clean drinking water to over 31,000 residents of northeastern Montana. It does so by bringing together the plans of these tribes and the Dry Prairie Rural Water Association to convey water from an area of surplus to an area of need, with no compensation being asked and with full recognition and protection of the tribes' water rights.

Too often in this body, we are witness to conflicts over resources, and this is especially true for the limited precious water supply that we have. This bill is a welcomed departure from all of that.

Madam Speaker, we strongly support the adoption of H.R. 2978.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, as described by the previous speaker, this legislation would reauthorize the Coastal Barrier Resources Act for another 5 years.

The very essence of the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System is the series of paper maps that identify every undeveloped coastal barrier land form lying along the coasts of the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Great Lakes.

In the quarter century that has elapsed since the time these maps were first created, there has been a quantum leap in the development of modern information technologies, especially technologies for utilizing geographic and other spatial data.

This legislation would authorize the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to transition from the current series of paper maps to a new, modern, digital data format. In the end, a digitized database should produce map products at a lower cost that are far more accurate, accessible, and easy to use to the general public.

In order to allow the service to begin this overdue process at the earliest possible date, Fisheries Subcommittee Chairman Wayne Gilchrest and ranking Democratic member on the Fisheries Subcommittee, Congressman Frank Pallone, and the respective staffs have worked closely with the other body to develop this important piece of legislation.

I commend Mr. Gilchrest and Mr. Pallone for their cooperation, and I urge Members to support this noncontroversial bill.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 518, the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Improvement Act of 2006. This important legislation provides a comprehensive approach to addressing the varied and significant threats facing numerous species of migratory birds.

This act was first passed by Congress in 2000 and has a proven track record of reversing habitat loss and degradation. It also has advanced innovative management and habitat restoration strategies for a broad range of neotropical birds. This noncontroversial legislation would make technical and conforming improvements, most notably to broaden its scope to include Canada and adjust nonFederal matching fund requirements.

It is fitting that we are debating this bill on the House floor given that the

International Migratory Bird Day was just celebrated last week on May 12. The International Migratory Bird Day was created in 1993 to focus public attention on the need to protect birds and their habitats. This annual event celebrates one of the most important and spectacular events in the life of a migratory bird: its annual journey between summer and winter homes.

Moreover, last Saturday the Department of Interior announced $3.9 million in grants for neotropical migratory bird conservation to be provided to 43 conservation partners in 34 States and 17 Latin American and Caribbean countries. These partners will contribute an additional $17 million in matching funds to undertake projects that include researching, monitoring, and managing migratory bird populations.

Migratory birds contribute to our environmental and economic well- being. Many of these species protect crops and forests by feeding on insect pests. In addition, birds support a significant component of the economy. I know throughout my congressional district, which borders more shoreline along the Mississippi River than any other congressional district in the Nation, bird watching has become a large part of our recreational economy. In fact, the Upper Mississippi River Basin is North America's largest waterfowl migrating route. Each year 40 percent of all waterfowl species pass through the basin during migration. Additionally, nearly 70 million Americans spend more than $20 billion each year participating in bird-related activities. Birding is the fastest growing outdoor recreational activity in many parts of the country.

Finally, this legislation would provide a very modest increase in funding over 5 years. While I feel more funding is needed given the tremendous track record of the matching funds and private contributions that the partners make to these programs, I believe this legislation is important and the reauthorization needs to move forward. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I also want to personally thank Chairman Pombo and Ranking Member Rahall, as well as the Chair and ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Gilchrest and Mr. Pallone, for their help and effort in the reauthorization process.

Again, I encourage adoption of this legislation.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, as described by my good friend from California, this noncontroversial legislation would authorize the expansion of the existing James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge, located on the north shore of the Island of Oahu in the State of Hawaii.

Members should also be aware that this legislation would accomplish other important conservation objectives such as wetland restoration, local flood protection, and the preservation of beach habitat for threatened and endangered species, especially green sea turtles and monk seals.

S. 1165 is virtually identical to H.R. 2866, companion legislation introduced in the House by my colleague from Hawaii, Congressman Neil Abercrombie.

In order to allow the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to proceed with these acquisitions at the earliest possible date, Mr. Abercrombie has agreed to move this bill, passed by the other body, in order to expedite its passage by the Congress and the signing by the President.

I commend the gentleman from Hawaii for his vision and foresight in developing this thoughtful conservation legislation, and I urge Members to support this noncontroversial bill.

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