Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5016) to provide for the exchange of certain Bureau of Land Management land in Pima County, Arizona, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Madam Speaker, H.R. 5016, introduced by Mr. Kolbe, would consolidate lands within the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area located 50 miles south of Tucson. The area consists of 42,000 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management.

This legislation would add 2,490 acres of private land to the conservation area in exchange for 1,280 acres of isolated BLM lands. The bill would also modify the boundary of the conservation area to exclude a 40-acre tract of land for a sanitary landfill. This area was inadvertently included in the original boundary.

I would urge support for this bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, before I depart, I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his great work here. I think we have set a modern land speed record on these bills, and I thank him very much.

Madam Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5059) to designate the Wild River Wilderness in the White Mountain National Forest in the State of New Hampshire, and for other purposes.

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

I commend Congressman Bass for introducing this legislation to designate within his district 23,700 acres of new wilderness in the White Mountain National Forest. The Wild River Wilderness created in this bill was developed with the Forest Service through their forest planning process and with substantial input and involvement from the public and local interest groups. Since it has the strong support of New Hampshire's citizens, environmental groups, the forest products industry, elected officials, the Forest Service, and the administration, it deserves our support as well.

I urge you to vote in favor of H.R. 5059.

I include an exchange of letters with Chairman Goodlatte of the Agriculture Committee on this bill and related H.R. 5062 and thank the chairman for his cooperation in scheduling this bill and H.R. 5062 today.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Resources,

Washington, DC, September 25, 2006.

Hon. Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I ask your help in scheduling H.R. 5059

and H.R. 5062, two bills which establish wilderness areas in

the State of New Hampshire, for consideration by the House of

Representatives as soon as possible. H.R. 5059, authored by

Congressman Charles Bass, and H.R. 5062, authored by

Congressman Jeb Bradley, were both referred primarily to the

Committee on Resources and additionally to the Committee on

Agriculture. The bills implement two recent Forest Service

recommendations for wilderness areas in the White Mountains

of New Hampshire, H.R. 5059, the Wild River Wilderness, and

H.R. 5062, the Sandwich Range Wilderness.

In hope that the Senate will be able to act on these bills

this Congress, I ask that you allow the Committee on

Agriculture to be discharged from further consideration of

the bills. This action would not be considered as precedent

for any future referrals of similar measures or seen as

affecting your Committee's jurisdiction over the subject

matter of the bills. Moreover, if the bills are conferenced

with the Senate, I would support naming Agriculture Committee

members to any conference committee.

I look forward to your response and would be pleased to

include it and this letter in the Congressional Record during

Floor consideration of the bills by the House of

Representatives.

Sincerely,

Richard W. Pombo,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5062) to designate as wilderness certain National Forest System land in the State of New Hampshire.

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

I would like to thank Representative Bradley for introducing his legislation to designate, within his district, 10,800 acres of new wilderness in the White Mountain National Forest. The Sandwich Range Wilderness additions proposed in this bill were developed with the Forest Service through their forest planning process and with substantial input and involvement from the public and local interest groups. Since it has the strong support of New Hampshire's citizens, environmental groups, the forest products industry, elected officials, the Forest Service, and administration, it deserves our support as well.

I urge you to vote in favor of H.R. 5062.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley).

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5861) to amend the National Historic Preservation Act, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5861, introduced by me, amends the National Historic Preservation Act to do five things:

It extends the Historic Preservation Fund to 2015 for State and tribal preservation activities.

Secondly, it reauthorizes the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

Third, requires certain local governments to provide full due process to property owners who object to a determination of eligibility on their property.

Fourth, it imposes a deadline on State or Tribal Historic Preservation Officers to respond to section 106 applications within 30 days of a ``no adverse effects'' determination.

And, fifth, prohibits a State historic preservation officer from requiring a Federal agency applicant to identify properties outside the area of potential effects.

From its auspicious start in April of 2004 as a discussion draft to the bill before us in the House today, H.R. 5861 has been the subject of more discussion and rewrite they any other bill that I have been involved with since becoming the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks.

While the bill may not be the final product that many envisioned, myself included, I believe H.R. 5861 represents a significant step towards improving the section 106 process under the National Historic Preservation Act by reducing some of the conflicts that exist between the business and preservation communities and the State and Tribal Preservation Officers.

In addition, H.R. 5861 will enhance private property protections in the listing process, under the Historic Preservation Act as well as improve the operation of the Advisory Council and extend the authorization of the Historic Preservation Fund.

Finally, this bill was a truly collaborative effort. I believe it is important to take a moment to thank those individuals and organizations for their help in crafting this important bill.

First of all, Congressman Turner of Ohio; Vince Sampson of the Resources Committee majority staff; David Watkins of the Resources Committee minority staff; Chairman John Nau of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers; Sonnenschein, Nath and Rosenthal; the National Mining Association, the National Trust For Historic Preservation; CTIA, the Wireless Association; the United South and Eastern Tribes; the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers; Preservation Action; the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association; the American Cultural Resources Association; the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; and Rob Howard, from the National Park Subcommittee majority staff.

I include a letter in support of the bill from CTIA, the Wireless Association.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4275) to amend Public Law 106-348 to extend the authorization for establishing a memorial in the District of Columbia or its environs to honor veterans who became disabled while serving in the Armed Forces of the United States.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4275, introduced by Congresswoman Sue Kelly, would extend through October, 2015, the authority of the Disabled Veterans' Life Memorial Foundation to raise funds for a memorial in the District of Columbia to honor veterans who became disabled while serving in the Armed Forces of the United States. The organization has already secured a site from the National Park Service for this memorial.

I urge adoption of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3871) to authorize the Secretary of Interior to convey to The Missouri River Basin Lewis and Clark Interpretive Trail and Visitor Center Foundation, Inc. certain Federal land associated with the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail in Nebraska, to be used as an historical interpretive site along the trail, as amended.

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

H.R. 3871, introduced by Congressman Jeff Fortenberry, would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the Missouri River Basin Lewis and Clark Interpretive Trail and Visitor Center Foundation specified Federal land associated with the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail in Nebraska. This land would be used as an historic site and interpretive center for the trail.

I urge your support for H.R. 3871.

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

Mr. Speaker I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), the author of the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5132) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to determine the suitability and feasibility of including in the National Park System certain sites in Monroe County, Michigan, relating to the Battles of the River Raisin during the War of 1812, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5132 directs the Secretary of the Interior to study the feasibility and suitability of including certain lands related to the Battle of the River Raisin during the War of 1812 in Monroe County, Michigan, as part of the National Park System.

Currently, the main battlefield is occupied by an abandoned paper mill. The city of Monroe has received a $1 million grant to clean up the location in preparation for possible listing as a National Historic Landmark. The National Park Service testified that there is intact archaeological evidence of the battle and that this site has impressive integrity as a battlefield if it is preserved.

I urge your support for H.R. 5132.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1796) to amend the National Trails System Act to designate the route of the Mississippi River from its headwaters in the State of Minnesota to the Gulf of Mexico for study for potential addition to the National Trails System as a national scenic trail, national historic trail, or both, and for other purposes.

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

H.R. 1796 would designate the route of the Mississippi River for study as a potential addition to the National Trails System as a national scenic trail, national historic trail or both. The route would stretch from its headwaters in the State of Minnesota to the Gulf of Mexico.

Establishing a national trail along the river will connect the nearly 40 existing public land units on or very near the river which includes national forests, national parks, and wildlife refuges.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3534) to designate the Piedras Blancas Light Station and the surrounding public land as an Outstanding Natural Area to be administered as a part of the National Landscape Conservation System, and for other purposes.

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

H.R. 3534 establishes the Piedras Blancas Light Station Outstanding Natural Area in San Luis Obispo County, California. Federal, State and local officials, as well as private groups, have long sought a way to protect, conserve and enhance the nationally important land in and around the Piedras Blancas Light Station.

This bill would require the lighthouse to be managed as part of the National Landscape Conservation System, and, as such, would protect the historical structures and habitat of the area. I urge the passage of this measure.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Guam for her hard work in this body for managing these bills on the floor today.

I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. 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 the 15 bills just considered.

Mr. Speaker, I heartily support H.R. 4844. On election day in 2000, President Bush was ahead by 31,000 votes. Before the Secretary of State of New Mexico certified the election 23 days later, the last State to certify, that gap had been closed to just 5,000 votes, and the voting was about 80-20 the reverse direction. The estimate of fraud in that particular election was 7 percent in statewide fraud.

One of the greatest frauds that is perpetrated in New Mexico is that voting workers, campaign workers, come in and read over the shoulder of the poll workers and find out names that have not been signed in. And magically, that is the next name that appears. That is the next person in line that comes up and signs his name, and it works over and over again through the day.

It was against the law, and when candidates began to enforce the law, in 2004 the New Mexico legislature went in and cured the problem. They went in and said it is okay, it is okay for that worker to come in, look over the shoulder and find a blank line and sign in. In fact, in New Mexico it is against the law, it is against the law to check for photo ID or any kind of registration even if you know that the person is not the right person that is signing.

So that is the reason that I think a bipartisan commission supported this bill. At the end of the day, the integrity of the election process is the confidence in the process.

This is not about who gets elected. This is about making sure that each person gets one vote and one vote only. For those who would say call the district attorney, I would tell you when the college students signed in and called us at 8, saying someone had already voted in their place, I am here with my picture ID and they say I am already signed in and it was someone else, the district attorney says if you can't find a warm body signing the line at the time, then you have no case.

The county clerk in the county where these problems occurred was convicted of four counts of felony fraud on election day; yet the Secretary of State would not pursue the case. I support this bill because it begins to restore some integrity to the election process. We on this side will not allow disenfranchisement. We will not allow votes to be suppressed, but we do need to clean up the mess that exists in many States. I thank the gentleman for bringing this bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 456) providing for a correction to the enrollment of the bill, S. 203.

Mr. Speaker, this concurrent resolution directs the Clerk of the Senate to make a simple enrollment correction to S. 203, passed by the House of Representatives on Monday by an overwhelming vote of 323-39.

I urge adoption of the resolution.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act, H.R. 4973.

Chairman Baker's bill make some great strides in helping insure the stability of our Nation's flood insurance system, yet, like most legislation, there is room for improvement. For that reason, I am offering an amendment that helps insure the National Flood Insurance Program has the resources it needs to cover all its costs.

We have a duty to find savings wherever possible to make sure the National Flood Insurance Program has sufficient resources to cover all its costs by phasing out subsidies for pre-FIRM nonresidential properties, vacation and secondary homes. The committee has already agreed that these subsidies are a luxury we can no longer afford. I agree with the committee's premise that these subsidies should be eliminated.

However, I believe that we can go further and eliminate these subsidies now. We should not wait another half decade to restore fiscal responsibility to the program. When the next flood strikes, how will we explain to those who have lost everything that help is tight because we are still subsidizing someone's vacation home? In the wake of the Katrina disaster, with the flood insurance program facing liabilities of between 23 and $25 billion, why should we continue to subsidize flood insurance for vacation homes? My amendment will inject $335 million into the flood insurance program next year.

While the committee predicts that their phase-in saves $1.5 billion from 2007 to 2016, I respectfully submit that the Pearce amendment will save much more much sooner. While I respect my chairman's commitment to phasing out these subsidies, I believe we can and should, for the good of the program, eliminate them now.

I hope my colleagues will join me supporting this amendment to eliminate those costly subsidies and help bring the NFIP back into sound fiscal condition.

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

Mr. Chairman, as I listen to the arguments of the other side, I would just note that the people in the Second District of New Mexico generally average under $30,000 a year net income; $70,000 would buy most homes in the Second District of New Mexico. To explain to those people why they are subsidizing vacation homes on coastlines, many times they are seeing on TV the same reports that I am seeing that someone with a 4 or $500,000 home gets to rebuild it multiple times. It is very difficult for me to explain that to my constituents. Just understand and appreciate the gentleman's argument that it could provide a severe economic impact.

Frankly, to tax the lower income people of the rest of the country to avoid those impacts seems to me that we are making choices that are not ours to make.

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

Mr. Chairman, you have heard the gentleman from Massachusetts speak against this amendment. He highlights his interest in preserving a phase-in period included in the underlying bill. I have the utmost respect for him, but I must disagree.

At a time when the flood insurance program system is facing record borrowing and interest payments, we have the responsibilities to remove luxuries from the program.

The final point we should make is simple. This amendment will result in an additional $335 million in premium payments to the flood insurance program. This will help preserve the financial stability of the program and reduce the burden on taxpayers. This is a good amendment, and I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

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

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

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

I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana for offering his amendment to H.R. 5631. Mr. Chocola has been a constant fighter against waste, fraud, and abuse, and today he offers an amendment that gives us sound responsible oversight, which is a critical part of our job here in Congress. He has done us a favor by bringing this program to our attention.

The Defense Travel System was envisioned as an end-to-end E-travel system for DOD employees. Yet with the money spent, we could have, for the next 40 years, given Orbitz $1 million a month; plus, with the additional $50 million that we are putting in, we could pay them another $4 million a month just to use their computer system to do approximately the same thing.

Or else, if we had decided for the 15 percent of the people who are actually using the system, we could have bought a fleet of $250 million personal jets and used $1 million a year to fuel those jets up and fly the people around.

All the facts point to a system that is behind schedule, overbudget, and inoperably broken, costing taxpayers a lot of money. At times like this, Congress should help agencies stop digging themselves deeper holes. This amendment will stop funding this wasteful program and allow DOD to stop digging themselves into a deeper hole they should not be in and reconsider a better plan for scheduling, ticketing, and paying for travel.

I urge my colleagues to support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Speaker, all of history--and indeed, all of life--is a series of choices. International relations--and our national security--are mostly about choices.

The world chose to watch when Hitler published his blueprint for genocide in Mein Kampf. The world also chose to watch as Hitler took power on January 30, 1933; directing the boycott of Jewish businesses and opening the first concentration camp just 6 weeks later.

The world continued to stand by and watch as Hitler breached the Treaty of Versailles while denying Jews their fundamental rights through the Nuremberg Race Laws.

Then, on September 30, 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain hailed ``peace for our time'' after appeasing Hitler in Munich.

Thirty-four years later, a terrorist massacre at the 1972 Munich Olympics launched a new era of appeasement. The world met the terrorists' murderous ambitions with an invitation to the negotiating table. Within weeks of the Munich Massacre, the German government let three jailed terrorists go to secure the release of a hijacked Lufthansa jet.

When terrorism first came to American soil with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, our government treated it as a police matter rather than what it was: an act of war. Then came the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996 and the U.S.S. Cole attack in 2000. America--and the world--chose to stand by and watch.

9/11 was the most visible manifestation of a war that had been raging between the terrorists and civil societies around the world for decades. But even as the terrorists plotted to kill us, we had refused to engage them until President Bush committed America to fighting the global War on Terror.

The global War on Terror isn't just a struggle against al Qaeda. It's a war against a violent, evil ideology with which we can never compromise or achieve an armistice. We can't walk away from the fight and hope our enemy goes away.

Any withdrawal--any retreat--in Iraq or elsewhere will be met with more attacks, more bloodshed. Except that the blood could once again run in our streets, in our neighborhoods.

We will learn history's painful lessons at last? That's the choice this resolution poses today.