Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly urge a no vote on the gentleman's amendment.

Every State in the Union gets an increase in Federal dollars in this bill. The distribution of all these Federal dollars depends on highway traffic on Federal highways. When one State says they gave $12 billion through the Federal gasoline tax and excise tax, that is true, but all that money did not come from that particular State. That money comes from people that transit all over the Nation.

The gentleman from Connecticut talked about several interstate highways intersecting in the small State of Connecticut, so their proportion needs to be dependent on the Federal highway traffic on Federal highways.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a no vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation coming up this afternoon, the highway transportation bill. I implore that my other colleagues in the House also support this measure.

One of the sticking points here is the highway formula about donor States and donee States. I would like to remind my colleagues, Maryland is a donor State through the formula.

I would like to remind my colleagues that everybody that goes through your State, from near or very far away, pays those gasoline taxes, pays those tolls, et cetera, et cetera. So we as Americans contribute in a collective way all across this country to ensure that the interstate highway system provides sufficient opportunity and avenues to continuously stimulate our dynamic economy.

There are some questions about the formula here, but those questions I think should not hold up this important piece of legislation.

Our truckers, the people that ride trains, the cargo that go across this country on trucks and trains, our commuters, our salesmen, our vacationers, our explorers, they travel across the Nation's highways, which is the foundation for the infrastructure of this Nation. I hope my colleagues will vote for this piece of legislation.

There is one provision that is in the Senate version of the highway bill that is not in the House version of the highway bill, and that is a 2 percent set-aside to understand how you can engineer, in other words, do it right the first time, a highway, so you do not contribute to the pollution of the Nation's waterways, which is also important for the infrastructure, the environmental infrastructure, of this Nation.

So I would like to work with the House and the Senate and will work with the chairman of the Committee on Transportation to ensure that that Senate version provision, the 2 percent set-aside to engineer our highways, to reduce or eliminate storm water runoff into the Nation's water system, remains intact.

This is a bill that deals with human infrastructure, and we have an opportunity to take the first big step to ensure that human infrastructure is compatible with nature's infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 2584) to provide for the conveyance to the Utrok Atoll local government of a decommissioned National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ship, and for other purposes.

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

H.R. 2584 passed the House on November 11, 2003, by voice vote. The bill, as passed by the House, included a number of important provisions including the transfer of a decommissioned NOAA vessel to the local government of the Utrok Atoll, the reauthorization of the Yukon River Salmon Act of 2000, the reauthorization of the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967, and a provision to correct and ratify certain promotions within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps.

The Senate has made several additions to the legislation which make it a stronger conservation measure. These additions include language to implement the Pacific Albacore Tuna Treaty, a measure which will help ensure the sustainable conservation and management of the albacore tuna fishery shared by the United States and Canada; and language to allow certain U.S. fishing vessels access to South Pacific tuna stocks consistent with revisions to the 1988 South Pacific Tuna

Treaty. The bill was further amended to strike a provision of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004, which would have delayed the implementation of important conservation and management measures in the Northeast multispecies fishery management plan. This provision is important to the continued rebuilding process for New England groundfish stocks and to meet court-ordered timetables.

Finally, the amendments include a requirement that a plan for the use of the decommissioned vessel be submitted to Congress by the local government of the Utrok Atoll in consultation with the government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

I urge Members to support these important provisions by voting ``aye'' on the legislation.

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

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

I would like to thank the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), and the staff on both sides of the aisle for helping to bring this measure to the floor. I hope for a unanimous vote later on this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an exchange of letters between the chairman of the Committee on Science and the chairman of the Committee on Resources regarding this legislation.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Science,

Washington, DC, March 26, 2004.

Hon. Richard W. Pombo,

Chairman, Committee on Resources, House of Representatives,

Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that the House plans to

take up H.R. 2584 as amended by the Senate. Thank you for

your support in having the Committee on Science added to the

list of Committees to which the Utrok Atoll local government

must report after receipt and use of the decommissioned

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ship.

The Committee on Science supports passage of this bill as

amended, but wishes to clarify the Committee's jurisdiction

over the NOAA Corps. Based on conversations with the Office

of the Parliamentarian, the Committee on Science understands

it would receive a sequential referral of legislation

involving the NOAA Corps.

Recognizing your wish that the House of Representatives

consider this bill as soon as possible, I will not exercise

the Committee's right to a sequential referral of H.R. 2584

based on the Committee's jurisdiction over the NOAA Corps.

This decision to forgo a sequential referral does not waive

the Committee's future jurisdiction over the NOAA Corps.

I ask that you include our exchange of letters on this

matter in Congressional Record during floor consideration of

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2584, the bill just considered.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present what I hope you will find as fascinating facts about the carbon cycle. There has been a great deal of discussion over the last several years about climate change: Is human activity causing the climate to change or is that not the case?

What I would like to present tonight, Mr. Speaker, is somewhat of a science lesson about the carbon cycle. Carbon, when burned, turns into a gas called CO2, and CO2 is a gas in the atmosphere that is needed to sustain life in its cycle. Excessive CO2 would add to the greenhouse effect or cause the climate to warm. Thus, the climate would change.

What I would like to do tonight, Mr. Speaker, is to give some interesting facts, almost like a 7th grade science class; and I would like to go back to 1771, where an English minister named Reverend Priestley performed an experiment. Now, this is 1771.

He took a glass jar, about a foot high and about 8 inches in diameter, and he wanted to see how long air would stay good in that glass jar. And he discovered the air stayed good as long as he sealed it. Whether it was a week, a month, 3 months, it was always good air. What he did next, though, was put a flame next to that glass jar, which he found immediately fouled the air.

After that, he got another glass jar, and he put a mouse in that glass jar, and he sealed the glass jar. And it was not too long before the air was fouled again and the mouse died.

What he did next was pretty extraordinary. He took a glass jar, put a sprig of mint, a small green growing vegetable in that glass jar. Then he saw that the air stayed fine for a long time. He then put a flame to it. And we know that CO2 comes from burning wood. The air stayed fine.

Then he put the mouse in the glass jar with that mint sprig and the mouse stayed in there for a long time and the air stayed fine.

Now Reverend Priestley did not realize what he had in that glass jar with the mint sprig and the mouse was a carbon cycle. The mint absorbed the carbon, built up its woody structure and exuded oxygen and so the mouse could live.

Trees across the planet breathe in carbon dioxide. They turn it into leaves and wood and breathe out oxygen. If we tested around the globe different areas and tried to discover the level of the CO2 in the atmosphere, which is less than 1 percent, you would discover if you are near a forest, the CO2 level is less than in other areas, if you are in an urban area. The trees breathe in CO2, make wood and breathe out oxygen. This is the carbon cycle.

Every time you start your car, turn on a light, turn up the thermostat, you contribute more CO2 to the atmosphere because you are burning carbon. Coal, oil, and natural gas fuel the world's economy, and they all use carbon dioxide which are inhaled by our forests and they turn that into oxygen.

But when we burn a lump of coal, when we burn oil, when we burn natural gas, we are releasing into our environment what took the natural processes, 20 million years ago, millions of years to lock up. So we are releasing into the atmosphere the same amount of CO2 that took millions of years to lock up in about 150 years. So we are being excessive more than we have seen in eons of time by putting excessive extra amounts of CO2 that goes against the grain of the natural cycle into our atmosphere.

Are there consequences to that faster releasing of CO2? There are. The consequences are we see coral reefs around the world dying. We see deserts expanding, and we see the ocean currents themselves changing and in some cases slowing down. We see sea levels rise. In the northern parts of Canada, Alaska, and Russia, beetles are infesting millions of acres of forest that never infested those forests before because it was not that warm in the Northern Hemisphere. Forests, grasslands, and even our oceans absorb CO2 that we emit into the atmosphere as humans.

If we diminish those carbon sinks, we accelerate CO2 release into the atmosphere, and the consequences are that we are changing our climate.

Mr. Speaker, I did not come here to talk about veterans, but I will add my voice to the chorus of

voices tonight to endorse the legislation put forth by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and state that veterans deserve fundamental, sound health care in this country. Veterans' families also need that kind of health care because veterans fought for their families in foreign wars. As we move forward with health care, remember the veteran, remember the veteran's mother, remember all those in rural areas that we can work collectively to find ways to manage health care in urban, suburban and rural areas.

However, I came here tonight to talk about this lump of coal. This lump of coal and coal throughout the world for the last several hundred years has provided heat, warmth, security and in recent times electric power which has transformed civilization. Coal has fueled the modern era. Coal is made up mostly of something called carbon. Coal has been developed on our planet naturally by geologic forces over millions of years. As the carbon on the surface in the form of animals, plants, vegetation, rocks, you name it, gradually deteriorated, was forced underground, in some cases in mountainous areas, in other cases, flat areas, but basically was forced underground, sometimes 100 feet, sometimes miles.

When this lump of coal, which is made mostly of carbon, was locked up underground over a long period of time, it took an element out of the atmosphere called carbon dioxide, CO2, and locked it away. Over eons of time, these geologic forces, whether there was a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere or much less CO2 in the atmosphere, the geologic forces changed the climate.

Now the most recent climate change came about 10,000 years ago when the Ice Age ended. As the Ice Age ended, we moved into a warming trend. Over the last 10,000 years, the rate of warming has been about 1 degree centigrade every 1,000 years on a steady rate. That is 1 degree centigrade every 1,000 years.

Since we have been burning coal, which is carbon and then it turns into CO2, we have been releasing into the atmosphere the amount of CO2 in decades what it took nature to lock up over millions of years.

So in the last 150 years, the earth has warmed about 1 degree centigrade. Previous to that time, the earth had been warming 1 degree centigrade every 1,000 years. Since we have been burning fossil fuel, we have been warming the surface of the earth's temperature, reducing glaciers, thinning the ice cap in the Arctic Ocean by about 40 percent. The American Geophysical Union, the National Academy of Sciences, a group of scientists which President Bush appointed, has confirmed that the earth from human activity has been warming fairly significantly over the last 100 years, but especially over the last 50 years.

Carbon is locked up in this piece of coal. When this piece of coal burns, it releases carbon dioxide which is one of those elements naturally occurring in the world, naturally occurring in the atmosphere that balances the heat for the climate. When we infuse a significant amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the climate begins to warm faster. In fact, the EPA and other scientific institutions in the United States say that over 90 percent of the CO2 released in the United States comes from burning fossil fuel.

What I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, is this chart that actually goes from 1750 up to the year 2000. We can see from 1750, 1800, 1850, burning fossil fuel was minimal, so we do not increase CO2 in the atmosphere very much. But once we get into the 1900s, especially 1950, CO2 increases in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels has had a dramatic effect. CO2 is a naturally occurring element in the world. When we increase that element by the magnitude that we have, we have the potential for climate change.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments this evening on an issue that remains somewhat controversial. The issue is climate change. Is the Earth warming, and is there such a thing as global warming?

I would like to present a few findings affirmed by National Academy of Science, at the request of George Bush, and which the American Geophysical Union also agrees with.

Basically the conclusion of the scientific community is that the Earth has been warming for the last 10,000 years. We left the Ice Age, and for the last 10,000 years, the Earth on average has been warming 1 degree centigrade every 1,000 years, and this is detectable through various tree rings, ice cores and a number of other techniques used to determine the kind of climate we have had over the past 400,000 years. But the last 10,000 years, the trend is the natural range of fluctuation, it is a little warmer 1 year, a little colder the next year, but the natural range of fluctuation clearly shows that we have been in a warming trend over the past 10,000 years about 1 degree centigrade every 1,000 years.

What we have seen in the last 100 to 150 years is that natural range of fluctuation appears to have abruptly changed. The question is that abrupt change, which actually is a jump in surface warming, is that a natural fluctuation or is it as a result of mankind burning fossil fuel and adding greenhouse gases to the environment.

What I am going to show tonight is the fluctuation that we have seen, the abrupt fluctuation, is not a natural fluctuation. If it is not a natural fluctuation, the environmental variables from this point on are not going to be predictable as far as the climate and the weather is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, this chart has two parts to this graph. The first part, which is the color gray, deals with the computer models that are telling us something about the climate and how it has changed over the past 100 years. One part of this chart shows the input in the model. The other part of the chart, the color red, shows actual observations on the ground where you go out and you actually take temperatures all around the globe. The first part of the chart, the gray line, is what you put into the computer. The second part is what you actually observe. There are three charts up here.

The first chart deals with the natural fluctuation in the climate over the last 150 years with solar energy, with ocean currents, with volcanoes, with a number of things that have caused the climate to change, the geologic forces which have caused the climate to change over the last thousand years. We see if we just take the variables in the natural forcing, the climate will stay fairly steady. In other words, there would be no increase in the last 150 years. The actual temperature, though, shows that there has been an increase over the last 150 years. So there is a question, where is the increase in temperature coming from?

The next chart shows only measuring human activity, anthropogenic forcing only. That means we only measure the kind of temperature increase we would get from burning fossil fuel or cutting down a forest or a variety of other things. When we do that, we show that the temperature, as we see over here, is the same. There is an abrupt increase in the temperature.

The third chart shows the natural fluctuation or the natural increase in temperature that we have seen over 10,000 years, but it also shows mixed in with that if we add to that natural increase, if we add human activity, we see that the blend shows that there has been about a 1 degree temperature rise in the last 150 years.

You cannot account for the increase in temperature over the last 150 years with just natural forces but you can account for it when you add in human activity.

Those are just a few interesting facts, Mr. Speaker, I thought that the Members would like to know.

Mr. Speaker, in recent years there has been a significant conflict in our discussion and certainly differences of opinions from reliable sources about whether or not human activity is affecting the climate. So what I would like to do this evening in just the short time that I have is not to say that the Earth is warming, not to say that the Earth is cooling, not engage in the dispute as to whether human activity is causing the climate to change or the climate to warm. But what I would like to do is to present some observations from various independent scientists including the National Academy of Sciences that did a study to evaluate the International Panel on Climate Change, a study that was conducted by about a thousand scientists from around the world, to draw from the President's own scientists to make a determination as to what really are or what can be seen as observations of the indicators of whether we are engaged in a climate change.

If we observe the world the way it is now and the way it was 100 years ago and through an analysis the way it was 400,000 years ago, can we make some determination about the type of climate we have today, what we had 100 years ago, what we had 10,000 years

ago, and what might happen in the future? To do this, there are certain understandings in the scientific community that the ocean, the land, and the atmosphere working together provide us with a type of balance in the heat distribution on the planet. No one would dispute that the Earth, the ocean, and the atmosphere work together through various means to make the type of climate that the planet has right now. The atmosphere and the elements that make up the atmosphere and all the different kinds of gasses are in a constant cycle with the Earth and the oceans. So that is not in dispute.

If we observe the planet today and 150 years ago, we will see that there is a warming trend both on the surface of the land, the surface and subsurface of the oceans. There is a significant retreat of glaciers around the planet, and the Arctic Sea ice is getting smaller and actually thinning. So if we look at these observations, someone could say that there is a natural cycle over the last 150 years and we happen to be in a warming trend. If we take the climate over the long range and we go back 10,000 years ago through an analysis of ice cores, certain seabeds, coral, crustaceans, et cetera, if we go back 10,000 years, we will see a natural range of fluctuation on the climate of the planet, a natural range of fluctuation due to a number of variables including the atmosphere, land, and ocean, the wobble of the Earth, the closeness we are to the sun, et cetera. There is a predictable change in the climate based on the last 10,000 years. In fact, we could go back 400,000 years and base that prediction.

What we are now seeing, though, in the last few decades of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st century, are environmental variables that have not been seen for 400,000 years. If we look at what is making up our atmosphere and the kind of greenhouse gasses that we need in order for a distribution of the heat balance, we will see an increase in these greenhouse gasses, most notably carbon dioxide or CO2, a more significant increase now than we have seen in the last 400,000 years. The amount of carbon dioxide that has been in the atmosphere over the last 400,000 years has been a predictable amount based on the historical records which we find in ice cores and so on; but that natural range of fluctuation, the amount of CO2, the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, was seen to have a pattern, a trend. But the increase in CO2, carbon dioxide, that we have seen now in the last 50 years is larger, stronger than has ever been seen before.

So is it a natural bump up in CO2? When we calculate the natural sources of CO2 on the planet, and there are many, we will have a certain amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. What is the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere? When we take in all of the natural variables, we still have more than we have ever had before.

When we take in another variable, which is interesting, human activity, this answers the question that human activity is increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, changing the climate in ways that may not be predictable. Just a few facts to lay upon the table.

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do this evening is give the Members some ideas of a phenomenon that is occurring in the oceans that is clearly observed by the scientific community that is having an effect on the Earth's climate.

Ocean currents that flow throughout the entire world stabilize the heat balance on the planet so that the northern

hemisphere does not get frigidly cold and many people that live in the southern hemisphere are not forced to move because of the increased heat.

To give some example of this, if you look in this area of Canada, you know that it is quite cold there. But if you go right across the Atlantic Ocean and visit England, you will know that the weather is quite moderate. In fact, the weather in England is often and most often is much more moderate than much further in latitude to the south and mid-Atlantic part of the United States.

If you look at the Scandinavian countries and their latitude, in Labrador you will see that their climate is more moderate than the climate we see on that latitude in North America. The reason for this is the ocean has currents that take warm from the equatorial regions to the northern regions that moderate their temperature. At the same time, when those warm waters reach the north, because they get colder and because of the salinity they drop to the ocean bottom and come to the south. As they gradually warm, they rise, because we know that warm air rises and colds air falls. Well, that is the same thing that happens with water.

Part of what I am trying to explain here is that there is a constant dispute about whether or not there is such a thing as global warming. Is the climate changing? Does human activity put more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere to cause a warming in the atmosphere?

What I would like to do in just a brief minute here is to explain the fact that there is clear, unequivocal evidence that the ocean surface water is warming. As a result of that, there is more evaporation in the equatorial regions of the ocean. With more evaporation, that means there is more rain further north, and so the northern ocean is becoming more fresh.

Now what does that mean? What that means is, as the ocean current moves from the equatorial regions north in its current and it moves into the northern hemisphere, as the water becomes more fresh, it becomes less dense. That means it will sink a lot slower. As the water evaporates more, it leaves more saltwater in the southern hemisphere, less saltwater in the northern hemisphere.

There are two things that cause this ocean current to occur, fresh water and salinity. As the ocean water becomes more salty, it sinks up here; and when it sinks to the bottom, it returns down to the equatorial regions like we have here. When the ocean becomes saltier up here and more or less saltier, that water sinks.

Without becoming too complicated, the phenomenon is that the ocean currents are changing as a result of the increase in temperature of surface water. The increase in temperature of surface water is happening because, over the last 40 years, the warmth or the increase in temperatures in the atmosphere is moving up.

Now, whether or not you think there is more CO2, more greenhouse gasses, is almost at this point beside the point, because the fact of the matter is here, over the last 40 years, temperatures on the planet have been increasing, thereby causing the temperatures of the surface of the ocean to increase. As a result of that increase in temperature of the ocean, we are actually redistributing fresh water and saltwater so we are having an effect on ocean current.

Saltwater, the density of salt, the amount of fresh water in its distribution of the ocean are fundamental to moving water from one place to another. As a result of that, as a result of the current moving in this way, the cycle of ocean current is slowing down; and when the cycle of currents slow down there is less warm water moving north and less cold water moving south. The result of that, this region of the United States receiving less warm water, this region of Europe is moving into an era when it is becoming colder. So that is a counterintuitive observation when you consider that the Earth is getting warmer.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend just a couple of minutes discussing facts about the potential for climate change. Is there such a thing as climate change? Is the earth warming?

On the perspective of climate change and whether or not there is global warming, tonight I would like to discuss the oceans, which make up about 70 percent of the earth's surface. The ocean has a huge moderating effect on the heat balance of the planet. As the oceans affect our climate, they move in currents around the globe and bring either cold water or warm water to different areas. And that effect has this immense balancing of the heat on the planet. And we have experienced fairly moderate temperatures for hundreds of years.

We all know that the climate does change periodically. We have had Ice Ages in the past. In the past there have been plants growing in the area we now call the Antarctic. So climate does change over a period of time. There is some indication, though, that when the climate has changed in the past, it has changed quickly, sometimes dramatically, without human intervention.

What I would like to speak to tonight is human activity causing the ocean surface temperature to rise. A number of scientists who have written a number of articles recently have shown clear evidence that in the last 40 years, ocean temperatures around the globe on their surface have increased rather dramatically.

As a matter of fact, the increase in the last 40 years can be compared to the increase in the last 1,000 years. Now, there are certain things that cause the ocean to move. We know wind causes it to move, the temperature of the water will cause it to move, the salinity of the ocean will cause certain movements, the rotation of the earth, evaporation and precipitation. These are all effects that cause the ocean to move. But since the ocean temperature is warming, there is more evaporation around the equatorial regions because the ocean is warming more there than has been in recent times. As a result of that, there is more precipitation in the northern part of our oceans.

Ocean currents, then, which are affected by these conditions, whether it is wind, temperature, salinity and so on, the ocean currents are having a tendency to move differently. Ocean currents have a dynamic impact on the climate balance of the planet because it moves warm water, thus the weather, or a change of weather, to different parts of the planet.

For example, England is on the same latitude as Labrador, but England has a much warmer climate than Labrador. Part of this is because of ocean currents moving in the Atlantic Ocean.

If we can take the Atlantic Ocean as an example, if you look at the Atlantic Ocean, the currents move in a clockwise fashion. We know that the gulf stream moving north along the coast of the United States moves north. When it gets up to the area of Greenland-Iceland-Norway, it then moves south. This current has been going for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

The reason the current is so strong in this area is because when the water moves further north, it gets colder and more dense and begins to sink. As a result of a relationship of evaporation and precipitation, when it moves further north it gets saltier. When the water is cold and saltier it sinks fast, creating a pump that pushes the water south. Hence, we have a conveyer belt that keeps the north Atlantic moving in a clockwise motion.

What is beginning to happen now, though, is interesting. Glaciers are melting, the polar ice cap is diminishing. There is greater rainfall in the north Atlantic. And as a result of these conditions, caused in part by the warming on the ocean surface, we have fresh water being a major part of the north Atlantic.

Even though fresh water will sink because it is more dense, it sinks very slowly. The fact that you have saltwater with the cold fresh water, it sinks faster. Because the water is becoming fresher, less saltier in the north Atlantic, the pump is slowing down, which means the conveyer belt is slowing down, which means the warmer water that is moving to the northern areas from the equatorial regions of the planet is not moving as fast.

So the consequence of this, the potential consequence of this, is a much colder area in the north Atlantic, which would mean the United States and that area, Asia, Europe, and Scandinavia.

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of interesting facts about the potential climate change.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. And I thank all of the Members and the staff that have worked on this piece of legislation because I think fundamentally this brings many disparate Federal programs that are often paid for by taxpayers at cross-purposes into clearer focus.

I want to make three points. One, many taxpayers pay to restore environmental degradation. Taxpayers provide incentives to keep people out of harm's way. Taxpayers pay to provide incentives to degradate the environment under many circumstances. Taxpayers provide incentives to put people in harm's way. What this legislation does is clearly view the problems of disparate Federal programs and provide an incentive to move in the right direction.

The third point I want to make, though, I came from England to live in the Chesapeake Bay. I was run out of England around the time of John Smith. We live in a region where there are a number of storms and a number of people that are in harm's way. Keep in mind my perspective that the Federal Flood Insurance Program, the premiums paid into it fundamentally only pay a tiny fraction of the cost of these problems because we have to pay for the police, the fire department, the National Guard, residences where people must live. So this legislation brings into clear focus the needs of this problem.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1006) to amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to further the conservation of certain wildlife species, as amended.

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 H.R. 1006.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of this legislation, I am pleased to rise in strong support of the Captive Wildlife Safety Act. This measure addresses the growing problem of unqualified and inexperienced individuals who are purchasing an increasing number of large exotic cats. There are dozens of Web sites that offer lion or tiger cubs for as little as $300. Sadly, we know that one of those Internet tigers ended up living in deplorable conditions in an apartment complex in Bronx, New York.

While these species are extremely attractive when they are young, they quickly become 400-pound unwanted pets. Those buying these cats simply do not have the knowledge or resources to provide the specific nutritional, physical and environmental requirements of these animals. In many cases, they are unaware of the animals' growth patterns and the enormous cost of caring for them over their lifetime. In addition, escaped exotic animals have seriously injured or killed a number of our citizens.

In far too many cases, these pets are abandoned, locked away in tiny cages, or sold for their hide, meat and bones because, sadly, they are worth more dead than alive. H.R. 1006 will help to solve the problem by making it illegal to buy, sell, or trade certain large exotic cats in interstate or foreign commerce.

Under the terms of the bill, the term ``prohibited wildlife species'' is defined to include lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, jaguars and cougars and the hybrids of those species. The measure does not ban the private ownership of these cats and specific exemptions have been provided by qualified aquariums, circuses, sanctuaries and zoos.

During our subcommittee hearing, there was a great deal of support for H.R. 1006. One of our witnesses was Ms.

Tippi Hedren who is not only a famous actress, but also someone who has dedicated her life to saving hundreds of wildlife species by operating the Shambala Sanctuary in southern California. In her remarks, Ms. Hedren noted that the Captive Wildlife Safety Act is a bipartisan, commonsense measure to safeguard the public and prevent harm to animals. It will help to stop a largely underground, and in many cases criminal, economy that breeds, trades, and butchers wild, exotic and often endangered species.

Mr. Speaker, this is a timely solution to a growing problem, and I compliment the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and his constituent, Tippi Hedren, for their tireless leadership on this legislation. I urge an aye vote on H.R. 1006.

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

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

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

I just want to make a closing comment. I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for their effort to stay steadfast with this legislation to get it passed. I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for assisting us in this. I also want to thank the committee staff on both sides of the aisle for their knowledge and information and help with the passing of this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I want to say right up front that I will vote for this defense authorization. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and a whole range of people have done an outstanding job to ensure the safety not only of the United States and our security but of those young men and women who are out there basically buttressing the pillars of civilization.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) mentioned a little while ago that a 19-year-old rifleman ought to get the best training in the world. I agree with him 100 percent. I was a 19-year-old Marine Corps rifleman who worked with the Navy over a period of years, went into assaulted-fortified positions from Navy ships. So I personally recognize the absolute need, the uncompromising need, to ensure the best available training, the best equipment, the best of support that this country can offer to U.S. soldiers, sailors, Marine Corps, and airmen.

I would like to work with the Committee on Armed Services and the chairman and the ranking member. Over the next several months, the Committee on Resources will be reauthorizing the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The language in the defense authorization bill dealing with the marine mammals was something that we worked out. The language that is in the defense bill now, I think, goes beyond what is necessary. There are some issues dealing with small numbers versus negligeable numbers. There are some issues dealing with confined geographic areas. There are issues dealing with permits. There are issues with civilian scientific research.

I think the model we can use for the marine mammals and the Marine training is laid out before us in this thing called INRMPs, Integrated National Resources Management Plans, that there is consultation, there is collaboration with the Committee on Resources and the other agencies throughout the Federal Government. That model that deals with INRMPs, that assures those guys on the ground, that young 19-year-old rifleman, is going to get the best training, no compromise on that. And I would like to work with the Committee on Armed Services to deal with those issues over the next several months.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman from Indiana for bringing up the amendment which he and his followers feel is balanced as far as the loan versus grant issue that we are now debating. I think if it were a year from now and we were debating further supplementals for Iraq, it would be very appropriate; but it is not a year from now.

We have tens of thousands of American soldiers in Iraq. Many of us have visited them. There is, when we look into their eyes, a deep sense of courage; but there is also, as anybody that has ever been in combat can see, there is a deep sense of fear. Coupled with that, there is urgency. There is not a sense of urgency; there is urgency.

There is urgency that we get the supplemental out tonight so the 60- some billion dollars reinforces what our soldiers have, and there is an urgency that we heard from every military person we met at every base we went to that money is ammunition. What that means is, if we can get the electric turned back on, that puts Iraqis back to work. If we can get 80,000 Iraqi police within the next year, that will relieve our MPs from guarding the city streets and guarding the prisons. If we can get 27 battalion Iraqi units on the road, on the borders, in the hinterlands, in this famous peninsula area that is very, very dangerous, 27 Iraqi battalions, that will bring our troops home. There is real urgency in this supplemental, not as a loan, but as money that will go to secure the troops in Iraq to ensure their safety and to ensure their quick and speedy return.

Mr. Chairman, we did not debate loans or grants at the height of World War II. There is a critical juncture that we must realize. We are at that fork in the road. We do it with a sense of urgency, with a sense of responsibility. We will succeed. If we falter, it makes it much more difficult. Our troops will be in Iraq a great deal longer.

So I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding me the time.

The gentleman from Arizona will remember about 12 years ago we traveled to southeast Asia, and one of the countries we visited was Cambodia, and we talked to a number of people in Phnom Penh, the capital of Cambodia, only a very short period of time after Pohl Pot and the Khmer Rouge had ravaged the country. And we were discussing the issues with these former members of the Khmer Rouge who were forced to be the members of Khmer Rouge, and they were stricken with utter fear. They asked us the question, where were you when we needed you. If my colleagues will remember their history, it was the Vietnamese who went in and relieved the burden of that suppression from the Cambodians.

Today, we are relieving the burden of fear and oppression for the Iraqis from a regime that has the psychology of serial killers.

I recently went to Iraq with the delegation of eight Members. Four Members on this delegation voted against the resolution to give the President the authority to use force, and they were going to vote against this $87 billion package because they felt that we had not planned the war appropriately and did not plan for reconstruction and did not allow the State Department and other agencies in the Federal Government not associated with the military more access to the reconstruction in Iraq. Four of the eight Members were going to vote against this $87 billion. They are now voting for the $87 billion, the $60-some billion for our troops and the $20 billion to further reconstruct and bring democracy to the Iraqi people and here is why.

What we found out when we went to Iraq was that the planning to reconstruct Iraq was almost entirely done a year ago. In the last September-October time frame, this government looked at what was going to be needed, and they began putting that together. Right now, there are 11,000 construction projects underway.

To mention just a few, 1,600 schools were completely rebuilt and refurbished with the children with uniforms, with desks, with chalk boards, with books, materials ready for the school to be productive. The power plants are being rebuilt so there is now more electricity in Iraq than there was before the war; 150,000 tons of wheat have been harvested in Iraq as a result of the irrigation projects that were put in place last spring as a result of the Agriculture Department being involved in this productivity.

What we have seen was a total integration of the military, the State Department, the Agency for International Development, the private sector, a

whole range of organizations that are in Iraq today bringing prosperity, bringing support and security for our troops, making Iraq an example for the rest of the Middle East.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to close with this comment, and there are a lot more positive stories that can be told. The situation in Iraq and the United States and the rest of the world, we are facing a fork in the road. If we take the wrong turn, we will allow Iraq, and subsequently the rest of the Middle East, to decay into radical religious oblivion and suppression. If we take the right turn, there will be a new renaissance of science, technology and human expression never before seen in the Middle East.

I urge my colleagues to vote for the full supplemental.