Neil Abercrombie

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I oppose this amendment because it cuts funding to our troops and their families. The defense bill's purpose is to ensure that troops and their families needs are put first as they struggle to fight two wars. The needs of the Army are shortchanged in this amendment. The needs of the Army should be put first as the service carrying the heaviest burdens in the wars in progress. Readiness above all. Putting troops first involves making choices. As President Eisenhower said about ``the clearly necessary.'' This amendment decreases pay benefits, health care for troops and their families, benefits that are clearly necessary by any measure, and puts hundreds of millions of dollars into corporate overhead. Hear me. Understand. You vote for this amendment, you're voting to cut funds for the troops and their health care and their families' to put it in corporate overhead accounts, and you're going to be held to account for it come November, guaranteed. The defense bill already provides $3.3 billion for this program. No more is needed for corporate overhead. The 5 percent reduction in the program that this amendment seeks to roll back has been reallocated. We reallocated funds for serious equipment shortfalls in the Army, National Guard, and Reserve. The equipment readiness needs of the Army, Guard, and Reserve take priority over corporate overhead any day. Understand, to pay for this amendment, you cut military pay, benefits, health care, and equipment for the National Guard and Reserve in multiple deployments. The choice could not be more clear. You are going to take funding from the troops and their families and give it to defense contractors who have already received over $15 billion. Defense contractors are well paid for their services. They do not come and their profits don't come before military families.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I rise in support of the Spratt amendment. A reasoned and objective approach is needed for analyzing and assessing the serious issues surrounding the potential for nuclear weapons proliferation in Iran. The current bill language couples military readiness and contingency response planning with report elements that are inherently intelligence-related and dependent on the full spectrum of intelligence sources and methods. The amendment appropriately shifts the burden of assessment regarding Iran's nuclear weapons capacity and/or intentions from the Secretary of Defense to the Director of National Intelligence. Why reinvent the wheel? Precedent and institutional knowledge specific to the issue already exist. The appropriate vehicle for perpetuating objective analysis of the situation is an updated NIE, with further updates regularly to follow, not an independent and parallel effort on the part of the DOD. Renewing demand for products of the proven method of consolidating analysis through a centralized NIE process also discourages the temptation for some to ``forum shop,'' I assure you, among national security agencies for favorable or dissenting views, depending on the circumstance. We are all well aware of the Douglas Feith-led, Dick Cheney-originated cabal that was a major instigator of the war in Iraq. A disassociated DOD effort would undermine a widely considered and properly vetted approach to nuclear proliferation and other high priority national security issues. The amendment substantially reflects many of the points of inquiry from the report elements in the bill's existing language, but it centers the focus on an updated NIE analysis on the near and mid-term implications rather than on the speculative far-term projections, and does not rush to associate U.S. military response as a presupposition. On that basis, Madam Chairman, I think this amendment deserves our favorable attention, and I thank you for the time allotted to me.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I have the honor to serve as the chairman of the Air and Land Forces Subcommittee of our Armed Services Committee. I would like first to thank my own personal archbishop, Doug Roach, and all the acolytes on the Air and Land subcommittee, the subcommittee staff. They do a terrific job working with Ike Skelton's overall staff, led by Erin. I cannot tell you what a pleasure it is every day to be working with them in the manner in which they conduct themselves; professional, disciplined, focused, something I wish I could say about myself more often than I do. Again, on the personal comment side, I want to thank my good friend, Duncan Hunter. Always, without fail, in all these years, attentive, polite, always welcoming commentary and seeking advice. We may say farewell to you, Duncan, but we will not be saying goodbye. Finally, Mr. Jim Saxton, whom I don't see on the floor today. Jim Saxton may have his position taken, but no one is going to replace him in this Congress. He has been my friend. He has been my mentor. I have served as a ranking member on various committees, not just here, but on other committees, as well as having the opportunity to chair. I never considered myself a ranking member or a chairman where Jim Saxton was concerned. We were colleagues. This bill is about balancing the capabilities and readiness of our current military forces with future required military capabilities. Our military personnel is at risk each and every day. The first priority is to make sure the men and women in uniform are properly supported by ensuring our military programs adequately support current military requirements. We cannot short-change our personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan in their need for adequate equipment and the needs of our National Guard units here at home for what they may require to respond to potential national disasters. Promised future capabilities that have already been delayed because of overly optimistic and unmet schedules cannot subsume meeting today's demonstrated needs. The Air and Land Forces Subcommittee's jurisdiction includes $90 billion in Army and Air Force programs. Our objective, Mr. Chairman, is clear, to ensure that our military personnel get the best available equipment as soon as it has been properly tested, equipment like armored vehicles, body armor, improvised explosive device jammers, unmanned aerial vehicles, small arms, and night vision devices. We address key requirements: An increase in Army procurement and research of $557 million over the budget request, procurement and research where it's needed now, demonstrating the commitment of the Armed Services Committee to meeting these many needs. The Army in particular is carrying the heaviest burden of all the services in the war in which we are now engaged. This bill shifts funding to critical Army priorities now; $2.6 billion to fund sustainments costs for the tactical vehicle referred to as the MRAP, Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle, to better protect our personnel against mines and improvised explosive devices; $2.7 billion for counterimprovised explosive device programs, $949 million for Humvees, $783 million for body armor; $800 million for funding for much-needed National Guard and Reserve equipment. Yes, we have reallocated funds in this budget where we have to meet the needs of the serving Army and Air Force today. Fifteen C-17 strategic airlift aircraft added, at a cost of $3.9 billion dollars. It maintains the C-17 production line and sustains the strategic airlift fleet. Joint Strike Fighter competitive engine program has been funded for $526 million to provide necessary competition of two producers of engines for that program; $246 million added for systems to counter rocket and mortar attacks on our forces. To fund these priorities, we had to make reallocation choices to fund the highest priorities. Some programs will have to make adjustments. No program is adversely compromised. On the contrary, increased accountability and increased oversight are the result. In closing, I want to thank the distinguished chairman, all the ranking members of the full committee and the subcommittees, and may I say, Mr. Skelton, as I close, that it is a particular pleasure and an honor to serve with you. As I stand here today, I am thinking of Suzie Skelton. I know how proud she is of you.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Asian Pacific American--APA--Heritage Month. I am pleased to celebrate this important event. May 2008 marks 30 years since President Jimmy Carter signed a joint Congressional resolution declaring the first 10 days of May as Asian Pacific American Heritage Week. In 1992, the commemoration was extended to the full month of May. While it's an appropriate time to note the achievements of Asian Pacific Americans, APAs, we cannot overlook the needs of the community, including a fair and sensible immigration policy. I chair the Immigration Task Force of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus's, CAPAC, and I will continue to fight for the needs of family within the immigration debate. The challenge has become much more difficult in the last year because the presidential primary campaigns have poisoned the discussion, focusing all their attention on undocumented immigrants from Mexico and calls for higher fences and tougher enforcement. Completely ignored is the fact that immigration issues facing Asian and Pacific Americans are far different. And those issues have been completely drowned out by the shrill demonization of illegal immigrants. One of the major issues for the Asian Pacific American community is family reunification: allowing relatives of legal permanent residents, other than spouses and minor children, to immigrate legally and join their families. It can take the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) as long as 23 years to even consider an application for a family member from the Philippines. The extended family is a foundation in many of our cultures, and it provides real benefits to the greater society as well. Families often pool resources to educate children or purchase homes and establish roots in their communities. We often see extended family networks starting businesses, providing economic development and jobs. It is important that we move the debate on immigration past the bumper sticker solutions that have dominated the public dialog and work together to advocate for the needs of family. I believe we must find a just, practical and humane response to the 12 million undocumented immigrants living in the shadows of our society. But, we cannot forget that families that are separated tear at the very fabric of what America means. I urge my colleagues to learn more about this issue during APA Heritage Month and throughout the year, and work for comprehensive and human immigration reform for the APA community.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard on its 100th anniversary. On this important centennial, I would like to commemorate the men and women who have served and continue to serve in the shipyard. In their honor, I have introduced H. Res. 1193. Congress established the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard on May 13, 1908, and it has grown from a ``coaling and repair station'' to being known as the ``No Ka Oi Shipyard'' and a national treasure that is strategically important to our Nation and equally vital to Hawaii. During World War II, shipyard workers earned the motto, ``We keep them fit to fight'', by resurrecting the United States Pacific Fleet from the bottom of Pearl Harbor, helping turn the tide of the war at Midway, and maintaining the ships that would ultimately win victory at sea and sail triumphantly into Tokyo Bay. Throughout the decades, the shipyard has demonstrated its diverse capabilities by supporting America's space exploration, Antarctic expeditions, and national missile defense. It continues to support the United States Pacific Fleet as the largest ship repair facility between the western coast of the United States and the Far East, providing full-service maintenance for Pacific Fleet ships and submarines throughout the Asia-Pacific theater. The shipyard has become the largest single industrial employer in Hawaii and is the largest fully integrated military-civilian workforce involved in full-service shipyard work in the United States. The shipyard has a direct annual economic impact of more than $600,000,000 in Hawaii, and through its apprentice, engineer co-op, and other student-hire programs, provides extraordinary training, employment, and career opportunities for residents. Moreover, the shipyard has earned multiple national awards for its dedicated environmental stewardship and excellent safety programs, such as the prestigious Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Star award in May 2007. On this historic day, I would like to recognize the 100th anniversary of the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and congratulate the men and women who provide exceptional service to our military and keep our Pacific Fleet ``fit to fight.''

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of H.R. 2830, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2008. Among the many important provisions of this bill is one that is particularly needed to help ensure that our coastwise laws are properly and promptly enforced. Section 220 of the manager's amendment recognizes the importance of vigorous enforcement of our Nation's coastwise laws by expanding the Department of Homeland Security's enforcement authority to include the Coast Guard in addition to Customs and Border Protection. In keeping with this important objective we hope that the Administration will make good on the effort that was begun last November with the publication of a proposed interpretive rule designed to address evasion by foreign cruise lines of one of our coastwise laws, the Passenger Vessel Services Act. I have written to Secretary Michael Chertoff urging prompt implementation of a modified rule that addresses concerns raised during the comment process while ensuring that the coastwise laws are properly enforced. My letter details the frustration of important Congressional objectives that will result if the rule is not implemented and I ask that a copy be included in the Record. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, March 31, 2007. Re Hawaiian Coastwise Cruises (USCBP-2007-0098) Hon. Michael Chertoff, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Secretary: Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') proposed an interpretive rule regarding ``Hawaiian Coastwise Cruises'' on November 21, 2007. Since issuing the notice and accepting comments on the proposal, no final action has been taken to protect the only oceangoing U.S.-flag cruise ships in operation from unfair foreign competition. As a result, it has been announced that a second U.S.-flag cruise ship will be leaving Hawaii service and the U.S. registry in May 2008. I write today to urge the Department to immediately adopt a Hawaii specific rule in order to ensure that the remaining U.S.-flag cruise ship does not have the same fate. On December 21, 2007, I joined the Hawai'i Congressional delegation and also offered separate comments of my own with respect to the proposed criteria to be used by CBP to determine whether non-coastwise-qualified passenger vessels are in violation of the Passenger Vessel Services Act (``PVSA'') (46 U.S.C. 55103) and the Hawaii Cruise Ship Initiative enacted in 2003 (Pub. L. 108-7) when engaging in Hawaii cruise itineraries that include a ``sham'' foreign port stop of as little as an hour in the middle of the night to cleanse the voyage and avoid the application of U.S. laws. As the preamble to the interpretive rule accurately states, ``The intent of the maritime cabotage laws, including the PVSA, was to provide a `legal structure that guarantees a coastwise monopol to American shipping and thereby promotes development of the American merchant marine' ''. I strongly support the PVSA, and was a primary sponsor of the subsequently enacted 2003 Hawaii Cruise Ship Initiative. I also strongly believe that CBP must take steps to vigorously enforce the PVSA, including adoption of the proposed interpretive rule for Hawaii. But I am concerned that CBP's effort to do so may unnecessarily slow implementation of the interpretive rule by needlessly trying to apply it broadly to all U.S. ports, where no oceangoing U.S.-flag cruise ships operate in regular service. CBP's proposed interpretive rule is unnecessarily expansive. It goes beyond what is necessary to achieve the economic and national security policy objective of the PVSA and the 2003 Hawaii Cruise Ship Initiative. In fact, I believe a reasonable interpretation under those laws would limit the scope of proposed interpretation to Hawaii because it would further those important public policy goals. Indeed, the vast majority of the opposition to CBP's proposed interpretation is based on the far reaching nature of the proposal. As a result, comments have been received from interested parties as far away from Hawaii as Maine and Florida who have understandably expressed concerns about the potential impact of the proposal on foreign cruise ships operating in areas where no oceangoing U.S. flag ships call. MARAD and CBP identified a specific and intentional effort to circumvent the PVSA on Hawaii cruises. Under the authorities provided by the PVSA and the 2003 Hawaii Cruise Ship Initiative, the final remedy proposed by CBP should be limited to addressing that specific issue in the Hawaii market where U.S. flag ships operate. Moreover, the 2003 Hawai'i Cruise Ship Initiative requires that the affected U.S. flag ships identified in this proposed interpretation be in ``regular service'' in Hawai'i and explicitly prohibits their operation in coastwise service in Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea, areas where interested parties have raised concerns about the application of the proposal. For these reasons, I strongly recommend that CBP issue a proposed PVSA interpretation limited to Hawai'i as follows: CBP interprets a Hawai'i cruise itinerary to be ``solely to one or more coastwise ports'' even where it stops at a foreign port, unless the stop at the foreign port is a legitimate object of the cruise. CBP will assume that a stop at a foreign port is not a legitimate object of the cruise unless: 1. The amount of time at the foreign port is more than 50 percent of the total amount of time at the Hawai'i ports of call; and 2. The passengers are permitted to go ashore temporarily at the foreign port. Accordingly, CBP proposes to adopt an interpretive rule under which it will presume that any Hawai'i cruise itinerary that does not include a foreign port of call that satisfies each of these two criteria constitutes coastwise transportation of passengers in violation of 19 CFR 4.80a(b)(1). Thank you for considering my views on this important matter. I firmly believe that if CBP acts on the proposed rule as I have recommended, many of the concerns expressed by commenters in this docket will be alleviated, while at the same time ensuring the protection of the very oceangoing U.S.-flag cruise ships intended by the PVSA and the 2003 Hawaii Cruise Ship Initiative. Sincerely, Neil Abercrombie, Member of Congress.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 5613, the ``Protecting the Medicaid Safety Net Act of 2008,'' a bill that I proudly cosponsored. The bill would place a 1-year moratorium on proposed Medicaid regulations by the Bush administration intended to save money. Unfortunately, these cuts would take Federal funds from States at a time that many are struggling to meet obligations within Medicaid and other programmatic areas. By limiting access to rehabilitation and targeted case management services, the administration cynically attacks the poorest and weakest members of our society. Eliminating the reimbursement for transportation services for certain special needs students would deny them the basic right to an education. The regulations halt important payments to hospitals at a time that many across the Nation and within my home State of Hawaii are actually losing money. Placing the 1-year moratorium would help us better asses the full impact of these disastrous cuts, and come up with a plan that controls the growing costs of Medicaid without harming quality, as these regulations seem to do. The extent of the unpopularity of these cuts is clearly shown by the expedited move by the Committee on Energy and Commerce to report the bill unanimously to the House floor, in contravention of the President's veto threat. Medicaid provides medical coverage for the poorest and neediest of our country. It is the insurer of last resort for many who have either lost jobs or are barely subsisting. To take away these funds at this time is cruel and undermines the intent of the very program. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, I regret that I was ill and missed rollcall vote No. 205 through 207. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all votes.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, today I have joined with my colleagues Congressman Simpson of Idaho and Congressman Westmoreland of Georgia in introducing a resolution to end disparity in college sports that is an unintended consequence of the Bowl Championship Series (BCS). This resolution declares the BCS an illegal restraint on trade, and demands that the US Department of Justice take the proper actions to investigate and end the unfair BCS system. It also encourages the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) to establish a true football playoff system to determine the national collegiate football champion in the interest of parity and sportsmanship. The BCS is fundamentally unfair. Non-BCS schools, those in conferences not automatically qualified for the BCS bowls, are at a disadvantage prior to the first kickoff of the season. Non-BCS schools must basically have perfect seasons, and must be the best of over 50 schools to even be considered to play in a BCS bowl, while schools that belong to conferences that are automatically-qualified for BCS bowls (BCS schools) must only be the best of 8-12 schools, depending on the conference they compete in. Six of the ten schools that participate in the BCS bowls qualify by becoming the regular season champion of a BCS automatically-qualifying conference: the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), Big 10, Big 11, Big Fast, Pacific-10. and the Southeastern Conference (SEC). The four others are determined based on rankings, conference standings, and in some cases, selected by bowl officials. There is also a rule prohibiting more than one non-BCS school from competing in a single year. These unfair eligibility requirements produce effects that go far beyond restricting access to playing for the national championship. The BCS generates hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue annually, and this money is disproportionately awarded to BCS conferences. Of the more than $217 million generated by the 2006-2007 post-season bowls, $185 million, or 85 percent went to the BCS schools, which represent 66, or 55 percent of Division I schools. Money generated by the post- season games help schools cover costs for their athletic departments, facilities, equipment, recruitment, and other sports programs. Non-BCS schools must use their general funds to cover costs of their athletic departments, which takes funding from academic and administrative needs. The lopsided distribution of BCS revenue results in two tiers within the NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly Division 1), those with access to the BCS, and those without. Those without are unable to change their situation as the money and prestige associated with the BCS makes it highly unlikely that a non-BCS school will be able to compete for the same recruits, coaches, sponsorships, national television exposure, and the revenue it generates. This disparity keeps them in the second-class status and must be changed. Questions about the legality of the BCS have also arisen. Legal scholars have analyzed the anti-trust aspects of the BCS, and some have concluded that the BCS violates the Sherman Anti-Trust Act under the Rule of Reason test. This requires that the competitive benefits of the system outweigh the anti-competitive effects. However, the anti- competitive effects of the financial gain and recruiting advantage of the BCS schools can easily outweigh the pro-competitive benefits of arranging for the top two ranking BCS teams to play for the national championship. Many have called for the end of or change to the BCS, and the current system is only the latest reincarnation. The NCAA has, on multiple occasions, studied and considered moving to a playoff to determine the national champion. Successful BCS school football coaches and presidents have called for a playoff system, as have presidents of non- BCS schools. Congress has held multiple hearings questioning the fairness of the BCS and states have introduced and passed legislation calling for changes to the system. NCAA football is the only college team sport without a playoff determining the national champion. While the NCAA Basketball Championship's format will not transfer perfectly to college football, it is an ideal system. All Division I schools start the season with an equal chance of making it to the playoffs. The championship is decided on the court by the players and their talent, not rankings and their schedule before the tournament. The basketball championship also allows for a nearly annual ``Cinderella story,'' an underrated team that defies expectations, upsets traditionally strong opponents and competes deep into the tournament. This year it was Davidson College, a member of the Southern Conference, which was seeded tenth in its region and made it to the Elite Eight, beating former champion Georgetown University, the University of Wisconsin and Gonzaga University along the way. This scenario is highly unlikely in the BCS system, as there is little chance for a non-BCS school to even be offered an invitation to play. Non-BCS schools, the University of Hawaii in 2008 and Boise State University in 2007 were undefeated going into the BCS and were not even given the opportunity to play for the national championship. Something must be done to ensure that money and opportunity are evenly distributed among all college football programs. Congress should act in the interest of all the athletes, coaches, staff and supporters to guarantee parity and competition in college football. The current system leaves much to be desired and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this resolution calling for the NCAA Division I national champion to be determined by a playoff.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, I regret that I was out of town attending a memorial service last week. I missed rollcall vote Nos. 161 thru 177. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on votes 161 thru 167, 171, and 174 thru 177. I would have voted ``nay'' on votes 168, 169, 170, 172, and 173.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1077, calling on the Government of the People's Republic of China to end its crackdown in Tibet. The resolution also calls for the Chinese Government to enter into a substantive dialogue with His Holiness the Dalai Lama to find a negotiated solution that respects the distinctive language, culture, religious identity, and fundamental freedoms of all Tibetans. The Dalai Lama has stated his willingness to accept cultural autonomy for Tibet under the Chinese Constitution. He has also been willing to negotiate with Beijing and has advanced a number of very moderate proposals regarding Tibet's future status. The Communist regime, however, has only met this attempt at accommodation with stiff opposition, and is currently instigating yet another crackdown in the lead up to the Beijing Olympics. To date, Congress has stood strongly by the Tibetan people as they bravely struggle for their rights: In 1991, Congress passed a resolution stating that Tibet is an occupied country. In September of 2007, Representative Rohrabacher introduced House Resolution 610, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States Government should take immediate steps to boycott the Summer Olympic Games in Beijing in August 2008 unless the Chinese regime stops engaging in serious human rights abuses against its citizens and stops supporting serious human rights abuses by the Governments of Sudan, Burma, and North Korea against their citizens. I wholeheartedly support and cosponsor this measure. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher and I recently formed the Tibet Caucus and already have 8 new members. Congress awarded the Dalai Lama the Congressional Gold Medal. We cannot stand silently by and watch as another wave of brutality and oppression sweeps across the country by the Beijing regime. Congress must continue to stand by the Tibetan people and uphold their rights as human beings. I urge every Member of Congress to join the Tibetan Caucus, vote ``yes'' for House Resolution 1077, and urge the President of the United States to issue an executive order boycotting the Beijing Olympics and uphold the rights of the Tibetan people to ensure their voice is not silenced.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

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

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3891) to amend the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act to increase the number of Directors on the Board of Directors of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, as amended.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

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

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, I can't spot any more tenderfeet on the floor, and so we will yield back our time as well.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3651) to require the conveyance of certain public land within the boundaries of Camp Williams, Utah, to support the training and readiness of the Utah National Guard, as amended.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4933) to amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to protect captive wildlife and to make technical corrections, as amended.

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

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 4933, the Captive Wildlife Safety Technical Amendments Act of 2008, was introduced by my colleague from Guam (Ms. Bordallo). As Mr. Kennedy indicated, unfortunately, she cannot be here in person at the moment because she is on her way here from Guam, but hopefully will arrive before the end of the proceedings. Coming as I do, Madam Speaker, on a 5,000 mile one-way commute, I have a lot of empathy and sympathy for her journey. But the issue before us today is very, very important both to her and to Members of the House and, by extension, the Nation. The Captive Wildlife Safety Act, Public Law 108-191, amended the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981, and that made it unlawful for any person to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce any prohibited wildlife species. After the law was enacted, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Justice identified technical drafting problems that made full implementation and enforcement impossible. H.R. 4933 would make those technical changes to the law needed to allow the original intent of the legislation to be achieved. Madam Speaker, on a personal note, I might add that, under Chairman Pombo, I had the privilege of traveling with him to Africa for the CITES, Convention on International Treaty on Endangered Species, so we could see with our own eyes what the consequences are by not having legislation like this correctly in place. The wildlife species are totally dependent upon human beings as the stewards of this planet and, most certainly, as the stewards of their welfare and for the salvation of endangered species, not just in our country, but overseas as well. Therefore, I ask Members on both sides to support passage of this noncontroversial bill. May I say also, Madam Speaker, what a privilege it is to be on the floor with Mr. Bishop of Utah. I have the honor of serving with him on the Resources Committee, and have always valued his insight and perspective. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3352) to reauthorize and amend the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H.R. 3352 was introduced by my colleague and our good friend from Alaska (Mr. Young), and it amends the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act to authorize the administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to expand the use of hydrographic data and hydrographic services. The Office of Coast Survey, which is within NOAA's National Ocean Service, conducts hydrographic surveys measuring the depth and bottom configuration of bodies of water. The Hydrographic Services Review Panel, a quality assurance program authorized in 2002, suggested several recommendations to improve NOAA's hydrographic services. Strengthening the emergency response and recovery capabilities were among the recommendations suggested. H.R. 3352 addresses these recommendations directly, and meets homeland security and maritime domain awareness needs. I want to commend our friend Congressman Don Young for introducing this bill, and urge all Members to support it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I yield back the balance of my time.