Eni Faleomavaega

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again I want to compliment the statement and remarks of the gentleman from New York. This is not meant to be trite or repetitious, but again we are going to miss you, Jerry. I hope all the best for you in your future endeavors. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), who has a considerable number of his constituency from Latvia.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My apologies to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) for not recognizing his tremendous contributions as the prime sponsor of this piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that according to an African proverb, when two elephants fight, the grass gets trodden. A little twist to this African proverb by a remark made years ago by the former Prime Minister of the Independent State of Samoa, the Honorable Tuiatua Tupua Tamasese, who also said that when two elephants make love, the grass still gets trodden. Mr. Speaker, what is obviously meant by this is that let us not forget the economic and social needs of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania when the United States intends to conduct major trade and business transactions with Europe and Asia. Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

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

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

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

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I also would like to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), chairman of the Committee on International Relations, for his support and leadership, as well as the management of this legislation now pending before our colleagues. I also want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) for his eloquent remarks. Over the years, I have always respected his tremendous knowledge about Taiwan, and the rest of Southeast Asia for that matter, and his strong feelings about our security interests in this part of the world. I want to commend also the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, for his participation and also working and providing this resolution that is now before us. Of course, my good friend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for his important role in initially bringing this issue to our attention. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a simple one. It States the sense of the Congress that Taiwan should have appropriate and meaningful participation in the World Health Organization, and it endorses an American policy that seeks to find a role for Taiwan, or the Republic of China, in the World Health Organization in a manner that is consistent with the World Health Organization's Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I will note for my colleagues in the House that even the nonself-governing territories of the United States also participate actively with several programs offered by the World Health Organization. In fact, over the years the World Health Organization has provided scholarships for students from these insular areas, particularly in the areas of medicine, dentistry and nursing school. This scholarship program has been of tremendous assistance to these nonself-governing territories. Mr. Speaker, Taiwan currently is conducting discussions and dialogue with the leadership of the People's Republic of China and we think this is a positive step to lessen the tensions between Taiwan, or the Republic of China, and the People's Republic of China. Mr. Speaker, with a population of some 21 million people, Taiwan has achieved over the years one of the economic miracles of Asia. Taiwan currently has one of the most stable economies throughout Southeast Asia with foreign exchange reserves well over $100 billion. Taiwan was the first Asian Nation to eradicate the dreaded disease polio. Taiwan also was the first country in the world to provide its children vaccinations to combat hepatitis B. Mr. Speaker, with its tremendous resources and expertise available to the fields of health care services, I honestly believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Republic of China, or Taiwan, should become a member of the World Health Organization. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the majority resolution.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to House Resolution 581, the impeachment inquiry resolution being considered today by the House of Representatives. On a matter of procedure, I find it very disturbing that as the House is considering an impeachment inquiry resolution, under one of the most important powers the House has, I was not afforded an opportunity to speak before the House during the debate. There is no question of the importance of the power of the House to send articles of impeachment to the Senate. Given the importance of this decision, there should have been adequate time provided for Members to debate the issue. That I must submit my statement for the record and not be given the opportunity to address my colleagues in person and my constituents via television speaks to the willingness of the majority to give this topic fair consideration. I have read the independent counsel's report to the House of Representatives and found the conduct described by the allegations to be offensive and not what I expect from a President of the United States. However, I do not believe the conduct described, even if completely accurate, warrants impeachment. I nonetheless feel the House of Representatives needs to address the issue promptly. Our country will not be well served by months of antagonistic debate, and I urge my colleagues to address the issue in a forthright manner. I am saddened by the President's conduct; his actions were totally inappropriate and should not be condoned. Extensive news coverage of discussions on impeachment have made it more difficult to address important national issues which need our attention. The independent counsel has spent over $40 million in investigating the President and has provided the House with tens of thousands of pages of materials. Much of the investigative work has been done and the facts are known. We have the opportunity today to authorize an impeachment inquiry limited only by the voluminous records submitted to us and by the time constraints placed on our term of service by the U.S. constitution. Given the extensive investigation already conducted at taxpayer expense, the House now has a duty to act in a responsible manner, and I urge my colleagues to vote for the Democratic motion to recommit the resolution to the Judiciary Committee with instructions.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to echo the remarks of my colleagues and to compliment the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, for bringing this legislation to the floor. I also want to commend my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights. With so many lists going around, Mr. Speaker, I do not know which list to go on as far as the listing of the bills on suspension being brought to the floor. I was caught by surprise in learning that this legislation had been brought to the floor for consideration by the Members. Mr. Speaker, there are approximately 200 to 250 million children in this world who are considered to be working not only under dire circumstances but the fact that they are, as far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, they are slave labor. I have held public hearings in the past, Mr. Speaker, on this issue, but I again want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for his initiative and his leadership in doing this, not only to sensitize the Members of the Congress about this very serious issue around the world, but the fact that we have now proposed legislation to look into and to fully examine and to provide some sense of sanity to this world and the fact that we have done this so unfairly to these young people around the world. I want to compliment the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), who was here earlier, who shared with us some of the pictures that were taken. I suppose he may have done so himself when he visited some of these countries around the world to see that these things are real and not some abstract idea. I also want to compliment the members of the Committee on International Relations for their support and the fact that there is true bipartisan support for this piece of legislation. The sad part about this is, Mr. Speaker, that many of the major companies doing business in some of these Third World countries use children. Supposedly, we are assured that some of the major commodities or products that are being imported to our country are not involved with any children being employed to bring some of these products to our country. But my question is: Who actually looking after this? Where is the assurance to give us that these children are not involved as part of the processing of bringing some of these commodities or products to our country? I seriously question the fact that some of these companies rally do live up to that standard or that requirement. I know for a fact where many of these products that we receive here, made with labor at 25 cents an hour, end up. When we buy a pair of shoes for $125, I know for a fact that many of these children were involved in that type of employment. Mr. Speaker, again I commend my good friend from New York (Mr. Gilman) for bringing this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to both the rule and to H.R. 4570. I say reluctant because this is likely the last parks bill to be considered by the House in this Congress, and I would have liked it to be bipartisan. Madam Speaker, this bill contains laudable provisions which should be enacted into law. The bill contains many provisions supported today by both sides of the aisle, and many more provisions, I believe, that could have been negotiated into forms both sides could have supported. Over the past several weeks I have had discussions with several Members concerning their sections of this bill, and I was prepared to work with them and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) to craft a bill that could have passed the House today. Such a bill could stand a good chance of being enacted into law. Madam Speaker, among the provisions which I believe there is bipartisan support for are the expansion of the Fort Davis National Historic Site in Texas, expansion of the Arches National Park in Utah, establishment of the Thomas Cole National Historic Site in New York, the amendments to the boundaries of the Abraham Lincoln Birth Place National Historic Site in Kentucky, the Automobile National Heritage Area in Michigan and Indiana, and the land exchanges involving Yosemite National Park and the Cape Cod National Seashore. Among the provisions I believe, Madam Speaker, that could have been negotiated to acceptable resolutions are the Cumberland Island National Seashore in Georgia and the San Rafael Swell National Conservation Area in Utah. With all due respect to my dear friend and colleagues, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), even with the changes contained in today's amendment, there are many provisions which I cannot support in good conscience. Among those are the Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty Land, the requirements for congressional approval of national monuments, and changes in environmental laws which go farther than I believe are beneficial to our public resources. Madam Speaker, these are honest differences on how best to manage our public parks, lands and forests. Based on my subcommittee work with the gentleman from Utah over the past 2 years, I think many of these differences could have worked out. There are others, however, that, given the number of them and basic philosophical differences between the Members, we probably could not have resolved. I believe we should have saved the provisions for which there is strong support by pulling others from this bill. Perhaps this is unacceptable from the majority's perspective, but as we move through these last days of this Congress, I had hoped that we could have focused on moving to enactment as many meritorious bills as possible. With more compromise from the parties involved, we could have done this. Madam Speaker, as I noted earlier, I would have preferred to be speaking in support of this legislation, but given the substantive differences, I feel compelled to recommend to my colleagues to vote against this rule as well as the bill.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1154, a bill I introduced to provide improved administrative procedures for the Federal recognition to certain Indian groups. Mr. Speaker, I have been working on this issue now for over six years. In 1994, the House passed similar legislation but that effort died in the Senate. Today, we are taking a major step to help address the historical wrongs that the two hundred unrecognized tribes in this nation have faced. The bill streamlines the existing procedures for extending federal recognition to Indian tribes, removes the tremendous bureaucratic maze and subjective standards the Bureau of Indian Affairs has placed against recognizing Indian tribes, but also will provide due process, equity and fairness to the whole problem of Indian recognition. Mr. Speaker, a broad coalition of unrecognized Indian tribes has advocated reform for years for several reasons. First, the BIA's budget limitations over the years have, in fact, created a certain bias against recognizing new Indian tribes. Second, the process has always been too expensive, costing some tribes well over $500,000, and most of these tribes just do not have this kind of money to spend. I need not remind my colleagues of the fact that Native American Indians today have the worst statistics in the nation when it comes to education, economic activity and social development. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the recognition process for the First Americans has been an embarrassment to our government and certainly to the people of America. If only the American people can ever feel and realize the pain and suffering that the Native Americans have long endured, there would probably be another American revolution. Mr. Speaker, the process to provide federal recognition to Native American tribes simply takes too long. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has been completing an average of 1.3 petitions per year. At this rate, it will take over 100 years to resolve questions on all tribes which have expressed an intent to the recognized. Mr. Speaker, the current process does not provide petitioners with due process--for example, the opportunity to cross examine witnesses and on-the-record hearings. The same experts who conduct research on a petitioner's case are also the ``judge and jury'' in the process. In 1996, in the case of Greene v. Babbitt, 943 F. Supp. 1278 (W.Dist. Wash), the federal court found that the current procedures for recognition were ``marred by both lengthy delays and a pattern of serious procedural due process violations. The decision to recognize the Samish took over twenty-five years, and the Department has twice disregarded the procedures mandated by the APA, the Constitution, and this Court,'' (p. 1288). Among other statements contained in Judge Thomas Zilly's opinion were: ``The Samish people's quest for federal recognition as an Indian tribe has a protracted and tortuous history . . . made more difficult by excessive delays and governmental misconduct.'' (p. 1281) And again at pp. 1288-1289, ``Under these limited circumstances, where the agency has repeatedly demonstrated a complete lack of regard for the substantive and procedural rights of the petitioning party, and the agency's decision maker has failed to maintain her role as an impartial and disinterested adjudicator . . .'' Sadly, the Samish's administrative and legal conflict--much of which was at public expense--could have been avoided were it not for a clerical error of the Bureau of Indian Affairs which 28 years ago, inadvertently left the Samish Tribes's name off the list of recognized tribes in Washington. With a record like this, it is little wonder that many tribes have lost faith in the Government's recent recognition procedures. Even President Clinton recognizes the problem. In a 1996 letter to the Chinook Tribe of Washington, the President wrote, ``I agree that the current federal acknowledgment process must be improved.'' He said that some progress has been made, ``but much more must be done.'' To those who say we should retain the current criteria, and not permit tribes which have been rejected under the current administrative procedure to apply for reconsideration, I say read the Greene case. It is rare that a court is so critical of an executive agency, but in this case there clearly is a problem. H.R. 1154 addresses the problem directly. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1154 will eliminate the above concerns by establishing an independent three member commission which will work within the Department of the Interior to review petitions for recognition. This legislation will provide tribes with the opportunity for public, trial-type hearings and sets strict time limits for action on pending petitions. In addition, the bill streamlines and makes more objective the federal recognition criteria by aligning them with the legal standards in place prior to 1978, as laid out by the father of Indian Law, Felix S. Cohen in 1942. Some have expressed concern that this bill will open the door for more tribes to conduct gambling operations on new reservations. While I cannot say that no new gambling operations will result from this bill, I do believe that this bill will have only a minimal impact in this area. I would like to remind my colleagues that: unlike state-sponsored gaming operations, Indian gaming is highly regulated by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act; before gaming can be conducted, the tribes must reach an agreement with the state in which the gaming would be conducted; under IGRA (the Indian Gaming and Regulatory Act) gaming can only be conducted on land held in trust by the federal government; and any gaming profits can only be used for tribal development, such as water and sewer systems, schools, and housing. The point I want to make is even if an Indian group wanted to obtain recognition to start a gambling operation, they couldn't do it just for that purpose. Ninety percent of the substance of the current criteria are unchanged in the bill before us today. For a group to obtain federal recognition, it would still have to prove his origins, cultural heritage, existence of governmental structure, and everything else currently required. Should that burden be overcome, a tribe would need a reservation or land held in trust by the federal government. This bill makes no effort to provide land to any group being recognized. If the land issue is overcome, under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, a tribe cannot conduct gaming operations unless it has an agreement to do so with the state government. A prior Congress put this into the law in an effort to balance the rights of the states to control gambling activity within its borders, and the rights of sovereign tribal nations to conduct activities on their land. The difficulty in obtaining gaming compacts with states has been making the national news for months because of the almost absolute veto power the states have under current law. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this reading of the law in Seminole Tribe of Florida versus Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996). I want to emphasize this point--this is not a gambling bill, this is a bill to create a fair, objective process by which Indian groups can be evaluated for possible federal recognition. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not perfect in every form, but it is the result of many hours of consultations with all parties concerned. I have sought to work with the tribes and with the Administration to come up with sound, careful changes that recognize the historical struggles the unrecognized tribes have gone through, yet at the same time recognizes the hard work the Bureau of Indian Affairs has done lately in making positive changes through regulations to address these problems. We have reached agreement on almost every major issue, and these changes have been incorporated into the bill being considered today. The bill has the support of the National Coalition of Indian Sovereignty (263 member groups), and Mr. Bud Shapard, a former BIA official who wrote the problematic regulations. I requested a hearing on this bill but this is not an issue that generated enough Member interest to warrant a hearing. We have, however, in the past held oversight hearings on this issue, and legislative hearings on similar legislation in prior congresses. Mr. Speaker, I do want to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to Mr. Kevin Gover, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs; Mr. Derril Jordan, Associate Solicitor for the Division of Indian Affairs, and members of their staffs for working closely with our committee staffs on both sides. Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Don Young, the Chairman of the Committee on Resources, and the Senior Democratic Member of the full committee, the gentleman from California, Mr. Miller, for their support of this bill. And I want to thank Mr. Lloyd Jones, Chief of Staff of the Resources Committee; Mr. Tim Glidden, the majority counsel; Mr. Chris Stearns, minority counsel; my Legislative Director, Mr. Martin Yerick, and my good friend and attorney for the Lumbee Nation, Ms. Arlinda Locklear for her perseverance and tremendous patience in working with all the parties involved in the development of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully urge my colleagues to support and vote for this bill now under consideration.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for his eloquent statement pertaining to his support of this bill. The gentleman suggested 8 years, but in fact, they have been waiting for 100 years to seek recognition. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my commendation to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Resources, for his support and bipartisanship in supporting this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill to give the local government of Guam certain additional authority to amend its laws. The Organic Act of Guam was enacted in 1950, and it is on this law that the current executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the territorial government are based. Although Guam has the authority to adopt a Constitution, it has not done so, and as a result no changes to the current structure of its government can be made without the approval of Congress. The bill before us today authorizes the local legislature to provide for an elected Attorney General, changes the requirement for a quorum in the legislature from 11 legislators to a simple majority, and extends Guam's legislative authority to include all those normally considered to be within the jurisdiction of a governing authority. Mr. Speaker, coming from another of the insular areas, I understand the difficulty of getting Congress to address technical corrections of this nature. While the law proposed to be changed in this bill will have no impact on the vast majority of citizens of our Nation, it will have a definite impact on the residents of Guam by making their government more responsive to the people being governed. This legislation is consistent with the efforts of this body to give more authority to local governments and certainly has my strongest support. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I again commend the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) for his management of this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I fully support this bill, the Tribal Self-Governance Amendments of 1998, which I believe will mark yet another milestone in the history of Indian self-determination. This major legislation is the product of more than 2 years of hard work and consultation with Indian tribes and the administration. We have worked diligently with the tribes and the Department of Health and Human Services to make this bill as fair as possible. I would like to extend my appreciation to the tribal leaders, their representatives, and the Department staff who have made passage of this bill possible. Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that subsequent to the full committee markup that occurred in the spring, the tribes and the Department were able to work out additional differences. Thus, there have been several changes that I want to highlight. We were able to come to agreement on issues regarding reassumption, regulation waiver, trial de novo, rejection of final order, and the creation of a new title VI to carry out the non-Indian Health Service demonstration project study. Mr. Speaker, let me briefly explain what this bill does. The bill, the Tribal Self-Governance Amendments Act of 1998, would create two new titles in the 1975 Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. The 1975 act allows Indian tribes to contract for or take over the administration and operation of certain Federal programs which provide service to Indian tribes. Subsequent amendments to the 1975 Act created title III of the act, which provided for a self-governance demonstration project that allows for large-scale tribal self-governance compacts and funding agreements on a demonstration basis. Mr. Speaker, this bill is important especially for the Indian communities, but more importantly, the responsibility the Congress should take to provide for the needs of the Indian nations. I also want to, again, commend my good friend, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for his work on solving the problem that we have had over the years in giving proper recognition to Indian tribes. I want to make a note of this to my colleagues. There is nowhere in the current bill that provides better streamlining of the Indian community if they were to apply to the Federal Government that gaming of any form is ever at all involved. I want to reassure my colleagues that that is the basis of that bill that has taken this Member over 6 years to help develop with the administration, with the staffs, with the majority party Members as well as the members of the committee on this side of the aisle. So, again, I plead with my colleagues, that bill to better streamline the recognition of Indian tribes, given the fact that California was not even a member of this Nation until 72 years. Seventy-two years when America was founded, and California was not even a State. And where is fairness, Mr. Speaker, if I were to elaborate a little further on this issue? But the fact that this bill should be approved, again I want to commend the gentleman from Alaska. Give tribute and credence to the fact that the recognition process has failed miserably, and we should vote in support of H.R. 1154. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support passage of H.R. 2742, which will transfer some 3,500 acres of excess Bureau of Land Management lands located throughout California to eight Indian tribes in the State. The bill was introduced pursuant to administration requests and as a result of negotiations between the Interior Department, the local municipalities, and the eight Indian tribes that began in 1994. All affected land is adjacent to existing Indian reservations. The bill was amended in committee pursuant to the request of the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) to remove lands that would have been transferred to the Bridgeport and the Benton Paiute tribes. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that the reason that we are enacting this legislation is to allow Indian tribes to develop their own economies. For too long we have neglected the tribes' economic needs, and certainly the creation of a strong land base is part of that equation. Keep in mind that the history of California Indian dealings is one of the most shameful in this country's past. Approximately 250,000 Native American Indians currently reside in the State of California, Mr. Speaker, more Indians in the State of California than anywhere else in this country, yet they are the most neglected. The United States broke 18 treaties that promised the tribes 18.5 million acres. California tribes lost more than 70 million acres of land overall and now live on a collective 400,000 acres of land. Thus, I am glad that we are doing what is right in returning a small portion of what we once took from the first Americans. Again, I commend the gentleman from Alaska for his management of this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I certainly would like to commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans, for bringing this legislation to the floor. I also want to commend my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) for his sponsorship of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, this bill authorizes Federal financial assistance to the State of Maryland to develop methods to eradicate or at least control nutria. These submarine rodents were accidentally released into the wild, and have wreaked havoc with wetlands in Louisiana, Maryland, and elsewhere. The foraging habits of nutria are especially destructive to marsh grasses. Nutria have thrived in their newfound homes in our North American swamps and marshes. Given all the other threats to wetlands these days, nutria must be brought under control. The State of Maryland has developed a comprehensive plan for nutria eradication, and Federal support will greatly expedite its implementation. If we can come up with a method to control these destructive rodents, the plan can be modified and used in other places where nutria are a problem. Mr. Speaker, this is sound public policy to deal with a strange yet important threat to our vanishing wetlands. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again, my sincere thanks and appreciation to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) for bringing this legislation to the floor. I also want to commend my good friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) for his primary sponsorship of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I might add, this does have bipartisan support, especially friends from this side of the aisle, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner). Mr. Speaker, the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Promotion Act is a sound piece of legislation. This bill will allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to spend $1 million a year in revenues from the migratory bird hunting stamp to promote sales of those stamps to a broader range of users, including bird watchers, photographers, and other conservationists. It is estimated that as many as 25 million Americans enjoy observing birds and spend as much as $20 billion a year to do so. They travel to see over 800 species of birds that reside in the United States. I might add, Mr. Speaker, I invite all my fellow Americans and bird watchers of America to come and observe the only bat that flies during the day like a bird, and it is the flying fox in the Samoan Islands. Many of these birds are undergoing serious conservation problems. These problems are no less serious than the declines of game birds in the 1920s which inspired hunters, conservationists and Federal lawmakers to pass the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929. That act, Mr. Speaker, authorized the duck stamp program. Since that time, Mr. Speaker, the program has been enormously successful and has helped protect some 5 million acres of land for habitat. Many waterfowl populations have recovered tremendously. Millions of acres of habitat have been protected. But even as duck stamp sales to hunters have began to level off, the need to continue to acquire and protect habitat for wildlife has increased tremendously. Mr. Speaker, an amendment in this bill would encourage the Fish and Wildlife Service to describe the benefits to wildlife which are derived from the sales of these stamps. By demonstrating to bird watchers and conservationists just how these funds contribute to the recovery and relief of some of the many species of wildlife which continue to decline, the Service can be assured of finding a growing number of Americans who are willing to contribute to the protection of habitat for their future. I am confident that the Fish and Wildlife Service, Mr. Speaker, and the conservation community can work together to make this bill a success and continue to protect valuable habitat for all of those who enjoy this Nation's natural resources. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and, again, I commend my good friend, the gentleman from California, for his prime sponsorship of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve will balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to again thank the gentleman for his eloquent statement. Maybe something that our colleagues here in the House and even the American public do not know, but the fact is that watching birds is a $20 billion industry here in America. I want to say to my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), for myself, who actually experienced seeing these terns who come all the way from Alaska to Hawaii and even to my islands in Samoa, just to watch these little birds, it is amazing how these little birds can fly for such a tremendous distance. I am sure that my good friend, who is an excellent jet fighter pilot, can attest to the fact that it is amazing how nature and how these migratory birds can fly for so far and yet be so small in form. It is just amazing. I think it is an excellent way to promote that we need more funds, and I sincerely hope that this legislation will pass. Again, I want to commend the gentleman for yielding to me.

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

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) for the opportunity to speak on behalf of this legislation, and I do commend the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth) for bringing this legislation to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 144, which expresses the support of the House of Representatives for the National Louis and Clark Bicentennial Council and the commemorative activities that it is planning for the bicentennial of this famous expedition. The resolution also asks others to support and participate in the bicentennial celebration activities. Mr. Speaker, this legislation was referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands, but neither the subcommittee nor the Committee on Resources formally considered the legislation. The bill is, however, straightforward, and I am aware of no opposition. It commemorates and supports the efforts of two Americans who helped convince the rest of the country of the benefit of, and I do not know about this word, acquiring new lands to the West, of the then existing borders, and we have all benefited from these efforts. I support the legislation, and I ask my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)