Walter Jones

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 479 corrects several Florida mapping mistakes implemented in the enactment of the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990. Under current law, only Congress can add or delete property from the Coastal Barrier Resources System. Under the bill, 20 acres of privately held land would be removed from the system, ensuring that the affected homeowners are eligible for Federal flood insurance in the future. We would be making this change because this property was mistakenly included within an Otherwise Protected Area unit. It was designated based on the faulty assumption that this property was included within the boundaries of the Grayton Beach State Park and that the land was undeveloped. In fact, a number of those lots were fully developed with homes constructed by 1983; and, therefore, this property does not qualify for inclusion in the system. With the Federal Flood Insurance Program experiencing a large number of claims, Congress should be cautious about providing access to additional beneficiaries. However, in this case, H.R. 479 satisfies the threshold of fixing legitimate mapping mistakes. In addition, the new corrected map will add almost 1,600 acres of State parkland that was inadvertently left out of the unit when it was created in 1990. The net effect of this technical correction is that we expand the system by 1,562 acres of fastland and wetland habitat. I would urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 479. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 479) to replace a Coastal Barrier Resources System map relating to Coastal Barrier Resources System Grayton Beach Unit FL-95P in Walton County, Florida, as amended.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 175) recognizing the importance of establishing a national memorial at the World Trade Center site to commemorate and mourn the events of February 26, 1993, and September 11, 2001.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5539) to reauthorize the North American Wetlands Conservation Reauthorization Act, as amended.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present H.R. 5539 introduced by the distinguished chairman of the House Committee on Resources, Congressman Richard Pombo. First enacted in 1989, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act has become one of our Nation's most effective conservation programs. Since the first wetlands grant was awarded, more than 1,500 conservation projects have been funded involving more than 3,200 partners. As a direct result, more than 23 million acres of wetlands and associated habitat have been protected, restored, or enhanced in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Wetlands are among the world's most productive environments. They are critical to the survival of not only thousands of wildlife species but also to the people who live along our coasts. Without these wetlands, the impact of the hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico would have been far worse in terms of loss of human life and destruction of private property. Since the inception of this program, the amount of private nongovernmental matching money has been remarkable. It now stands in excess of $2.1 billion. It is, therefore, not surprising that this legislation has been enthusiastically supported by more than 40 major conservation organizations. For the past 5 years, Congress has appropriated about $40 million each year for this program. Under H.R. 5539, existing funding levels would be extended for an additional 5 years. The North American Wetlands Conservation Act has been remarkably effective in conserving wetlands. I want to thank Chairman Pombo for his extraordinary leadership on this most important conservation issue. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

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

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5094) to require the conveyance of Mattamuskeet Lodge and surrounding property, including the Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge headquarters, to the State of North Carolina to permit the State to use the property as a public facility dedicated to the conservation of the natural and cultural resources of North Carolina.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5094 will transfer title to Mattamuskeet Lodge from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to the State of North Carolina. This historic facility, built by the WPA in 1937, is on the National Registry of Historic Places and is located on the Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge in Hyde County, North Carolina. For years, the lodge served as a cultural focal point in eastern North Carolina, as local residents gathered at the facility for high school proms, weddings, and other community events. Duke University, East Carolina University, and Notre Dame and other universities also used the lodge as a research center to study the area's pristine coastal ecology wildlife. Sadly, 5 years ago the lodge was closed to the public because of dangerous structural problems. In response, Senator Jesse Helms and I repeatedly urged the Fish and Wildlife Service to budget money for restoration of the lodge. When that effort failed, we obtained $4.1 million in Federal funds to fix the problem. Regrettably, the Interior Department took most of the money to fight wildfires out west, and then refused to replace it. As a result, North Carolina State Senate President Marc Basnight and I began to work on the idea of transferring the lodge to the State of North Carolina so it could be restored and reopened. We worked with the State administration and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and H.R. 5094 represents an agreement between all parties. In fact, in the Resources Committee hearing on the bill, the Fish and Wildlife Service testified in support of the bill, saying: ``This legislation removes a significant obligation for the Service.'' It is unfortunate that the lodge was allowed to deteriorate. H.R. 5094 is essential because, until the title is conveyed to the State of North Carolina, the process of restoring this landmark facility cannot begin. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 138) to revise the boundaries of John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System Jekyll Island Unit GA-06P, as amended.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 138 introduced by Congressman Jack Kingston of Georgia. This legislation involves Jekyll Island, Georgia. This island is owned by the State, managed by the Jekyll Island Authority, and it was largely developed long before its inclusion in the Coastal Barrier Resources System in 1990. Unlike other Otherwise Protected Areas, the property was never held for conservation or recreation purposes. The Jekyll Island Authority has limited development on the island to 35 percent of the land area and currently 33 percent is developed. Based on the legislative history, it is unclear why these lands were ever included in the system, since it does not meet any of the fundamental requirements for inclusion. Under the terms of this legislation, the 35 percent planned area for development would be removed from the system which represents about 1,300 acres. In return, the State of Georgia has agreed to add 1,157 of fastlands and wetlands and other water to the Coastal Barrier Resources System. Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

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

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky. Madam Chairman, I decided I wanted to come to the floor today and not share my thoughts on this issue, but the thoughts of an American citizen. This lady lives in Carlinville, Illinois. She wrote me a letter on Saturday, and I was so impressed with the letter that I called this lady yesterday, Mrs. Betty Scheldt. I asked permission that I might read two paragraphs from her letter that I think speaks to this issue. First: ``Horses are an integral part of the American culture and I am extremely distressed over the fact that our horses, icons of our culture, are being slaughtered in foreign-owned slaughterhouses to please the palates of wealthy gourmets in Belgium and France. Horse slaughter and human consumption of horse meat is not and never will be acceptable in American culture. Americans overwhelmingly agree that horse slaughter should be banned. Several national voter surveys reveal that 77 percent to 90 percent of Americans feel that horses in the United States are not bred, raised or produced as food stock, and as such should be afforded the same protection from commercial slaughter as are all other non-food producing animals. The last paragraph: ``Horses are our companions and partners. They carry our children in competition at the county 4-H fair, make our country proud in the Olympic games, win Kentucky Derbys and Triple Crowns, carried our soldiers into battle and helped our forefathers to settle this country. They deserve better than ending up served on the plates of fancy restaurants from Belgium and Paris.'' Madam Chairman, I join my colleagues today who support H.R. 503, and I hope and pray that this Congress will pass this legislation because horses are part of the history of this Nation and the West would never have been settled if it had not been for the horses working with the American citizens to build America. September 1, 2006. Subject: Please vote for H.R. 503 as originally introduced. Hon. Walter Jones, Jr. U.S. Representative, Greenville, NC. Dear Representative Jones: I am writing to urge you to vote for H.R. 503, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, as originally introduced by Representatives John Sweeney (R-NY), John Spratt (D-SC) and Ed Whitfield (R-KY). This bill would prohibit permanently the slaughter of horses for human consumption overseas, as well as the exportation of horseflesh and live horses intended for slaughter, making sure that no American horse is slaughtered abroad. Over the past 20 years, due to ever increasing public awareness of the trade of horses for human consumption, the vast majority of plants that slaughter horses are no longer in operation. However, 3 foreign owned and operated horse slaughter plants still operate in our country today despite overwhelming objection by the majority of Americans. The meat produced in these plants is sent to certain European and Asian countries where it is considered a delicacy. Horses are an integral part of the American culture and I am extremely distressed over the fact that our horses, icons of our culture, are being slaughtered in foreign-owned slaughterhouses to please the palates of wealthy gourmets in Belgium and France. Horse slaughter and human consumption of horse meat is not, and never will be, acceptable in American culture. Americans overwhelmingly agree that horse slaughter should be banned. Several national voter surveys reveal that 77%-94% of Americans feel that horses in the United States are not bred, raised or produced as food-stock, and as such should be afforded the same protection from commercial slaughter as are all other non-food producing animals. The slaughter process is inhumane: Horses endure repeated blows to the head with stunning equipment that does not render the animals unconscious and many horses are still conscious during the remaining stages of the process. The transportation of these horses to the slaughter plants is also cruel and inhumane since they are hauled several thousand miles without water, food or rest in double-deck trailers, forcing them to travel in a bent position which can result in prolonged suffering and death. Arguments from the AVMA and AAEP defending the ``humanity' of horse slaughter arc simply ludicrous. To suggest that a process in which horses endure repeated blows and are often slaughtered while conscious is somehow humane is not only absurd but also shows a total disregard towards the welfare of the animals these two organizations claim to protect. I strongly disagree with the claims of the horse slaughter industry that it provides a way to dispose of old and ailing horses. This is simply not true: According to official data from the Department of Agriculture, 92.3% of the horses slaughtered are in good or excellent condition. Pictures of the slaughterhouses' pens showing healthy, young horses further corroborate this data. It is also false that the horse slaughter industry is rooted on a presumed ``unwanted horse'' problem as the horse slaughter industry maintains, simply because these plants are importing thousands of Canadian horses each year in order to cover the increasing foreign demand of horse meat. If there are so many unwanted horses in the U.S. as they claim why do they have to import them from Canada? The truth is that the ``unwanted horse'' theory is a bald-faced lie. Horse slaughter promotes theft and abuse. After California banned it in 1998 horse theft dropped by 34% while there were no reported increase on abuse as the foreign-owned industry maintains. In addition, there was no documented rise in Illinois following closure of the state's only horse slaughter plant in 2002. Horses are our companions and partners, they carry our children in competition at the county 4-H fair, make our country proud in the Olympic games, win Kentucky Derbies and Triple Crowns, carried our soldiers into battle and helped our forefathers to settle this country. They deserve better than ending up served on the plates of fancy restaurants from Brussels and Paris. Again, I urge you to vote for H.R. 503 as originally introduced by Reps. Sweeney, Spratt and Whitfield. I also please request a response from you stating your position on this issue. Thank you for your time and consideration of this letter. Sincerely, Betty Scheldt, Carlinville, IL 62626.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I might speak for 5 minutes.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing Camp Lejeune Marine Base and also Cherry Point Marine Air Station, and for 3 years this House of Representatives, in a bipartisan way, has offered and accepted and passed legislation that would create the opportunity to rename the Department of Navy to be Navy and Marine Corps. I do not need to speak today on the history of the great Marine Corps, just like the United States Army, the United States Navy, and the United States Air Force, but, Mr. Speaker, I will say that I am hoping this year in the conference between the House and the Senate that the Senate will accept the House position. Let me just take a couple of moments to read a comment. Again, this bill has been introduced for 3 years and the bill number has changed for 3 years, but this statement I want to read is from the Honorable Wade Sanders, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Reserve Affairs from 1993-1998. This is what the Honorable Wade Sanders said. ``As a combat veteran and former Naval officer, I understand the importance of the team dynamic, and the importance of recognizing the contribution of team components. The Navy and Marine Corps team is just that, a dynamic partnership, and it is important to symbolically recognize the balance of that partnership.'' Mr. Speaker, there has been an Internet site that has been established, not by me or by my office, but by an independent entity. Today, I went on that Internet site and I want to read, again for the record, a statement from First Lieutenant Marine Corps Retired General Merna. He said, ``I am one of five brothers who served in the military: Three Marines, all Korean War veterans; I am also a Vietnam veteran; two Navy brothers, one a Korean War veteran and the other paid the supreme sacrifice in World War II when his LST-577 was sunk by a Japanese submarine. Our uncle was a World War II Marine, and even our Dad spent a brief time in the Army Air Corps in World War II. It may be difficult for non-Marine families to understand why this long overdue legislation is such a burning issue for Marines; it is of paramount interest to our community of Marines. The reasoning for this legislation comes close to explaining why this needs to be done. Simply put, Marines have earned the right to their own identity, while loving and recognizing our brothers and sisters in arms from all of the military services who already have this distinction.'' The point that he was making is, if you think about it, we have a Department of Army and a Secretary of Army. Think about it, we have a Department of the Air Force with a Secretary of the Air Force. You think about the Department of Navy, which the Navy and the Marines are a team, and yet it is a Department of Navy and a Secretary of Navy. Mr. Speaker, I have to my left orders for a citation of a Silver Star for a Marine that was killed in Nasiriyah during this war in Iraq. And it is so ironic to me that this Marine, who gave his life for this country, when his family received the letter from the Secretary of the Navy, what does it say at the top, Mr. Speaker, but the Secretary of the Navy, Washington, D.C., with the Navy flag, recognizing that Michael Bitz gave his life for this country and that Michael Bitz was a Marine, a proud Marine. Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do in this House of Representatives, in a bipartisan way, is to say that this is a partnership and has been for the history of the Navy and Marine Corps, and that both should be recognized equally as a team. And I bring to the floor again to show you what could happen, and would happen if Michael Bitz's family had received this citation of his bravery in Iraq, and that we had a Department of Navy and Marine Corps, what you would have, Mr. Speaker, and what it says here is, the Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps, and it has the Navy flag and it has the Marine flag. That is what we are trying to do in this House of Representatives is to pay respect to the team. The team is a Navy and Marine Corps team. And I hope that the Senate this year, after 3 years will accept the House position. Mr. Speaker, with that, before I yield back my time, I want to please ask God to bless our men and women in uniform, to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform, and to ask God to continue to bless America.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Bennie F. Wood II, the recipient of the Meritorious Civilian Service Award for 37 years of Federal service. This July, Mr. Wood completes a distinguished 37-year career in Federal service that began with student service in 1969. After a brief stint with a private engineering firm following his graduation from the University of Virginia, he entered Federal service as a Civil Engineer with the Public Works Department of the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. Mr. Wood continued with NAVFAC until 1976, leaving his position as MILCON Project Manager for the Chesapeake Region to undertake more than two decades of service to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' substantial nation building efforts in the Middle East. He held progressively more responsible positions, and served overseas in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait during the first Gulf War. He returned to the U.S. to become Chief of Engineering and Construction Management Directorate and later, the Assistant Deputy for Programs and Project Management at Transatlantic Program Center. During this period, Mr. Wood received two Commanders Awards for Civilian Service and, in 1991, a Superior Civilian Service Award. With all these years of military construction and overseas project management behind him, Mr. Wood made a bold move in 1999 to enter the Corps' Civil Works arena for the first time as the Wilmington District's Chief of Technical Services Division. Determined to bring his overseas experience back home in the service of the nation's water resources, Mr. Wood vigorously led a highly successful effort to push ahead with the long-awaited Wilmington Harbor Channel Deepening Project. This multi-contract, multi-phase project called on his leadership skills and elicited outstanding efforts from his team of engineers, construction managers and environmentalists. Mr. Wood was a vital part of the leadership team that kept this and other District projects on track, despite the challenges and disruptions brought about by the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001 and the following military actions in the Gulf Region. In 2002, he was called upon to act as the District's Deputy for Project and Programs Management, while the serving Deputy and other team members deployed to Kuwait and Iraq in advance of the U.S. military effort there. His leadership during this crucial time kept the District's projects and programs moving ahead despite the absence of key staff members and the challenges of curtailed funding. In 2003, Mr. Wood spearheaded an outstanding effort to accomplish rapid repair of a nearly mile-wide breach in Hatteras Island caused by Hurricane Isabel. During this period he was recognized with two Commanders Awards for Civilian Service. In 2004, Mr. Wood stepped up permanently as the Deputy for Project and Programs Management, and has since been a key leader in a period of significant change for the Wilmington District. As the South Atlantic Division approached regionalization, he has been at the forefront of the change effort, and has played an important role in empowering the district to take on its new roles as the Engineering and Planning Center for the Savannah-Charleston-Jacksonville triad. He has also provided firm and supportive leadership as the District undertook the challenges of implementing the P2 system, and has kept many key projects on track through a period of wartime budget constraints. Mr. Wood's diplomacy and broad knowledge of the Corps have proved an asset as the District works with many local and national elected officials, and stakeholders. His leadership has been critical to the District's continued standing as a ``first among equals.'' His distinguished career brings great credit upon himself, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the United States Army. As a member of Congress who has had the pleasure of working with Mr. Wood, I can honestly say that the American taxpayer has been well- served by his dedication and commitment to excellence. It is an honor to offer my heartfelt congratulations to Mr. Wood upon the completion of his distinguished 37-year career, and to extend my sincere thanks for his service to our nation and to the state of North Carolina.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, today at 12 o'clock in the Liberty Caucus, which is a group of about 9 or 10 of us who meet in Mr. Ron Paul's office, we had retired Lieutenant General Greg Newbold, who spoke to us; and I have met with General Newbold in my office a couple of times. I am very impressed with this gentleman and his integrity and his honesty, and I want to read just a couple of paragraphs from a Time magazine article. It is entitled, ``Why Iraq Was a Mistake, A military insider sounds off against the war and the `zealots' who pushed it.'' This article is not written by a reporter for Time magazine. This article was written by Lieutenant General Greg Newbold, Retired, and I just want to read a couple of paragraphs because I think he makes such a great point. Again, this article is April 9, 2006. I met with him in my office in May of this year. This is paragraph one of two I want to read for the Record. ``From 2000 until October 2002, I was a Marine Corps lieutenant general and director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. After 9/11, I was a witness and therefore a party to the action that led us to the invasion of Iraq, an unnecessary war. Inside the military family, I made no secret of my view that the zealots' rationale for war made no sense. And I think I was outspoken enough to make those senior to me uncomfortable. But I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat, al Qaeda. I retired from the military 4 months before the invasion, in part because of my opposition to those who had used 9/11's tragedy to hijack our security policy. Until now, I have resisted speaking out in public. I've been silent long enough.'' Mr. Speaker, I mention that, before I read the last paragraph, I had the pleasure, as I said earlier, to meet with General Newbold in May of this year. I had the pleasure of hearing him speak today, and he is a man of great integrity, like the majority of all of those in our military. He was on the inside before we went to war in Iraq. He heard the planning, was part of the planning, and as he said to us today, he said, You know, when we first had our meeting after September 11, we were told to develop a strategy for Afghanistan; and then the next time we have our meeting, we are asked, Where is the plan for Iraq? This is, I think, such an important part that he writes: ``Members of Congress, from both parties, defaulted in fulfilling their constitutional responsibility for oversight. Many in the media saw the warning signs and heard cautionary tales before the invasion from wise observers like former Central Command Chiefs Joe Hoar and Tony Zinni, but gave insufficient weight to their views. These are the same news organizations that now downplay both the heroic and the constructive in Iraq.'' Mr. Speaker, I mention this because I think we in Congress, to meet our constitutional duties, do have a responsibility for oversight. I would think and hope that my party, as well as the other party, would want to know how did we get into Iraq, was the intelligence verified time after time, time after time before we committed our troops to Iraq. I think that we should know in fairness to democracy. A democracy will not stand without truth being told. So I hope that my side, as well as the other side, would come together and let us hold hearings. I have actually asked the chairman of Armed Services to bring in General Newbold, General Zinni and General Baptiste and bring them in to the Armed Services Committee for hearings, even if it was a classified or a closed hearing, because we in Congress, in both parties, should be asking these questions. I will close by saying that, again, it has been a pleasure that I would have the privilege to hear General Newbold today at lunchtime. He reiterated things he had said to me back in May to about 10 of my colleagues, and I do hope that we need not to make the same mistake in future wars. We need to make sure that the Congress is informed and informed with credible evidence from intelligence that has been verified time after time before we are asked to give the authority to the President, whether it be a Republican or a Democrat, to commit our troops to Iraq. So, Mr. Speaker, with that, I will close as I have many times on the floor of the House. I will ask the good Lord in heaven to please bless our men and women in uniform, to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform; and I will ask God to continue to bless America