Richard Pombo

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 364, which I introduced recently to formally recognize a political, social, and strategic relationship that is very unique to the history of the United States. The House Committee on Resources has witnessed this relationship over the years and has a unique understanding of the issues that affect the insular areas, having oversight over all of the former United Nations trust territories. Today we consider this legislation in light of both the strong history between the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the United States as well as the common ties that will keep our nations closely connected for decades to come. For over 50 years, the United States has enjoyed a mutually beneficial relationship with the citizens of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. In 1984, President Ronald Reagan proposed a new status for the trust territories of the Pacific through negotiated Compacts of Free Association. After having status as a United Nations trust territory for many years, in 1986 these islands chose to become sovereign states. Starting in 1986 when Congress passed the Compact Act, we made the agreement to strive to continue to maintain both economic and political stability in this region, including working to advance economic self-reliance in these islands. Congress also strongly endorsed the continuation of this relationship when we passed H.J. Res. 63, the new Compact of Free Association, by a strong bipartisan vote last year with the help of the House Committee on International Relations and numerous other House committees. About 2 weeks ago, the citizens of the Marshall Islands, as well as many others, recognized a moment in time that was significant in American history and was a part of the daily lives of Marshallese citizens from 1946 to 1958. During this period, the United States was performing nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands that would prove primary to the success of our country during the Cold War. The contributions of the Marshall Islanders during these years further helped bring a positive and peaceful end to the Cold War that saw true democracies established across the globe. In particular, H. Con. Res. 364 points to the significance of the nuclear weapons test that was code-named Bravo and its role in the half-century relationship that still exists between our countries. On March 1, 1954, the United States tested this weapon at Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands. It was the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated by our country. Its explosive power was nearly 1,000 times greater than the weapon used in 1945 in our attack on Hiroshima, Japan. This event and the success that came from our nuclear testing program will forever link the United States in history with the Marshall Islands. But the Marshallese continue to show their support for our country, as seen in 80 of their citizens serving in the U.S. Armed Forces. Our common pursuit of peace through working closely together through political, diplomatic, and strategic ties continues to this day. I was fortunate to have recently been able to travel to the Marshall Islands with Department of Interior Secretary Gale Norton, as well as other members of the House Committee on Resources. The openness and kindness with which we were received will not be forgotten, as we were able to talk to some of the survivors of these nuclear tests and comprehend better the level of understanding that remains between the Marshallese and our government to this day. In fact, two Bikini citizens are here with us today to see this legislation move to the House floor: the Mayor of Bikini, Mr. Eldon Note, and Senator Juda from Bikini as well. This bond should not be understated. I hope that other Members of this body will also show their recognition of this alliance in supporting H. Con. Res. 364 today. We continue to work with the Marshallese in both a socioeconomic and national defense standpoint. Be it the new schools being built with Compact of Free Association moneys or the critical work being done at the Ronald Reagan ballistic missile defense test site, our mutual ties founded in democracy and freedom can, with this legislation, be properly acknowledged. I would like to thank the House Committee on International Relations for their help in bringing this legislation to the floor of the House in such an expeditious manner and look forward to the strong bipartisan support of this concurrent resolution by my colleagues.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his statement and his continued involvement as this legislation has moved forward. Obviously, the growth that we have experienced in California, coupled with the recent wildfires, have pointed out to a greater extent the need for this pipeline to be put in. I agree that it is important that the Barona Band of Mission Indians continue to work with the local communities to address everyone's concerns. I did have an opportunity to tour the site of the proposed pipeline that was going to go in, as well as the neighbors and the issues that they have, and I will continue to work with Barona and make sure that everyone's concerns are addressed.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 523) to make technical corrections to laws relating to Native Americans, and for other purposes.

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

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

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 523, the Native American Technical Corrections Act of 2003, makes over 20 changes to current law to assist Indian tribes with matters that may seem relatively small to some of us but are quite important to individual tribes across this country. I am pleased we are able to bring this legislation to the floor today. Tribal leaders from various regions have flown to Washington, D.C., for meetings, conferences and interaction with their congressional representatives. The continual input from tribes and their willingness to work directly with the Congress as sovereign entities on a government-to- government basis brings us to our debate and vote on S. 523. Specifically, the legislation will make technical corrections to laws relating to Native Americans, including the extension of expiring authorizations, amendments to statutes relating to particular Indian tribes, and modifications to certain Native American programs. It makes these beneficial changes in areas relating to tribal sovereignty and culture and will encourage economic development. To illustrate the importance of this bill, let me offer an example of how one of the provisions will offer urgent assistance to a tribe that suffered the consequences of the recent wildfires in California. The Barona Band of Mission Indians was devastated by catastrophic wildfires last year. Section 121 of this bill places a certain amount of land in trust in order to facilitate the construction of a pipeline that will deliver water from the San Vincente Reservoir to the tribe's reservation. This pipeline is badly needed for fire suppression that may threaten the reservation in the future. Numerous tribes will be able to move forward on projects that will help to strengthen their tribal government and better illuminate their history and culture. This includes reauthorization of sections of the Bosque Redondo Memorial Act, which memorializes lands on which members of the Navaho Nation were forcibly marched by the U.S. Army beginning in 1863 after they were forced to leave their traditional homes in northeastern Arizona and northwestern New Mexico. S. 523 improves the implementation of this Act. There are many other provisions too numerous to mention here, and I am proud that the House can deliver this package to the President for his signature. This legislation represents a step in the right direction for Indian country, and I appreciate the bipartisan work of the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), in bringing us to this point today. I look forward to continuing to work together on various initiatives as they relate to American Indians and Alaskan Natives. Finally, I would also like to point out that S. 523, as amended, was passed in the Senate by unanimous consent on July 30, 2003. I hope we can now act in the same bipartisan fashion. I urge adoption of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to apologize for my absence from the House floor this past week. My father, Ralph Pombo, Sr., underwent heart surgery last week and it was important that I be with him and my family in California during this trying time. As such, I was unable to attend votes last week. We all pray for his swift and full recovery.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I have one additional speaker to close. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the coauthor of the legislation.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi), who brought a renewed vigor to this debate.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. I am glad that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) claimed the time in opposition to this because I think it is important for everyone to see just how difficult this bill has been to finally arrive at this point of developing a bill and a conference report that is so widely supported in both this Chamber and the Chamber across the Capitol, that we have brought together such divergent interests, so many people who may have initially opposed this bill that are now on board because of the great compromise that was reached to bring this bill to the floor. The history behind the Healthy Forests initiative, it has been, I think, 8 years now since the very first bill was introduced and the work began to finally get to this point, and we have gone through, I believe, close to 75 hearings in Committee on Resources alone on this legislation. There has been a countless number of people that have testified, and we have gone back and forth. And these past 3 years, we actually have to give a lot of credit to two of my colleagues in the House, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), subcommittee chairman, and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) for the work that they did in pulling together with all of the different interests to bring something together, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), former ranking member on the committee, and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and others to put together a bill that was really a great balance between so many different interests. And I found with interest the gentleman from Washington's (Mr. Inslee) talk about a particular tree and saying that we need to resolve on the floor of the House whether or not that should be cut down. I have got to tell him, we do not know. That is the job of the professional foresters. The focus of this bill is to go out into the forests and let the professionals, the scientists, the people who really do understand what is going on out there, have them decide where the best place to do thinning projects is, not on the floor of the House. That is ridiculous to think that we on the floor of the House should be doing that. But this is a grand compromise. It is a great bill, and I urge my colleague to support it.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), the subcommittee chairman and co-author of the legislation.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. I come to the floor today to speak in support of this bill. This is the kind of legislation that in the past I have opposed and have had concerns about, but I have to give all due credit to my colleague the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) for the work that they put into this bill. When they originally introduced this legislation, I had some concerns over it, and they came in and sat down with me, and we were able to work through all of the concerns that I had, and they were very good at coming in and sitting down and working through the property rights concerns that I had, what impact this would have on small property owners that were involved with this area, and gave me the assurances that as we worked our way through this process, that their private property rights would be protected. They were willing to accept language into the bill that protects those small property owners, and I think that that is extremely important. I will tell my colleagues, on any legislation like this in the future that we choose to move through the Committee on Resources, we will use this bill as a template, as a way to get things done in a bipartisan way in trying to move forward with a Federal and a local partnership in protecting lands that are environmentally sensitive and that are important, but at the same time protecting the property rights of those individual owners, which is something that is extremely important to me. So I just want to come down here and tell my colleagues I strongly support this legislation. I think that the work that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) did on this is a very, very positive step for the future. I know that they are going to do great things with this. I know that this land is extremely important to them. So I look forward to working with them in future and making sure that these lands are protected, at the same time that small property owners are protected. So I thank them for all of the great work that they did, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, this legislation establishes for the first time a comprehensive concession policy for our National Wildlife Refuge System. Unlike our National Park System, There is no standardized refuge concession contract, concessionaires are statutorily prohibited from repairing the federal facilities they lease and consequently there are only a handful of refuges that offer concession services to the visiting public. In fact, there are only seven refuges where concessionaires have a signed contract with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These concessionaires offer a variety of services including canoe rentals, interpretive tours and tour boat operators. H.R. 1204 is a long overdue and important measure. It will authorize the establishment of a standardized refuge contract for all commercial concessionaires, it will allow a concessionaire to use some of their franchise fees to maintain or repair leased property and it allows the service to keep these franchise fees onsite to be spent on a specific list of items designed to improve the quality of the visitors experience. The legislation exempts bookstores operated by refuge friends groups from the contract requirements. In addition, the bill is not intended to include activities by guides and outfitters. These operators traditionally bring their clients onto refuge units to engage in activities such as fishing and hunting and depart when the activity is completed. Guides and outfitters do not occupy, operate or maintain within the units significant facilities or structures such as marinas, boathouses, dwellings or visitor centers. Operators authorized to operate and use such facilities and structures are covered by this measure. It is important to note that we do not consider minor ``structures'' such as duck blinds, tent platforms, game racks, food caches, and hitching rails to be structures or facilities for the purpose of this act. The fundamental goal of this legislation is to improve the quality of the experience for the 38 million people who visit a refuge each year. H.R. 1204 will accomplish this goal and it will hopefully serve as a incentive for other concessionaires to offer services to refuges throughout this country. I compliment the gentleman from Indiana, Congressman Mark Souder, for introducing this legislation and for his tireless leadership in promoting this innovative idea. I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 1204.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, the conference report accompanying the comprehensive energy bill (H.R. 6) contains numerous provisions to assist communities around the country with forward thinking new technologies that will provide transportation solutions that are environmentally preferable and more energy efficient. Allow me to highlight one such project in my area that stands to benefit from the programs authorized in this important bill. To comply with State regulations, Santa Clara County's Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and San Mateo County's Transportation Authority (SamTrans) are working in partnership on a zero-emission bus (ZEB) demonstration program. Under this partnership, VTA and SamTrans are planning to purchase three hydrogen fuel-cell buses initially and three more at a later date, for a total of six buses. A fuel cell is an electrochemical device that combines hydrogen fuel and oxygen to produce electricity, heat and water. The electricity produced powers the buses. The bus manufacturer is Gillig Corporation, which is based in Hayward, California. The fuel-cell engine manufacturer is Ballard Power Systems, Inc. The buses will be equipped with standard equipment, including air conditioning, ramps for ADA accessibility, destination signs, and audio annunciation systems. Currently, three hydrogen fuel-cell buses are on order, with delivery expected to begin in April 2004. The contract has an option for the purchase of the three remaining buses when funding becomes available. VTA is taking the lead in demonstrating the operation of these buses, with SamTrans sharing in the operating costs. In addition to the buses, this demonstration program consists of: (a) the installation of a hydrogen fueling station at VTA's Cerone Operating Division that would allow the fuel to be stored in liquid form; (b) the completion of several modifications to the facilities at Cerone, including the installation of two bus maintenance bays with hydrogen detection and safety systems, to allow for the proper maintenance of the new technology and to ensure the safe handling of the hydrogen gas; (c) the training of VTA and SamTrans personnel on the use of the new technology; and (d) the evaluation of the demonstration program. In addition to being an important element of VTA's and SamTrans' efforts to comply with State regulations, the zero-emission bus demonstration program is intended to test the viability of emerging clean-fuels technology. If successful, the program will help move this technology closer to becoming commercialized and available to public transit across the country. The conference report accompanying H.R. 6 will authorize new programs that will assist communities like Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties with exciting projects like the ZEB. Specifically, I want to mention three specific provisions that may help in that regard. Part 2 of Title VII, authorizes a $200 million competitive grant program under the Department of Energy's (DOE's) Clean Cities Program for up to 15 dispersed grants to State or local governments or metropolitan transportation authorities for acquisition of certain alternative fueled, hybrid or fuel cell vehicles, including buses for public transportation. The original committee report accompanying the House bill from which the language in Part 2 was taken (H.R. 238) directs DOE to give special consideration to ``proposals that address environmental needs. . . . in communities seeking to meet zero air emission goals, like Santa Clara County, California'' in carrying out the program. Part 3 of Title VII, authorizes $10 million per year for the next five fiscal years for DOE for a fuel cell bus program to assist with the purchase of up to 25 buses in 5 locations. The language requires that DOE give preference to projects most likely to mitigate congestions and improve air quality, as would be the case with the ZEB project. Finally, Title VIII, of the conference report enacts the President's visionary program for hydrogen research. The provisions specifically authorize over $2.1 billion over the next five years for hydrogen- related R&D, as well as for the demonstration of fuel cell and related technologies that advance our understanding and acceptance of these innovative systems. Section 803(c) calls for demonstration projects consistent with a determination of the maturity, cost effectiveness, and environmental impacts of technologies supporting each project. The ZEB project represents an excellent example of the kind of project DOE should be looking at in carrying out the new hydrogen program. Mr. Speaker, I commend the conferees for crafting such a comprehensive bill and the Administration for having the vision to put forward these innovative new energy solutions. I intend to work with the Administration to improve opportunities for cooperation between DOE and communities like Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties in carrying out the ZEB project.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1442) to authorize the design and construction of a visitor center for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to instruct. I would like to start off by saying I agree with much of what my colleague from California (Mr. George Miller) had to say. This is an extremely important piece of legislation, not only to the State of California because of our recent problems that we have had with wildfires in Southern California but we have also had wildfires in Northern California and throughout much of the West and quite frankly into the South as well in recent years. The reason that we have had those fires to a large degree has been because of mismanagement on the part of the Federal Government. It has been something that has drug on for and built up over the last 100 years, the management of our national forests, of our BLM lands. The decisions that were made in this body and by numerous administrations over the years led us to this point where we have an intolerable level of fuels throughout our public lands which has caused these fires not to be a natural fire but to be a catastrophic fire that goes in and burns areas. I agree with my colleague from California that we cannot allow this to drift into some partisan whirlpool, I think was his comment. When I hear people in the other body saying that they are going to refuse to go to conference on this bill, that is intolerable. This is something that we should have acted on many years ago. I hear some of those in the other body saying that this is a carefully crafted bill that they spent weeks putting together. Well, this body has spent years putting this bill together, in doing the research and putting this bill together. The first bill, the healthy forest bill that was introduced in the House, was introduced in 1995. This has been something that we have been working on for a number of years. A couple of years ago, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), and others sat down and tried to craft a compromise that we could bring to the House floor. As we worked through that compromise, we were not able to get the other body to move along with us. We put together a bill and spent months and hours in working through and crafting a bipartisan bill. As my colleagues on the House Committee on Agriculture have said, this was something that was passed bipartisan. I serve on the Committee on Agriculture. Yes, it was a bipartisan bill coming out of the Committee on Agriculture. It was a bipartisan bill coming out of the Committee on Resources. It was a bipartisan bill coming off the House floor. It was something that we worked extremely hard on to put together and craft a balanced bill. That is what we are going to conference with. All I ask is that those in the other body come to that conference with that same dedication, to craft a bipartisan bill, a bicameral bill that we can put on the President's desk. If we can do that, we can deliver something that will help the American people and help to better manage our national lands.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to state for the record how I would have voted on the Veterans Health Care Facilities Capital Improvement Act, H.R. 1720. Regretfully, I was unavoidably detained and absent from the House floor on October 29, 2003. I take great pride in representing our military personnel and the veterans of our great nation. Theodore Roosevelt once said, ``A man who is good enough to shed his blood for his country is good enough to be given a square deal afterwards.'' The United States owes our veterans a debt which can never be fully repaid. For these reasons, had I been present for rollcall No. 576, I would have voted ``aye'' for H.R. 1720.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. It is with regret and a certain reluctance that I come to the floor tonight in opposition to the Interior appropriations bill. I think that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) have done an excellent job with this bill, and it is probably one of the best Interior appropriation bills that I have seen during my time in Congress. But having said that, the addition of language dealing with the Indian trust issue, the Cobell v. Norton decision has forced me to rise in opposition to the bill. I will say to my friends, my colleagues, this is the wrong thing to do. It is wrong to put this into an Interior appropriations bill. When the Interior appropriations was moving through the House of Representatives, there was a provision that dealt with Cobell. It was a different provision, very different than what is in this bill, and I want to make that clear. However, that provision was struck and part of the debate, part of the discussion that went on on this floor was that the authorizing committee would have the opportunity to sit down and work our way through a hundred year old problem, and we are doing it. We have held a number of hearings in our committee. We have held a number of field hearings. As the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) said, he is holding a hearing on Monday dealing with this issue. The only way we are going to solve this problem is if we have the opportunity to sit down, to consult, to negotiate, and to ultimately reach a settlement. We are not going to do it by some rider put on in an appropriations bill. The only way we are going to solve this problem is if the authorizing committee, if the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), myself, the members of my committee, have the opportunity to sit down with those that are impacted by this and do what is the best thing possible for the American taxpayer and for the Native American community in this country. That is how we are going to solve this problem. We are not going to do it on a rider. This is the wrong way to settle this problem. I appreciate that this is only good for a year and it is a cooling-off period as some of my colleagues have said. I am sorry, we do not do it on an appropriations bill, and I do not care who wants it. The only way we can solve this problem is to sit down and consult, negotiate, and ultimately lead to a settlement. That is what we are in the middle of doing, and I will pledge along with the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), that we will continue to work on that and we will get it done. But, Mr. Speaker, do not do it on an appropriations bill.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 63, the ``Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003.'' The House Resources Committee has a unique understanding of the issues that affect the insular areas, and this legislation received strong support within our Committee. For over 50 years, the United States has enjoyed a very unique relationship with citizens of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. In 1984, President Ronald Reagan proposed a new status for the trust territories of the Pacific through negotiated Compacts of Free Association. After having status as a United Nations Trust Territory for many years, in 1986, these islands chose to become sovereign states. Starting in 1986, when Congress passed ``The Compact Act,'' we made the agreement to strive to continue to maintain both economic and political stability in this region, including working to advance economic self-reliance in these islands. With the passage of time and implementation of the original Compact, it is very encouraging to see the results achieved that were aided by this legislation. We can now consider the connection we have with the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) and the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) to be one of the United States' closest bilateral relationships. The administration submitted to Congress a large agreement that reflected many hours of hard work from individuals primarily within the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Department of the Interior. These individuals deserve recognition for the time which they dedicated to the people and governments of the Freely Associated States. Multiple Committees have an interest in this legislation, as the Compacts cover everything from immigration to health care and continuing education programs. It is encouraging to see how closely so many Members were able to work closely over the last few months to ensure bipartisan support and passage of this legislation. I wanted to thank the Members of the House Resources Committee for their thoughtful input throughout the process of amending this legislation. The openness with which our Committee was able to work with the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House International Relations Committee, the House Education and Workforce Committee, and the House Judiciary Committee was also essential to bringing H.J. Res. 63 to the floor today. Through the work of multiple Members, the House has been able to make numerous changes that should create more beneficial results for not only those living in the FSM and RMI, but also for those citizens from the Freely Associated States living in areas like American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and Hawaii. We were able to craft legislation that incorporates components such as the strong accountability reforms agreed upon by the Administration, the FSM, and the RMI, while pushing to empower these citizens to maintain strong health care advances, education programs and general infrastructure. Chairman Boehner was particularly helpful in working with multiple Committees to ensure we worked to address the issue of funding education programs in the FSM and the RMI to a necessary level, and it is important to note that Congress will now ensure that this funding can be provided within the Compact for the next 20 years. Further, through the direct input of Members from those areas affected by the migration of FAS citizens, we doubled the level of what is commonly referred to as ``Compact Impact'' funding. This will greatly assist areas in their ability to allow FAS citizens to continue to migrate to their islands while also fortifying the spending by their own respective governments on students and others that utilize the social resources of these areas. Finally, the hard work over numerous years put into what is now H.J. Res. 63 should not be ignored and this legislation needs to move forward as quickly as possible. The timing is critical for these islands, and important to maintaining a relationship that has brought us the strong U.S. defense and strategic interests that exist in this area of the Pacific Ocean. The ability for Congress to act thoughtfully and expeditiously is shown in the interest of multiple Members working to ensure we got this legislation to the Floor for a vote today. I appreciate again the leadership of Mr. Hyde and Mr. Leach, as well as Mr. Lantos from the International Relations Committee. My colleague from West Virginia, Mr. Rahall, was also very engaged throughout the process of moving this legislation, which helped to allow the Resources Committee to move forward with a unified voice concerning this legislation. I thus strongly support the passage of H.J. Res. 63 and encourage the bipartisan support of this measure by my colleagues.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), two of my California colleagues who have worked so hard on this legislation and others over the past several months to make this a reality, and I think that their support is well-known amongst the veteran community, and I thank them for their work. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1442, as amended. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.