Mark Souder

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address a matter of deep concern to every Member of Congress and to every American citizen--the judicial nomination process. I am chairman of the Government Reform Committee's Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, which has responsibility for oversight of, among other things, our federal judicial system. I am deeply concerned by the growing politicization of the judicial nomination process by a handful of left- wing groups and their advocates in Congress. Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported on a number of memos written by Congressional staff between 2001 and 2003. They illustrate the extreme political prejudice, crass maneuvering, and pandering to special interest groups that are bringing the judicial nomination process to a standstill. One memo actually claims that ``most of [President] Bush's nominees are nazis''. Another shows that action on nominees was delayed to allow ``the groups''--i.e., left-wing special interest groups--``time to complete their research,'' i.e., to dig up as much dirt as they could on the President's nominees. And shockingly, a third memo shows that action was delayed on a nominee in order to affect the outcome of a case before the Sixth Circuit. At present, no one can say for sure how the newspaper obtained the memos. Certainly illegal theft of any confidential materials should not be tolerated. I note, however, that given the large number of the memos, the fact that the source blacked out the names of the staff members who wrote and received the memos (presumably to save them from embarrassment), and the date of the documents (most are from 2001 and 2002) strongly suggest that the source was a member of the Democratic staff, and not someone illegally stealing the memos. In any case, now that these memos have been distributed to the press, I believe that it is important for the Members of Congress and the public to see them and judge their contents for themselves. I am therefore submitting the first installment of these memos for the Record, and intend to submit more of them in the days to come. I hope that a full and vigorous debate of this important issue will help the process to move forward, so that the President's nominees can quickly receive the yes or no vote that they deserve. * * * * * Big fight early next year. Three benefits: (1) Sends message on Supreme Court; (2) Forces WH to bargain; (3) encourages more moderate nominees. To work, need all 10 Dems on board and need commitment not to go to the floor. Query: will it be possible to get all 10 Dems to commit before a hearing? Doubtful. There is a big risk. We must choose a nominee tailored to our weakest link. E.g., Pickering is bad but is he had enough? Probably not-- finish him AFTER. Who to fight? Not Estrada--hard to beat, and don't want him on the Supremes. Groups have 3 names: Kuhl, Sutton, and Owens. Kuhl seems like a bad idea, b/c Boxer will never return the BS. Why waste that power, freeing up another nominee to go through? Similar with Sutton--he is being held up right now. Sutton will be hard to beat--very strong paper record, impressive credentials. GOP will carp about how only criteria should be excellence (``Should Ideology Matter?'' retread.) (Same problem with Estrada.) Sutton is personification of the threat the New Federalism poses to Civil Rights, but his defenders will muddle debate. Why not use someone else, show WH we mean business, then bargain to ``release'' hold on Sixth Circuit. I say Owens. She is from Texas and appointed to SCT by Bush, so she will appear parochial and out of mainstream. She is definitively anti-abortion, in ways that make her look disingenuous. Pro-business. Questionable ethics. Plus can craft the message: concerted campaign to pack the Courts. Phase I: GOP blocks many well-qualified people--Johnson, Moreno, etc. Phase II: GOP picks extremists like Owen, and pushes hard. Court gets way out of wack. Focus not only on numbers, but tangible outcomes--rulings striking down VAWA, civil rights laws, environmental laws, etc. No more hearings this year. Lay the foundations for next January/February. Schumer hearing on federalism, and the threat it poses. Coordinate media strategy, Drop hints. Schedule the hearing well in advance in January, so we don't face accusations of sandbagging, Stress that we have cut the BS: no more anonymous holds, no more years without a hearing, no more ridiculous document requests, no more shutting down the Committee. Rather than hold a nominee up endlessly, and ruin their career, we will vote. There's a reason why they did that--most of Clinton's nominees were impeachable. There's a reason why we do what we do--most of Bush's nominees are Nazis. That doesn't mean we will roll over and play dead. Mainstream nominees will get quick turn around time. Controversial ones demand more careful scrutiny.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce into the Record two more memos--written by Democratic congressional staff--that illustrate the extent to which liberal special interest groups are controlling the judicial nomination process. These groups have been allowed a virtual veto power over any nominee they dislike. For example, groups like the so-called People for the American Way have apparently been able to delay or block the approval of judges who do not share their antilaw enforcement views, while groups like the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) have been given a similar veto power over anyone who doesn't agree that parents shouldn't even be notified that their child is considering an abortion. One nominee, according to the memos, had to be cleared with ``the gay rights groups'' before he would even be considered. These memos show just how far the process has deteriorated--and are a wake-up call to anyone who wants to see fairness and objectivity restored to our Federal judiciary.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my deep thanks and appreciation to Pope John Paul II and the Roman Catholic Church for their unwavering support of a strong and balanced anti-drug strategy. Last month, at a European Union conference held in Dublin, Ireland, the Holy See submitted a statement outlining the Catholic Church's approach to drug policy. As chairman of the Government Reform Committee's Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, I have long supported a vigorous but multipronged approach to reducing the scourge of drug abuse, emphasizing tough law enforcement, effective prevention, and treatment that works. I am submitting the Holy See's statement for the Record, as I believe it provides an eloquent and timely defense of those policies. As the Vatican's statement makes clear, the problem of drug abuse is deeply rooted in the spiritual crisis that has gripped much of modern society. We live in a culture that often finds itself incapable of educating our young people in the values that give them an alternative to drugs. ``One of the most important factors leading to drug abuse,'' warns the statement, ``is the lack of clear motivation, the absence of values, the conviction that life is not worth living.'' We must ensure that our children are raised with the knowledge both of their own self- worth and of their responsibility to work for a better world. That knowledge is the best bulwark against drug abuse and other self- destructive behavior, and prevention efforts in our schools and communities must be grounded in such an approach. But we must also make sure that we don't send the wrong message to young people by suggesting that governments tolerate the use of drugs. I strongly agree with the Catholic Church in its rejection of drug legalization. Legalizing the use of even the so called ``lighter'' drugs will only lead to the greater use of stronger drugs. Nor can we afford to condone drug abuse in a misguided attempt at ``harm reduction.'' As the Vatican's statement notes, ``The State should not assist its more vulnerable citizens to alienate themselves from society and ruin their lives.'' Mr. Speaker, the problem of drug abuse is one of the most difficult facing lawmakers and parents today. It is deeply rooted, and will require a great and continuing effort to keep it under control. But we must not give up-- there is simply too much at stake. I thank the Catholic Church for its ongoing support of that effort. Intervention of the Delegation of the Holy See at the Ministerial Conference on ``New Challenges for Drug Policy in Europe'' (Dublin, October 16-17, 2003) Mr. Chairman: The Holy See is pleased to participate in this Ministerial Conference sponsored by the Pompidou Group, for it sees this as a fitting and encouraging opportunity to discuss and analyze the strategies in the fight against the threat represented by drug abuse, as the Conference theme aptly suggests. The data provided by the European Observatory for Drugs and Drug Addiction in the 2002 Annual Report on the Evolution of the Drug Phenomenon in the European Union and Norway continue to raise alarms and indicate that the situation, instead of improving, is growing worse. Great concern is caused both by the constant increase in the use of synthetic drugs and by the ever decreasing age at which drug abuse is observed. Pope John Paul II, already in 1984, noted that ``among the threats facing young people and all of society today, drug abuse is one of the greatest, since it is a danger that is as insidious as it is invisible, and one that is not yet properly recognized according to the extent of its seriousness''. If politics is at the service of the human person and society, it must not fail to go to the root of problems. This means grappling with the anxiety, that is, the existential crisis or apprehensions, that in a consumerist and materialistic society finds rich soil for shattering the inner equilibrium in subjects who are particularly weak, fragile and sensitive. There is no doubt that the phenomenon of drug abuse is connected with a crisis of civilization and with great dejection. One of the most important factors leading to drug abuse is the lack of clear motivation, the absence of values, the conviction that life is not worth living. Among the political measures to be adopted in the fight against this phenomenon, my Delegation would point out in the first place those aimed at combating illicit trafficking in drugs, controlled by powerful criminal organizations. This takes place in the larger context of arms trade, terrorism and trafficking in human beings. Such criminal activity goes beyond national borders and therefore requires a concerted policy of international cooperation. Faced with the many suggestions and decisions made in different national contexts for the purpose of resolving the problem, the Holy See does not agree with the proposal to legalize the circulation and distribution of drugs, not even so-called light drugs. We must not fail to take into account the risk of moving from the use of light drugs to the use of those with more destructive effects. The State should not assist its more vulnerable citizens to alienate themselves from society and ruin their lives. Rather, the Holy See encourages above all the promotion of preventive information and education, and the possibility of the proper treatment and reintegration into society of those who unfortunately fall prey to drug addiction. More resources should be destined to the application of preventive and educational measures in the family, in schools, in sports clubs and in society in general. There is a need for placing renewed emphasis on the human values of love and life, the only values capable of giving meaning to human existence. As far as treatment and reintegration into society are concerned, my Delegation places great importance on the work of assistance and recovery communities. This is a matter of helping drug addicts, in the midst of their inner suffering and their state of anxiety, to rediscover dignity, to take control of their lives once more and to reintegrate themselves into their families and into society. An integrated system of services offered by local agencies, institutions and educational groups (family, school, community) should increase the ability to bring effective aid to the lives of young people who, once they are freed from drug addiction, will be able to avoid a relapse. Only the desire to be reborn and the ability to heal will ensure that ``recovered'' young people can return to a normal life after having passed through the frightening tunnel of drug addiction. An adequate policy in this regard must also address the ethical questions involved, seeking to place the problem in a wider anthropological, ethical, social, political and economic context. Means and resources need to be set-aside for this purpose. Mr Chairman, allow me to conclude by reaffirming the willingness of the Holy See and the Catholic Church--with their extensive networks of institutions and structures devoted to the education, assistance and rehabilitation of drug addicts--to work with European institutions in seeking together paths and means for a policy in the fight against drug abuse and addiction that will not only resist the criminal and subversive phenomenon but will also take into consideration the moral issue of drug addiction and of a society that promotes a culture of solidarity for life. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the President of the United States should enter into a free trade agreement (FTA) with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The United States and the United Kingdom share one of the closest and most unique cultural, economic, strategic relationships of any two countries in history. Our nations are based on the rule of law. We share a common history, language, and love of freedom and liberty. Our military alliance liberated Europe from Adolf Hitler and removed Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. The entrepreneurial spirit of Americans and Britons is evident in the economic power our countries have exerted for over two hundred years. I believe that it is no accident that two of the most freedom-loving countries on earth have also been the most economically successful countries. The independence and liberties Americans and Britons enjoy politically have transferred themselves to an economic freedom to invent, innovate, and trade. Unfortunately, that freedom to trade is often hindered by barriers and tariffs. Some barriers give unfair advantage to goods through artificially lower prices. Other barriers try to protect domestic industries, sometimes delaying much needed innovation. Countries that open their domestic markets, remove barriers to foreign direct investment, and promote free enterprise improve the lives of their citizens. The US and the UK should encourage open markets because limiting the availability of goods or increasing the final price paid by consumers can directly inhibit consumer freedom and reduce consumer welfare. As the largest economy in the world, the United States should lead the movement for free trade because free trade boosts our economy. An International Trade Commission report estimates that the elimination of tariffs between the United States and the United Kingdom would result in an 11 percent to 16 percent increase in American exports to the United Kingdom. The economic relationship between the US and UK is one of the largest trading relationships in the world. Direct foreign investment flowing between our countries totals nearly $400 billion--the largest such relationship in the world. British investment in the United States helps to sustain over 1 million American jobs. In my home state of Indiana, there are 141 British companies doing business, including Rolls Royce and Smith Industries. These companies provide 36,000 Hoosiers with jobs. Furthermore, major Indiana companies such as Eli Lilly, Great Lakes Chemical, Biomet, and Lincoln National Corporation have substantial interests in Great Britain. In the past few years the United States negotiated or is negotiating FTAs with a number of countries. Yet, the United Kingdom is not one of those countries. Given the depth of our relationship and that exports could increase 11 percent to 16 percent, it seems natural for Americans to push for this FTA. Increasing trade will help workers in Indiana and throughout the United States. Furthermore, as the European Union continues to tighten its control over member states, the days when the United Kingdom is free to set its own trade policy and negotiate its own trade agreements may be numbered. A proposed EU constitution will potentially put more power in the hands of bureaucrats in Brussels rather than London. Also, given the recent anti-American sentiment running through much of continental Europe, it is highly probable that those in control of the EU will use the organization to stymie US economic interests. The United States must take this opportunity to protect its trade with Great Britain and to help Great Britain protect its right to trade with whomever it wants, however it wants. In an amendment offered by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky to its Fiscal Year 2004 budget resolution, the United States Senate expressed its support for an FTA with the United Kingdom (S. Con. Res. 23). It is time the House of Representatives expresses its support too.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I introduced into the Record several memos written by Democratic Congressional staff illustrating how deeply politicized the process of appointing new judges to the Federal bench has become. Today I am introducing two more such memos-- which were reported by the Wall Street Journal last week--which further reveal the damage that a handful of liberal special interest groups are inflicting on that process. The memos show how much influence is being wielded by left-wing fringe groups like the so-called People for the American Way and the Alliance for Justice, and extreme pro-abortion groups like the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). These groups apparently were called on to dig up dirt on President Bush's judicial nominees, and were allowed to dictate which nominees to oppose and when to schedule them. One nominee was only supported because another liberal special interest group, the trial lawyers' lobby, wanted to remove him from the trial bench to the appellate bench. Taken together, these memos show the unhealthy influence these groups are having on the federal judiciary--a judiciary that is supposed to serve all the American people, and not just a few special interests. Memorandum June 4, 2002. To: Senator Kennedy. Subject: Meeting with Groups on Judges--Wednesday, 11:50 a.m. As you know, the meeting with the groups to discuss the strategy on judicial nominations is scheduled for tomorrow at 11:50. Both Senator Schumer and Senator Durbin will be able to attend. The six principals who will attend are: (1) Wade Henderson, (2) Ralph Neas, (3) Leslie Proll of the NAACP LDF, (4) Nancy Zirkin, (5) Nan Aron, and (6) Kate Michelman. It turns out that neither Marcia nor Judy can make it tomorrow-- Marcia has a board meeting and Judy, a family emergency. We expect that the agenda will include a discussion of: (1) delaying a hearing for Dennis Shedd, a nominee to the Fourth Circuit, who Sen. Leahy would like to schedule on June 27th; (2) which circuit court nominees should be scheduled prior to adjournment; and, (3) our next big fight. schedule At present, there is only one noncontroversial circuit court nominee (with a complete file and blue slips) who has not already been scheduled for a hearing. This nominee is John Rogers (6th Circuit), who Senator Leahy will likely schedule for a hearing on June 13th. In addition, there have been two recent nominees to the 2nd Circuit and to the Ninth Circuit, whose records are now being researched, and who may prove to be noncontroversial. Senator Leahy would then like to schedule Dennis Shedd on June 27th, Judge Priscilla Owen after the July 4th recess, and Miguel Estrada in September. The groups should be encouraged to propose some specific nominees who can be moved forward before adjournment. Clearly, there are few nominees who are noncontroversial, but the groups should be pushed on whether they would agree on a hearing for some controversial nominees such as Steele, Tymkovich, or Michael McConnell (for whom Leahy has already promised a hearing), on the theory that these nominees are less problematic than others. Shedd Senator Leahy has told the groups that he would like to have a hearing on Dennis Shedd this month. Senator Hollings is supportive of Dennis Shedd's nomination and is, reportedly, pressuring Senator Leahy to move forward on a hearing. The groups have strong concerns about Shedd. He is quite bad on civil rights and federalism issues, and he has hundreds of unpublished opinions that have not yet been reviewed. The groups are opposed to having a hearing on him this month in part because they do not believe that they will be able to do an adequate review of his extensive record by June 27th, particularly given that they are gearing up to oppose Judge Owen. We believe that you should hear the groups' concerns regarding Shedd, but that you should strongly encourage the groups to work with South Carolina groups and individuals to apply pressure on Senator Hollings. We know that some of the groups, including LCCR and the NAACP will meet with Sen. Hollings on Thursday regarding Shedd, but more pressure will likely need to be applied because Sen. Hollings is quite committed to moving Shedd this month. Recommendation: Encourage groups to work with South Carolina groups to influence Sen. Hollings. Our Next Big Fight The current thinking from Senator Leahy is that Judge Owen will be our next big fight, after July 4th recess. We agree that she is the right choice--she has a bad record on labor, personal injury, and choice issues, and a broad range of national and local Texas groups are ready to oppose her. The groups seem to be in agreement with the decision to move Owen in July. Recommendation: Move Owen in July.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, why are we holding the poor hostage? Earlier this year, both the House and the Senate overwhelmingly passed legislation that would provide non-itemizers the ability to claim a tax deduction for charitable giving. Yet here we are nearing the end of this session, and have yet to see a conference committee take up the legislation. Instead we have seen a great deal of negative rhetoric designed not to help the poor of our nations, but to advance individual political goals. The money for social services needs to get into the hands of the men and women who are making the biggest impact on the lives of their communities. If we in Congress are to be good stewards of the public trust, we have to be certain that the money we dedicate for social services goes into the hands of the most effective organizations. To do otherwise would be a violation of the public's trust in us. What we are talking about with the Charitable Giving Act, however, is not a case where we as the Congress have to make a decision about where the money should go. This legislation allows individuals across the nation to make those decisions. Who better to identify a communities needs, and the organizations that are most effectively addressing those needs, than the men and women who live and work in that community? I believe that the best way we can help the faith-based and community organizations who need financial assistance is to encourage private sector philanthropy for all individuals who contribute to charitable organizations, not just for those who itemize their tax returns. Approximately two-thirds of tax returns filed do not claim itemized deductions; therefore those individuals are unable to deduct their charitable giving. The majority of non-itemizers are low- and middle- income taxpayers These are the very taxpayers who would benefit from the Charitable Giving Act, and these are the very people are our best indicator of the effectiveness of an organization. This legislation also has included a $150 million authorization for the Compassion Capital Fund. This authorization recognizes the unique contributions of smaller community and faith-based service organizations by making it possible for these organizations to obtain a grant that they can use to expand their impact on their neighborhoods. Many of our neighborhood service organizations do not possess the capacity to manage a million dollar grant. This does not mean that these smaller organizations are not effective. On the contrary, they may be the best organizations in town. Through the Compassion Capital Fund, intermediaries are able to issue smaller grants, and provide technical assistance that will allow more organizations the ability to increase their services to the poor. The Charitable Giving Act contains, in large part, what I believe are the most significant ways the Federal Government can lend its support to social service organizations across the country. The government can be helpful in alleviating some of the problems facing our communities today, but we will never have enough resources to help everyone. We need to team up with faith-based and community organizations of all types to ensure that no matter how serious a person's need, they will have someplace to go for help. That place could be the local government agency, it could be the local church, or a community center. Partisan debate, while very entertaining, will not ultimately help the poor and hurting. Passing this legislation will. We all need to work together for the greater good by dropping the rhetorical bickering and get this legislation to the President's desk.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 1651, introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich), provides for the exchange of lands within the Sierra National Forest, California, and for other purposes. The bill would exchange 160 acres of Forest Service property, of which only 15 acres is above water, for 80 acres of private land surrounded by National Forest. The landowner has agreed to pay the difference of $50,000 to the Forest Service to finalize the land transfer. After the completion of the exchange, the landowner will then convey the property to the Sequoia Council Boy Scouts, who have run a camp on the land through a special use permit for the last 30 years. This bill will benefit both the Forest Service and the Sequoia Council Boy Scouts. I urge adoption of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SOUDER. 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 in the bill under consideration.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), committee member and also another appropriator.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank all the sponsors of the bill that went into this historic omnibus. It is very important that we preserve the natural sites but also the tremendous history of our country, the oil, the National Aviation Heritage out of Dayton. Alexander Hamilton's home and business are still there in the Virgin Islands Heritage Area that we are looking at. This is an important bill. I hope it receives unanimous support.

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

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 280) to establish the National Aviation Heritage Area, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 280, as amended by the Committee on Resources, contains seven titles, a sort of national heritage area omnibus bill. Title I of the bill would establish the National Aviation Heritage Area across eight counties in Ohio consisting of historically significant sites, buildings and districts associated with the development of the aviation and aerospace industry in America. Title II would authorize a special resource study that would update the study required under section 104 of the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 1992 and detail alternatives for incorporating the Wright Company factory as a unit of the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park. Title III would establish the Steel Industry National Historic Park in southwestern Pennsylvania encompassing the United States Steel Homestead Works, site of the 1862 bloody Homestead Steel strike, the Carrie Furnace complex from the Homestead Works, and the famous Hot Metal Bridge. Title IV would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of the suitability and feasibility of establishing the St. Croix National Heritage Area in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. The fifth title would establish the Arabia Mountain National Heritage Area in the State of Georgia, highlighting the archaeological settlement of the Lithonia region and the unique granite outcroppings that characterize the region's topography. Title VI would establish the Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area in the State of Connecticut and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, preserving its national contributions in literature, art, music, architecture, iron and paper, and its electrical equipment industries. Finally, title VII of the bill would establish the Oil Region National Heritage Area in northwestern Pennsylvania, home of the first oil drilling site in North America. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 280, as amended, is supported by the majority and the minority of the committee. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California for this resolution. There are many great basketball coaches, Mr. Speaker; but John Wooden was certainly the greatest basketball coach of all time. His 88-game winning streak has never been matched. Notre Dame beat him at the beginning and the end, I have to point out, but it was nevertheless a tremendous winning streak. But given the debate here, you would think he was a Californian. In fact, I think it is the same John Wooden who was a Purdue All-American and who led them to the national championship. When he was at South Bend Washington High School, where he started out in coaching, he used to go to my father-in-law's Zimmer Food Shoppes for breakfast before he went over there, which is in South Bend, Indiana. And then he coached at Martinsville and a number of small colleges in Indiana. Much like Illinois trying to claim Lincoln, we say Indiana made Lincoln, Lincoln made Illinois; and so Indiana made Wooden, Wooden made UCLA.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. 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. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My bill, H.R. 1204, would reform the concessions process within the National Wildlife Refuge System. Under current law, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service structures such as restrooms, boat docks and other buildings have fallen into disrepair because the service does not have the resources necessary to adequately maintain its facilities. Over the past three Congresses, over 5 years, I have worked with the Fish and Wildlife Service, wildlife refuge managers, and outside groups to write a bill that helps the Fish and Wildlife Service to address this problem. H.R. 1204 is historic legislation that establishes a consistent facility maintenance policy for facilities that are leased by concessionaires in National Wildlife Refuge System areas. This bill would allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to credit a concessionaire for any fees they pay in the future. This money would be retained at the local refuge and used to build, maintain and repair structural problems, to restore habitat, and to protect refuge resources. Furthermore, in an effort to address the concerns of groups such as guides and outfitters that use wildlife refuges but do not maintain significant structures, I have added provisions to the bill that exempt these groups from the new policy. During the 107th Congress, this legislation passed the House by voice vote. There is no reason why it should not pass the House again in the same way. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), chairman of the full committee, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), chairman of the subcommittee, for again moving this bill forward. I also want to personally thank Lou Hinds, who, while he was wildlife refuge manager of the Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge on Sanibel Island, I visited with him and his kind encouraging me, helping me understand the problems, led to the drafting of this bill. Without his advice, we would not be at this historic point where we may finally have a concessions policy for the Fish and Wildlife Service. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I share the gentleman from New Jersey's concerns about the permitting process with guides and outfitters. I think we have reached a compromise that will enable this bill to move forward, but I do trust that the Fish and Wildlife Service will do further clarification and work with this process.

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

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1204) to amend the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 to establish requirements for the award of concessions in the National Wildlife Refuge System, to provide for maintenance and repair of properties located in the System by concessionaires authorized to use such properties, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. 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 bill under consideration.

Mr. SOUDER

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

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

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to close, as someone who comes from the heartland of the United States, I know many of my constituents and others say, ``We still have territories?'' And then, ``Why are we doing grants to these territories?'' As my friend, the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) has just pointed out, when you go through our Armed Services anywhere around the world, they are among the most active and volunteering for our militaries in these different territories, the bases that we have in these places, the beautiful natural resources, are very important to our survival as a country. They pay taxes. They support our Nation. This brings equity to them in the grant structure. And we can, in this time of international pressure, all of a sudden appreciate more American Samoa, Hawaii, Mariana Islands, Guam, are right out there where we need them to be. And we are very supportive of these territories. This bill goes a long way towards saying thank you. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.