Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I would just close by urging my colleagues to support this legislation. The House has under consideration the conference report (109-413) to the bill H.R. 889 to authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2006, to make technical corrections to various laws administered by the Coast Guard, and for other purposes.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the conference report on the bill (H.R. 889) to authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2006, to make technical corrections to various laws administered by the Coast Guard, and for other purposes.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I echo the words of Mr. LoBiondo. This Coast Guard that serves this great Nation of ours has done such an outstanding job over the years in my 34 years in Congress that I can only just applaud each time I see a Coast Guard vessel or a member of the Coast Guard or the flag that they carry. It is a unique privilege, being in a State that has probably the greatest challenge of all the States and probably the most involved with the Coast Guard. When I first arrived in Congress, we had one Coast Guard station, actually two, one in Juneau, which was a command station, and one in Ketchikan, which was relatively small. Since that time, over the last 34 years, we now have, I believe, the largest Coast Guard unit in the United States on Kodiak Island. They do a great job not only patrolling and watching for foreign interference of our fishing fleet, but saving my constituents. Many times they go out in weather, and I don't know how many of you watch the show of the most dangerous fishing, the ``Dangerous Catch,'' they call it, but there you will see the Coast Guard involved rescuing people in hundred mile winds, or knots, of seas of about 40 feet, 50 feet, sometimes. Even so bad that it took a helicopter down last year when they were trying to rescue people off a foreign ship that was carrying soybeans. But they do not only that, but they watch for oil spills which pollute our seas. They do it for the little fisherman going out in the small dinghy, in larger seas than he should have, to catch those big King salmon Alaska has that belongs to Alaska and doesn't belong to Washington State or Canada. And sometimes they get in trouble, and the Coast Guard is there. And the young men and women that enlist and stay voluntarily for years and years, I just compliment them. This bill is a good bill. As mentioned by Mr. LoBiondo, John Rayfield has done outstanding work. There were very tiring times, especially in conference, because we are dealing with a conference, and they are very difficult in this business we are in. Conferences with the other side are equally difficult but sometimes ridiculous in the sense of what we have to negotiate for. But we believe we have negotiated a good conference. Liz Megginson, my legal counsel, has done very well on this legislation. And for my colleagues, this is the end of 2006 as far as the authorization for the Coast Guard. As of today, we will be introducing a 2007 reauthorization bill; and we will be working on that, hopefully with expedited results, and getting the bill out of the House and to the Senate to decide and maybe having the finalization and being ahead of the ball game. That is what we are going to attempt to do to try to make sure that the Coast Guard gets the recognition, the organization, the authorization and be able to fulfill the mission that they have and will continue to have. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. At this time I yield whatever time he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 103) to correct the enrollment of the bill H.R. 889.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on Senate Concurrent Resolution 103.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Senate Concurrent Resolution 103 clarifies the intent of the conferees that the Coast Guard review and assess the impacts of any proposed offshore energy facility on the navigation safety in Nantucket Sound and on the service's capabilities to conduct missions within and near the proposed facility. The resolution will require the Coast Guard to establish terms and conditions that are necessary to safeguard recreational and commercial vessel traffic in Nantucket Sound before any draft environmental impact statement is made available for public review. The resolution also provides that these terms and conditions will be incorporated into the requirements of any lease that is granted for the construction of a proposed offshore facility. This provision will allow us to develop offshore alternative energy resources in a way that does not jeopardize the safety and security of the maritime community in Nantucket Sound. I urge my colleagues to support this concurrent resolution and to support the underlying resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, it is rare that I would speak on this issue. I do support this resolution, but more than that, I would like to remind people why we are here. There are not many in this room, but there are a few that remember 1939. I lived in that era and I listened to people speak about ``Hitler's really not a bad guy. He's just minding his own business. He's taking care of his people. We shouldn't be involved.'' Fifty-two million people later, we won World War II. We should have knocked him in the head when we had a chance instead of listening to Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of Britain. We should have aggressively pursued him as we did Saddam Hussein. In my heart of hearts, I believe that we would be, in fact, in a nuclear war if we had allowed him to continue his trek. But this President stood up and he was a leader and he stopped it. Now we have done that deed and we are in a place where we should continue and finish this job. Someone said this is not a cut and run, that we have been there 3\1/ 2\ years. But I ask you to ask your military people, ask those people out at Walter Reed, as I have. Most of them are proud of their service and their duty. And I salute each one of them, him or her, and the commanding officers who fulfilled their duty. If you believe in democracy and believe in peace, we must continue this trip that we started. We must finish it and make sure that democracy reigns in the Middle East. If we do not do so, we would a do a great disservice to our armed services and America as a whole. Remember, ``He's really not a bad guy. He's just minding his own business. It's his country.'' Fifty-two million people later, the war was ended. Our people, their people. And I do not want to have that happen again.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, there have been many items of unfinished business which flowed from the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, ANCSA, which was originally enacted on December 18, 1971. A number of these issues have been resolved over the years. Few of those unfinished items, however, stand out in my mind as much as the need to provide land selection rights to the members of the 13th Regional Corporation, which was formed by ANSCA primarily to represent Alaska Natives residing outside of Alaska at that time. Today, with the 13th Regional Corporation Land Entitlement Act, I address that objective. I am pleased to be joined in this sponsorship by my friend and colleague from Washington State, Congressman Norm Dicks. For me, both of us, this completes a significant goal of the original act. Let me give you the background of this issue and the story of the 13th Region. In 1971, after years of debate, Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, 43 U.S.C.S. 1601 et seq.--``the Settlement Act''--extinguishing claims by Native Alaskans based on aboriginal land rights. The act divided the State into 12 geographical ``regions'' which were to be composed as far as practicable of Natives having a common heritage and sharing common interests. In addition, nonresident Natives were given the option either to enroll in one of the 12 Regional Corporations established for each region or to elect, by majority vote, to form a separate 13th Regional Corporation to represent the interests of nonresident Alaskan Natives. Provision for the 13th was focused upon serving the interests of nonresident Alaska Natives while affording them their fair share of the settlement. Some nonresident Natives had been dislocated during and after World War II, others left their homes to serve in the Armed Forces, many left to attend high schools and colleges in other States, and still others, for economic reasons, migrated south in the hope of attaining employment. Information about the Settlement Act and its implications for nonresident Natives was difficult to obtain, spotty and inconsistent in character, and generally insufficient to enable individual nonresident Natives to make reasoned decisions. In this situation, a majority of nonresident Alaska Natives felt that their interests could best be protected by forming the nonresident 13th to better control and direct their own affairs. Ultimately approximately 4,500 Alaska Natives chose to enroll in the new 13th. Wherever they resided then, or now, however, they were and are Alaska Natives, and we honor them. In opting to join the 13 however, these nonresident Natives were deprived of the ability to fully participate in the settlement of their claims as that settlement was generally provide by the act. Let me be specific. Monetary payments under the Settlement Act were made through the Alaska Native Fund and distributed among all 13 Regional Corporations on a per capita basis, but land was distributed only among the 12 resident Regional Corporations and the Village Corporations within those regions. No additional money, however, was provided to the 13th to compensate for the absence of land. The Settlement Act also provided that the 12 Regional Corporations would share among themselves some of the revenues from all natural resource development occurring on the lands conveyed to them. The 13th did not receive this right. In sum, Alaska Natives enrolled in the 13th did not receive any land, and did not receive additional money in lieu of land, and did not get any right to participate in distributions from the pool of natural resource revenue funds in which the other Regional Corporations shared. The 13th, being comprised of nonresident Alaska Natives, was thus denied full participation in the settlement provided by the Settlement Act. While some will claim that this was their choice, it seems clear that it was an inadequately informed choice and resulted in depriving over 4,500 members of the 13th of two of the three major benefits of this act. This bill seeks to resolve at least the absence of an entitlement to land. Over the years, the effect of this inequity in the act has been to substantially disadvantage the shareholders of the 13th as they tried to build an economically successful corporation and to deny them the benefits of land ownership in Alaska. As an example, the 13th received its pro rata share of the monetary payments under the Act but was obligated to distribute 50 percent of those proceeds immediately to shareholders as they were received over a number of years. The remaining 50 percent provides the only capitalization for the small corporation with many scattered shareholders. Without a land base or resources to develop, the 13th did not have the economic base, nor the crucial development alternatives afforded other Regional Corporations. The corporation did not receive revenues from the development of resources, such as timber harvest which was accomplished in several regions, or a share of sec. 7(i) revenues, including petroleum revenues, which was a source of income for the 12 Regional Corporations. The 13th has survived but with some difficulty, and it is time to provide a fairer share of the settlement to them for their future. To correct the inequity caused by the Settlements Act's failure to equally compensate nonresident Natives for the extinguishment of their aboriginal land claims, the 13th Regional Corporation Land Entitlement Act will place the shareholders of the 13th on a better footing with shareholders of the other Alaska Native Regional Corporations at least as far as land is concerned. The proposal authorizes the 13th to select land from the excess lands previously withdrawn by the Secretary of the Department of the Interior on behalf of other Regional Corporations. The proposed legislation gives absolute priority to land selections by the State of Alaska and other Native Corporations--regional and village--and prohibits the selection of lands from within conservation system units--as defined in the Alaska National Interests Lands Conservation Act. The 13th may not select from the National Petroleum Reserve, the Tongass or Chugach National Forests and other sensitive areas. In other words, the 13th is at the very end of the line for its land selections. This is nonetheless far more equitable for the 13th than the present situation. In proposing this legislation, the shareholders of the 13th are seeking equity by being placed on a stronger and more equal footing with respect to the Native shareholders of the other 12 Native Regional Corporations. This is supported by the Alaska Native community. This proposal has been endorsed by the Alaska Federation of Natives, and by the Association of Regional Corporation Presidents, and it has been thoroughly considered by the Alaska delegation. My first term in Congress was the one immediately following the enactment of ANSCA in late 1971. I can tell you that neither the act nor its implementation focused much attention on the 13th. They were not fully represented, so Members of the Washington State delegation like the late Congressman Lloyd Meeds and Senator Henry Jackson took their side but were not able to accomplish land rights for the 13th, or a monetary settlement in its stead. Congressman Meeds believed throughout his life that this was a matter that required resolution. What the 13th will receive under the new bill is, with one major exception, the same per capita land right that all other regional corporations received, no more and no less. The number of acres is arrived at by taking the total number of acres conveyed to the other Regional Corporations pursuant to section 12(c) of ANSCA--15,769,600 acres--and after subtracting Sealaska's shareholders--Sealaska received a separate entitlement--and the shareholders of the 13th--which received no land--dividing this 15,769,600 acres by 60,026, the number of original Native shareholders enrolled to the other 11 Native Regional Corporations. On a per capita basis, the shareholders of the other 11 Regional Corporations received approximately 262.7 acres per original shareholder. This per capita number multiplied by the 4,426 original shareholders of the 13th results in the 1,162,710 acres. The bill gives absolute priority to land selections of other Native Corporations and the State of Alaska. Additionally, the bill prohibits the 13th from making selections within conservation system units, the Tongass and Chugach National Forests, the National Petroleum Reserve-- Alaska, and other potentially sensitive public lands. The major exception is that all other interests, from the State, to other Native corporations and the conservation community, were able to make their land selections, and win congressional approval, when the land eligible for selection was prime, high on the list of priorities. The 13th comes behind all other priorities, including State and Native selections, national conservation lands, and others. The intent is that the land of the 13th is likely to be selected in a cooperative process with other land owners and can be complimentary to those selections, by other regions or villages, the State or other public purposes. I believe this is not only fair but good policy as Alaska moves forward. It is simply time to resolve this long-standing inequity and to provide the 13th with the right to do what all other Native regions have done. I urge my colleagues to join with me in achieving this goal this year.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I again thank the gentleman for bringing this legislation to the floor. It is ironic, we listen to the gentleman from Massachusetts say that there has been no hearings. This is the 12th time we have passed this legislation concerning the needs of energy for this country. And by the way, for those listening to this program and those watching, Alaskans want to drill. Alaskans want to produce this oil for America. This is not our oil. We have never claimed that. Alaskans think it is necessary for this Nation. It is ironic, I heard the gentleman from Massachusetts mention the fact that it will not relieve the high gas prices for 10 years. 10 years ago he said the same thing. I have been trying to do this for 15 years, actually 25 years. Passed it 12 times. President Clinton, by the way, vetoed it. President Clinton vetoed the same piece of legislation. We would have had a million barrels a day now flowing to the American consumer. Your gas prices would not be $3.25 today. That would not have occurred. Ironically, it is on the other side, the other side where all those wisdom people live, on the other side there are a group of individuals of the other party that continue to block this source of fossil fuels to our consumers. Now, it might be, I am not sure it is, it might be they have a gas station in the Russell Building. For some reason, they do not want to produce any more gas. I am not sure that is real, but it could be. For some reason, they do not see the light. I keep hearing about people supporting alternate sources of energy. And I have been advocating that. I have talked about nuclear. We cannot have nuclear. I have talked about let's burn more coal. We cannot burn coal. I talk about let's build a dam. Let's control the water flow in some of our rivers as it roars into the sea, let's control it and use it because it is truly a renewable source. But they cannot do that either. All they ask us to do is conserve our way into prosperity. I will suggest to you respectfully that might happen if we did not have any more Americans. If we stopped our childbirth period, you might be able to conserve yourself into prosperity or into energy self-sufficiency. But as long as our population increases, we will consume more fossil fuel. Now, I have done a little reading on this and ironically, we have a tremendous amount of coal in this country that we do not need to use just for electrical power. We can use it for liquid fuels. Unfortunately, Adolph Hitler did that because he had to. South Africa did it because they had to. Maybe some day we will get to a point we will have to use our coal for liquification also; but in the meantime, the largest source of oil that we know of in America is in Prudhoe Bay and in ANWR. ANWR is 74 miles away from Prudhoe Bay. By the way, the gentleman from Massachusetts has never been to Prudhoe Bay. He was asked to go there to see this really pristine area which he speaks of. And by the way the people that live there want to drill. The Eskimos, the Inuits, want to drill there, but no, he didn't have the courtesy to go see when we had a hearing in Kaktovik because he knows all, and so do these Senators, they know all. But in the meantime, you are paying $3.55 for a gallon of gasoline. And yes, that is a lot. But unfortunately, it is going to be more because if we have another Katrina which we might have, God help us, or if there is a hiccup in Iran, or someplace else in the Middle East, or if we have Venezuela who decides not to ship us 1.5 million barrels, you are going to pay more, and yet we have the domestic supply here. Some would say we have to get off the fossil fuel habit. All right. Let's everybody buy a bicycle. Let's all buy a bicycle, and break our leg, and let's go back to being China. And by the way, who is the largest consumer of automobiles today? It is China, not us. China. They also, when somebody takes me to task, they say, well, they don't burn much fuel. They burn over 2.6 billion barrels of oil a year. Think about that a moment, and they are going to consume more. We are not the only buyers around the world. There are other buyers. We have to start developing our fossil fuels. We should be drilling offshore. Some people don't want that. We should be drilling in the Rockies; they don't want that. Most of all, we should be drilling in Alaska, and we want that. So if you don't want to drill in those other areas, if you don't want to burn coal, then at least recognize the valuable oil resource in Alaska. Let's pass this legislation. Let's get it to the public. Let's make sure they have a source of energy they need. Let's stop listening to the naysayers. Let's do the job today.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I am just curious, were you referring to yourself?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind people, this is an appropriations bill, and we can go through the process. I think the debate has been good. We have had some good presentations. It is just a matter of difference of opinion, and some day we will decide who is right, and when I become the correct one I hope you all recognize that. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind him, if you look at any of the studies that are taking place now, the polar bear pack is very healthy and, in fact, increasing. Keep that in mind. Read something that really has some merit to it. Do not just read the fear tactic. This is science from the Fish and Wildlife people. Read that. They will tell you we are increasing the numbers, not decreasing. Where you got this idea, I have no idea. Because someone told you that.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for the gentleman who just spoke. My interest is in fact legislation on appropriation bills. And I do believe we have the opportunity to in fact have good hearings on this issue, because there is a difference of opinion. Do me a favor, my friends, and go back and read 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975. You were here, Mr. Obey. I believe you were. I was. Maybe you weren't.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. We call that the Ice Age. Every scientist of any renown said we were faced with an ice age. It was irreversible. We were going to be faced with famines. The world was coming to an end. And we had to do something about it immediately. We had to do something about it as the Congress. Check the records. That is the reality. What concerns me the most is the possibility of a fear tactic being implemented in the warming threat. Let's have a good study. Let's have a debate and division of what is occurring by scientists. Let's look at the model. Yes, the Earth is warming, in some areas. I just read a report, in fact, that Greenland is cooling. The thing I think strikes me the most is if you will take the time to study the globe, the world as we know it, and look at what has occurred in the past and possibly will occur in the future, we are now pumping 1 million barrels a day from Prudhoe Bay. Prudhoe Bay, the most northern part of this continent, we are pumping that oil. Now, I ask you, my friends, if you studied science, where does oil come from? What occurred on this globe at that time to allow mastodons, ferns, tree stumps, a tropical atmosphere to be there to create that oil? And that is the reality. I ask you, secondly, if you go back to the Ice Age, and we have had four ice ages, three majors and one minor, if you go to New Mexico 12 million years ago, there was 287 feet of ice in New Mexico. I won't ask you what created that ice. But I will ask each and every one of you and everybody watching and everybody talking this fear tactic what melted that ice all the way to the North Pole before mankind set foot on this continent. It certainly wasn't hair spray or freon or automobile emissions. It melted, 287 foot of ice, before we set foot. I am a little bit concerned when everything that is wrong is our fault, that the human factor creates all the damages on this globe. That is pure nonsense. That is nonsense. And so I am asking you, let's have the hearings, let's have the scientists, let's have some debate about really what is occurring here instead of having hysteria and saying it is all our fault. And, by the way, it is always the fault of the Americans. It is never the fault of the bigger countries that burn as many barrels of oil as we are doing today, not per capita but as many barrels of oil, and burn the coal as we are trying to do. It is never their fault. It is our fault. So let's have a sound debate about this issue and not be caught in this attitude that we must do something right now because we are the Federal Government. Let's do it the right way. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. I thank the gentleman, again, for his presentation. I am glad he gave us an additional 2 years because the way I record it we have been in power for 12 years, not 14 years. I would gladly take two more. Maybe that is an omen of this next election, but I am just saying we have actually been going on 12 years. Lastly, let us say this is not about the action itself. It is about legislating on appropriation, but I do, and ask you sincerely, I do not have jurisdiction with that committee. Thank God, I do not really run the White House, but I think we have to legitimately and not respond to the fear tactic. Read the book, Controlled By Fear. It is very interesting you can frighten people into doing most anything, including taking away the economy and the opportunity for future generations, easily done. That is what I do not want us to fall into. If we are the driving factor, I am willing to accept that responsibility and do something of it, but again, go back to the history of this globe and what has occurred. It is ironic when I go into many of these States and I see seashells at 11,000 feet, seashells. This continent was covered with water at one time, retreated and allowed humanity to grow. Now, keep that in mind. Do not keep getting caught in the idea that everything that is here now is permanent. The Earth is a natural, evolving phenomenon. That is all I am asking people to do. It is not to be caught into the fear and driving and say it is all our fault what is occurring. If that is the case through such studies, then let us accept that, but right now it has not been proven. There is a large division that says this is not happening because of humanity. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order that the language contained in section 425 beginning with ``the Congress finds that,'' on page 125, line 3, through ``contributors of global emissions'' on page 125, line 25, violates clause 2 of rule XXI of the rules of the House representing prohibited legislation in appropriation bills. The language that I have cited contains congressional findings and a sense of Congress on global warming. This language clearly constitutes legislation in appropriations bill, and such violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I will not reconsider. The language clearly constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill, and you know I do not like legislation on appropriations bills, period. I have been up here before, and I will be up here again every time on legislation on appropriations bills.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. That $48 million went to the Forest Service. It didn't go to my 300 civilians. It went to the Forest Service. That is what people must understand. You are creating jobs for the Federal Government.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, it is no surprise, of course, that I am adamantly opposed to this sneaky amendment offered by two people that don't know what they are talking about, have never known what they are talking about, deal not with what they are talking about, and will never know what they are talking about. The Alaskan rainforest, as you gentlemen recognize, is as big as Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island combined, including New Jersey. I am sure you will be happy to know that we have 19 designated sites of wilderness in that area, a national monument that takes up 35 percent of the forest. Seventy-eight percent of the Tongass is slated for roadless areas already. All I am saying is what this is attempting to do is put the last remaining small group of Alaskans out of work. Ironically, the two gentlemen that are offering this amendment are crying about outsourcing: My God, we are losing jobs. They are going overseas. But here we are in Congress taking away the jobs of my Alaskan constituents. That is the thing that probably disturbs me the most about this, is we had a forest of 21 million acres, 21 million acres. And we were told in this body in 1980 that we will only lock up all of it but 2 million acres and you will have those acres to actually retain a timber industry and have your people work. And now we are down to 1,000 acres, and you want to take that away. And you say we don't need the roads. That is not what the Forest Service says. They say we need these roads if we are going to harvest the timber. They will put up the sales. Who is going to bid it, if they can't get the timber? That is true. Anybody that debates that, you better understand it, because what is happening here is you are trying to put the last remaining, the last remaining few Alaskans that are trying to make a very meager living, 300 people, 300 jobs, take it away from them for the environmentalists. It has nothing to do with taxes. By the way, I hope you understand, my good friends that are offering this amendment, I was precluded from offering an amendment to the amendment today because of the unanimous consent; but if this amendment is adopted, I will offer the same amendment to the forests in Ohio, which loses money every year, a large sum; to New Jersey, if you have national forests; and to the areas in New Hampshire. Every area, every person that votes for this amendment, there will be an amendment next year on this bill to do the exact same thing. Because if we are going to be true to ourselves, if you are talking about fiscal responsibility, then you will step up to the plate and take your forests and make sure they are under the same category. Unless you are saying, All right, it is just Alaska. He is way away. It is just his district. On a personal note, none of you in this body has ever seen me address anybody's one district, because I believe in the representative form of government. Representative form of government. If it is your district and it is what you want and in your district. I will support that. If you don't want it, I will support that. But to have two Members of this House, and, yes, it is bipartisan, and I shall not forget that, to come and attack a single Member and his total district, to take away the jobs of his people, I say is wrong. And each one of you think about this in this room: this should be representative form of government, and what you are doing is dead wrong, and I shall not forget it.