[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 125 (Friday, September 29, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H7972-H7976]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 5122, JOHN
WARNER NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 1062 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1062
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 5122) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2007 for military activities of the department of Defense,
for military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel
strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. All
points of order against the conference report and against its
consideration are waived. The conference report shall be
considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
attach tabular and extraneous material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, today, the Rules Committee met and
reported a special rule for consideration of H.R. 5122, the fiscal year
2007 National Defense Authorization Act. The rule waives all points of
order against the conference report and against its consideration and
provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for H.R. 5122 and the
underlying legislation. Today, we are at a critical juncture. The
conference report for the fiscal year 2007 National Defense
Authorization Act is before us. This legislative companion to the
fiscal year 2007 defense appropriations bill authorizes and provides
critical legislative language for full implementation of our defense
policies.
Let us be clear: This is an excellent piece of legislation, a good
bipartisan package that represents the best work of the House Armed
Services Committee. Recognizing that, I would like to personally thank
both the gentleman from California, Chairman Hunter, and the gentleman
from Missouri, Ranking Member Skelton, for delivering a package that I
am sure almost all of us can support.
Mr. Speaker, having served on the House Armed Services Committee and
currently being a member on leave of absence from that committee, I
know how closely the members of that committee work together to achieve
a bill that is bipartisan, that is good for our servicemen and women
and that is good for increasing the security of our country.
Mr. Speaker, this year, the Armed Services Committee produced a bill
that contains several major legislative initiatives and funding
impacts. Among them are an additional $70 billion in supplemental
bridge funding to support the war on terror's operations costs;
personnel expenses and procurement of new equipment; additional funding
for force protection needs in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and
Operation Iraqi Freedom, including up-armored Humvees, Humvee IED
protection kits and gunner protection kits, IED jammers and state-of-
the-art body armor; a 2.2 percent pay raise for all members of our
Armed Forces; and an increase of 30,000 personnel for the Army and
5,000 personnel for the Marine Corps to help them sustain their
required missions.
{time} 1600
The bill blocks the Department of Defense proposed TRICARE Prime,
Standard, and Select Reserve fee increases. The bill authorizes grants
and loan guarantees to U.S. shipyards to approve their efficiency, cost
effectiveness, and international competitiveness. The bill fully funds
the immediate Army and Marine Corps shortfalls for replenishing
supplies and replacing equipment in the amount of $17.1 billion for the
Army and $5.7 billion for the Marines.
Mr. Speaker, more importantly this legislation directly supports our
servicemen and -women in the field and on deployment. Operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan are dependent on us passing this legislation that
contains so many changes in legislative language.
Mr. Speaker, a bumper sticker we often read says: ``I support our
troops.'' Today we have that opportunity and responsibility. We could
support our troops and improve the security of our Nation in a way that
other Americans cannot. We can offer our vote in support of this
legislation as 60 of 61 members of the House Armed Services Committee
did when they initially passed the bill.
This is not a controversial proposition. This is something we should
be proud to do, regardless of our perspectives and different positions
on the war in Iraq. All of us are proud of our troops. All of us are
committed to them and commend them for their courage and their
professionalism, and all of us will do everything we can to increase
their safety and effectiveness.
Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not also note that the Afghan
and the Iraqi people also deserve to be commended for their efforts in
our common struggle. During this war, the citizens of both these
countries have held elections, written constitutions, and formed
permanent governments. Afghan and Iraqi citizens are watching what we
do here today. They require and request our continued support as they
move forward in their efforts to build new and better countries. The
passage of this rule and underlying legislation is an important sign
that this country and Congress will keep its commitments. Afghanistan
and Iraq are striving to create a future of hope and promise. We can
play an important role in helping them do that here today.
Mr. Speaker, many may wish to raise policy issues in this debate.
Some may want to discuss issues that, however important, are
superfluous to providing for the needs of our men and women in uniform.
And I welcome that exchange, if indeed it occurs.
Mr. Speaker, I believe we should focus on what should count. We have
committed hundreds of thousands of our service men and -women to fight
terrorism and advance the cause of
[[Page H7973]]
freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan. We owe them our full support in the
battles they wage on behalf of the American people and the cause of
liberty. This rule and the underlying bill represent the efforts of
Congress to keep that solemn commitment to the sons and daughters of
America. Mr. Speaker, to that end, I urge support for the rule and the
underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I
might consume.
(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, the rule before us makes in order a
conference report for the fiscal year 2007 defense authorization bill.
The underlying agreement has been a long time in the making, and I am
happy to report that it is a clean agreement. I applaud the conferees
for refraining from adding extraneous provisions. This bill is about
our troops, and I appreciate the Members preserving that focus.
I am not unsympathetic to the desire of many Members in this Chamber
to do more before we adjourn. As my colleagues and I have been urging
all week, Congress should not leave town without allowing for floor
debate on the American people's priorities. These include fully
implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations, allowing a clean vote
to increase the minimum wage, and restoring the massive cuts in student
financial aid passed by this Congress earlier this year. Despite being
the waning hours of this Congress, there is still time to conduct the
business of the American people. There is certainly time for debate and
a vote on these other urgent priorities.
But to return to the rule we now debate, it allows for consideration
of a bill of our national defense and it is a good agreement.
When H.R. 5122 was first considered by the House, I discussed that
this bill serves two critical roles: first, as a planning blueprint in
order to ensure that our military has the resources and tools to meet
any threat from abroad; and, second, to provide for the men and women
on the front line of our Nation's defense.
I am happy to report that the conferees kept both of these goals in
mind in crafting this responsible agreement. It goes far in the support
of the most professional and dedicated military in the world.
The agreement does not permit increases in the military's TRICARE
prescription drug program, as the House version of this bill would have
done. That is a very good thing. Our men and women in uniform should
not pay more to access their benefits, particularly in a time of war.
Additionally, the agreement also maintains a critical role of our
military chaplains and what they play in the spiritual lives and health
of our troops. In a time of war, we cannot afford to change the rules
in ways which may degrade readiness and unit cohesion.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that conferees preserve the wisdom
in the underlying bill, which preserved the troop strength of our
National Guard. The tragedy of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the annual
wildfires in my home State of California and other parts of the West,
as well as many members of the Guard called to duty in Iraq,
demonstrate the numerous demands placed on the Guard and the important
role they play.
For all that we ask of them, these individuals, be they members of
the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Reserves, or National Guard,
ask very little of us in return. What they ask is that we provide the
equipment they need to get the job done, provide for them, provide for
their family. And the agreement we have before us today would do that.
I thank the conferees for their efforts to craft this compromise.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield such time as
he may care to consume to the distinguished chairman of the Rules
Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), who does so much
to make sure that we operate in an orderly and expeditious fashion in
this Congress.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and
the conference report. I want to begin by congratulating Mr. Cole and
Ms. Matsui for their management of this rule and to say that this is a
great example of bipartisanship.
Our friends Duncan Hunter and Ike Skelton have worked very closely on
this bill, which is, if I recall, $562.8 billion. It includes that $70
billion bridge fund, a 2.2 percent increase which is part of a 40
percent increase over the past 8 years that has been provided for our
men and women in uniform. It is a very important thing as we continue
to fight this ongoing struggle against terrorism that we are dealing
with all over the world.
Only the United States of America can provide the kind of leadership
that is being provided today. And, Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is
absolutely essential that this Department of Defense authorization bill
continue to set the example of bipartisanship in our quest to win that
war against terrorism.
The reason that I wanted to take a few minutes here, Mr. Speaker, is
that I wanted to underscore the fact that our reforms are working.
Now, why would I be talking about the issue of reform as we bring up
the Department of Defense conference report's rule? It is the fact that
this is the first time in a conference report that we have actually had
a required listing of the so-called earmarks, items that were not
included in either the House-passed authorization bill or the Senate-
passed authorization bill. We use this term ``air dropped.''
There are five particular provisions, Mr. Speaker, that have been
listed. This list is now made available, and the American people, our
colleagues and the American people through the media, and obviously
this is online, can see exactly what items were provided. And it
enjoyed bipartisan support this reform. We had Democrats, whom I am
happy to say joined with us in our quest to reform. Very few, but we
had some Democrats joined with us in our quest to ensure that we could
have greater transparency, disclosure, and accountability so that the
American people will be able to see on these very important items that
relate to our Nation's defense capability. They now don't have those
hidden; they are in fact open for everyone to see, and that is a reform
led by Speaker Hastert that we have been able to implement. And I want
to thank Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader Boehner for, as we were
going into the August break, making a commitment.
The three of us introduced the legislation that called for this rule
change, and we were able to implement it expeditiously; and it is now
in effect, and this conference report is the first time that we have
seen it.
So I just want to join in extending congratulations again to Messrs.
Hunter and Skelton and all of those who have been involved in this
process and to say that we look forward to the passage of this rule, of
course, and passage of the legislation.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and to the
underlying bill. And I do so because of a ridiculous earmark, despite
what the Rules Chairman has just stated, which was added by Chairman
Hunter in order to keep the public out of a national park, which
happens to be in my district, the Channel Islands National Park.
This provision monkeys around with a court settlement to end a
lucrative privately run trophy hunting operation on Santa Rosa Island.
The owners of the elk and deer herds, the Vail family, were already
paid $30 million by taxpayers when they deeded over the island back in
1986. They were supposed to end this hunting operation in 2011. A
trophy hunt, which, by the way, costs hunters up to $17,000 per
weekend, shuts the island to park visitors for 5 months out of each
year. Mr. Hunter is seeking to allow private hunting in the park to go
on indefinitely, and this will result in more lawsuits.
One might wonder why this provision is in a bill which deals with
supporting
[[Page H7974]]
our troops. The proposals and reasons behind it have evolved over time.
At one point it was to establish a hunting preserve for the military's
top brass and their guests. When that didn't fly, it was quickly
changed to making Santa Rosa a place for disabled vets to hunt. But
when the paralyzed veterans of America actually went to the island,
they told Chairman Hunter, and I quote, ``the Santa Rosa initiatives is
not viable.''
Then the provision morphed into saving the animals from extinction.
That is right. The intention is that we are going to save the animals,
though they continue to be hunted indefinitely and on the island. This
provision is opposed by the Park Service, the PVA, the Humane Society,
and many public lands groups. Even the U.S. Senate unanimously passed a
resolution against this proposal.
So why is it in the bill? Who knows. What we do know is that
taxpayers who paid $30 million for the island are now being told by our
chairman they can't visit it for nearly half the year. This is an
insult to our constituents, to all taxpayers. It is also an insult to
our troops whose service to this country is being used as a cover for
this special interest boondoggle.
Now, I know the underlying bill will pass by a wide margin, and I
understand that. I also know that this House has never endorsed this
proposal. And given the opportunity for an up-or-down vote, I am sure
they would agree with me. And so this is yet another sad day for
taxpayers, for our national parks, and for this House.
PVA,
July 26, 2006.
Hon. Vic Snyder,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Snyder: On behalf of the Paralyzed
Veterans of America (PVA), I am responding to your inquiry
regarding efforts to provide hunting opportunities for
paralyzed and disabled veterans on Santa Rosa Island. While
PVA applauds the efforts by Chairman Duncan Hunter to open
hunting and outdoor venues for our members, other disabled
veterans and current service members we have come to the
conclusion that the Santa Rosa Island initiative is not
viable. PVA has sent one of our members to the island and we
have explored possible solutions to the challenges posed by
the site; however, it is our opinion that the numerous
obstacles inherent to the island, including ingress and
egress, logistics, personal safety and cost, far outweigh the
possible, limited benefit it could provide.
It is our hope that the concept of expanded hunting and
outdoor opportunities on federal facilities for our members,
other disabled veterans and service personnel will continue
to receive the attention of Congress. Chairman Hunter's
efforts should serve as a starting point for future
initiatives to provide accessible venues for both veterans
and active duty personnel. We would be happy to work with you
and other members to explore alternatives to this issue and
identify other opportunities across the country that may
afford veterans expanded options.
Sincerely,
Douglas K. Vollmer,
Associate Executive Director
for Government Relations.
____
Department of the Interior,
Office of the Secretary,
Washington, DC, July 21, 2006.
Hon. Duncan Hunter,
Chairman, Armed Services Committee,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Department of the Interior would
like the opportunity to provide its views on section 1036(c)
of H.R. 5122, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2007, as approved by the House of
Representatives.
We recommend deletion of section 1036(c) in order to ensure
that the National Park Service is able to continue its
progress toward the recovery of native species and providing
year-round access for other recreational activities on Santa
Rosa Island.
Section 1036(c) states that ``[t]he Secretary of the
Interior shall immediately cease the plan, approved in the
settlement agreement for case number 96-7412 WJR and case
number 97-4098 WJR, to exterminate the deer and elk on Santa
Rosa Island, Channel Islands, California, by helicopter and
shall not exterminate or nearly exterminate the deer and
elk.''
We believe section 1036(c) is intended to overturn this
settlement agreement that prescribes a phase-out of the
privately-owned deer and elk from Santa Rosa Island,
culminating in their complete removal by the owners by
December 31, 2011. The National Park Service is party to that
settlement agreement and stands by its terms. Fulfillment of
the agreement is necessary to accomplish the purposes for
which the National Park Service acquired Santa Rosa Island.
The National Park Service purchased Santa Rosa Island for
$30 million in taxpayer funds in 1986 after Congress included
the 54,000-acre island as part of Channel Islands National
Park in 1980. The purpose of this acquisition was to restore
the native ecology of the island and open it to the public
for hiking, camping, sightseeing, and other recreational
activities. Although hunting is usually not allowed in
National Parks, a private hunting operation for deer and elk
was permitted to continue under a special use permit at the
request of the owner, who had retained a 25-year reservation
of use and occupancy (through 2011) in 7.6 acres on the
island. Subsequently, the settlement agreement provided for
the phased elimination of the deer and elk population.
Elimination of the nonnative deer and elk is needed to
allow native plant and animal species, including some that
are endangered and threatened, to flourish on the island.
Also, more visitors will be able to enjoy the island after
the closure of the deer and elk hunting operations that
currently close about 90 percent of the island to National
Park Service visitors engaged in other recreational
activities for 4 to 5 months every year.
Section 1036(c) also raises several other issues. It gives
direction to the Secretary of the Interior with respect to
the settlement agreement, yet the Secretary is not
responsible for removing the deer and elk from the island--
the former owner of the island, who retains ownership of the
deer and elk, is responsible for their removal. Furthermore,
1036(c) suggests that the National Park Service has an
approved plan to exterminate the deer and elk by helicopter,
yet no such plan exists. In fact, as already noted, the deer
and elk are the property of the former owner of the island
and, under the terms of the settlement agreement, must be
removed by them. Only if the deer and elk become
extraordinarily difficult to remove would the National Park
Service share the cost of removing the animals, which could
include the use of helicopters.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide these
comments. The Office of Management and Budget has advised
that it has no objection to this letter from the standpoint
of the Administration's program.
Sincerely,
Acting Assistant Secretary,
Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
____
The Humane Society,
August 7, 2006.
Hon. John Warner,
Chairman, Armed Services Committee,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Carl Levin,
Ranking Member, Armed Services Committee,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Warner & Senator Levin: On behalf of the more
than 9.5 million members and constituents of The Humane
Society of the United States (HSUS), the nation's largest
animal protection organization, I urge you to reject efforts
by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter to
establish a hunting reserve on Santa Rosa Island in
California.
The HSUS urges you to follow the guidance provided by S.
Res. 468, the Senate resolution that deemed that the Channel
Islands should be managed in a manner consistent with the
mission of the National Park Service. This would preclude
establishing a hunting operation on the Channel Islands, as
advocated by Chairman Hunter.
Chairman Hunter's proposal to keep Santa Rosa Island open
to guided trophy hunts of deer and elk under the guise of a
benefit to disabled veterans is not only inhumane and
unsporting, but is also opposed by the Paralyzed Veterans of
America and the local community. It is also opposed by
Representative Lois Capps, whose district includes the
Channel Islands. Trophy hunting on this island is not viable
for disabled veterans, and is not consistent with the wishes
or the mandate of the National Park Service.
Although a large island, the deer and elk managed for
trophy shooting have no opportunity to escape their pursuers.
It is effectively a ``canned'' hunt. Conservation groups,
hunters and animal protection organizations have openly
agreed in their opposition to canned hunts. Canned hunts are
commercial enterprises conducted under circumstances that
generally guarantee a kill. Canned hunts can all be
identified by the two traits they have in common: (1) they
charge their clients a fee to kill an animal; and (2) they
violate the generally accepted standards of the hunting
community, which are based on the concept of fair chase, by
eliminating escape possibilities. Our national park land
should be safe havens for animals, not privileged playgrounds
for a small group of trophy hunters.
We hope you will omit Rep. Hunter's language to establish a
canned hunting operation on a unit of the National Park
Service in the final version of the FY07 National Defense
Authorization Act.
Sincerely,
Wayne Pacelle,
President & CEO.
____
National Parks
Conservation Association,
Washington, DC, September 8, 2006.
Hon. John W. Warner,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the 327,000 members of the
National Parks Conservation Association, I am writing to
express our strong opposition to Section 1036(c) of the
House-passed National Defense Authorization Act, which
attempts to nullify a court-approved settlement agreement in
a lawsuit regarding the management of the
[[Page H7975]]
Channel Islands National Park. I urge you not to include this
harmful provision in the conference report on the DOD bill.
Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement in this
proceeding (NPCA v. Kennedy. Civil Action Number 96-7412 WJR)
non-native deer and elk are to be removed from the Park's
Santa Rosa Island, and the lucrative private hunting
operations on the island, which undermine restoration efforts
and limit public access to the park, are ended by the year
2011. The onerous language in the House bill attempts to
alter that agreement by forestalling removal of the animals.
The ostensible purpose of the language is to create a
hunting preserve for among others, disabled veterans, but the
Paralyzed Veterans Association has stated unequivocally that
Santa Rosa Island is not suitable for that purpose because of
its rugged terrain, accessibility, and cost. This altogether
worthy idea is in fact addressed in another section of the
bill [Section 1036(a)(b)] which would provide increased
hunting and fishing opportunities for disabled veterans and
other armed service personnel at many existing, suitable DOD
owned locations throughout the country.
On August 6th of this year, the Senate passed S. Res. 488,
supporting the continued administration of the Channel
Islands National Park, including Santa Rosa Island, in
accordance with the laws, regulations, and policies of the
National Park Service. The Congressional mandated purpose of
the park is, ``to protect and interpret the internationally
significant natural, scenic, wildlife, marine, ecological,
historic, archeological, cultural and scientific values of
the Channel Islands.'' The Senate is, therefore, clearly on
record in strong support of restoring, managing, and
providing public access to all the Channel Islands as
required by the terms of the court directed Settlement
Agreement.
The National Park Service is strongly opposed to this
provision, the Department of the Interior has recommended
deleting the provision from the bill, and the Department of
Defense has never requested it. This unrelated and non-
jurisdictional controversy has no place in an important
defense authorization bill. If Section 1036(c) is enacted, as
a party to the court's Settlement Agreement, we will have no
choice but to pursue every legal means available to preserve
the settlement's integrity. I hope that will not be necessary
and that you will drop this ill-conceived, unwarranted and
damaging provision from the final Defense Bill.
Sincerely,
Thomas C. Kiernan,
President, National Parks
Conservation Association.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may care
to consume to the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services
Committee, Mr. Hunter, from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And the
only reason I am rising is to set straight the record which, sadly, has
been not accurate that has just been laid out by my colleague, the
gentlewoman from California.
I was taking a bunch of marines who were up hunting up in northern
California down the California coastline, and one of them brought up
the point that Santa Rosa Island off the coast, which is owned by a
private company and which has deer and elk on it, was going to see
those deer and elk exterminated, and wouldn't it be a great place for
our wounded people returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than
exterminating these animals with helicopters in the end, which is in
the court order, to allow our people who like to pursue hunting in the
Armed Forces who have been wounded to have a place to go and have a
great time with their families.
{time} 1615
Taking that under advisement, I put a provision in to allow that to
happen. I have never put in a provision that was intended to have the
Navy brass or VIPs or Army brass or Marine Corps brass out there
hunting. This is for wounded people, and right now it is operated by a
private company.
The ranching family, whom I have never met, I will tell the
gentlewoman I have never met them. I have never had discussions with
them, except one of them called up and asked me to tell the Park
Service that I have never met him because my name was an anathematism.
We say simply, listen, the island is going to be turned over by the
private family to the Park Service in 2011. The court orders that all
the animals be wiped out, be exterminated, be killed; the entire herd
be killed. All we say is, don't exterminate the animals. Don't shoot
them from helicopters, as the court order now directs. Let the herd
stay and let us let our disabled veterans hunt.
Now we had the Paralyzed Veterans go over and check out the island.
They wrote a letter back saying this is not their cup of tea. It is
pretty rough terrain. It is hard to get over to the island. That is why
almost nobody from the public comes over. The number of people who
visit this 50,000-acre island per day, it is extremely small. There are
almost more Park Service people on the island than there are members of
the public. And this would only be for a short time during the year.
All we are asking is that they don't shoot the animals, don't
exterminate them, and they let the disabled veterans hunt.
Now after the Paralyzed Veterans said this is not our cup of tea,
because of the spartan circumstances over there, it is going to be
tough for people with spinal cord injuries to really enjoy this island,
so the Wound Warriors went over.
That is a great organization that takes wounded GIs and Marines and
Navy and Air Force personnel, takes them skiing, takes them on outdoor
outings and shows them a good time. They went to the island, and the
report I got back, and I will give the letter to the gentlewoman, said
they really enjoyed it. They really liked it, and they would like to
have this opportunity. All we say is, don't exterminate the herd. That
is the real import of this bill.
What I would like to see is a situation in which those people, only
those people, only disabled American veterans get to hunt there.
Because it is a wonderful outing. They can take their families. Their
families can visit the seashore. They can take pictures. They can have
a wonderful outdoor time while these people who gave so much to our
country have a special place to go.
They don't have to pay any money because this will be when it is
turned over to the government by the ranch family. All we are saying to
the ranch family is, when you turn it over, don't exterminate the deer
and elk. Leave them for the veterans. That is all they have to do.
Inaction is what we are asking for.
I would tell the gentlewoman she has my word I will never hunt on
that island. The only thing I will do is help the wounded veterans get
over and help them in any way to have a good time. I think this is
absolutely appropriate. It is not going to push a single member of the
public off that island. Almost nobody goes to it right now because it
takes a boat ride or plane ride to get to that island. This will bring
happiness to many, many military families. I think it is appropriate
that we do this.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the time when maybe the gentlewoman
and I could go over with some of our wounded guys and watch them having
a good time over there and agree that this is a good thing.
I thank the gentleman for letting me speak.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps) to respond.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, just in response, because I am happy to
accompany the chairman any time he wishes to go to the island. I have
been there. There have been many thousands of visitors this year. Yes,
it is a rugged place. That is one of the appeals of it. Much of the
natural resource that is there, cultural and animal and flora, that
have been destroyed in part by first the cattle, now the cattle are
gone, and by the deer and elk, it is a prized area for archaeologists
and others to understand the history of the geography of our country.
That is one of the reasons to remove the elk.
Extermination has been ameliorated by the Park Service's interest,
and an invitation has already been extended to offer support to the
family in removing without injuring the animals at the appropriate time
after the settlement has been arranged.
It is also the case that the park superintendent is looking forward
to an opportunity to make this island more accessible to those with
disabilities. Veterans are not excluded from the island, nor would they
ever be.
Also, hunting has been especially provided for our veterans on all
kinds of public lands, including many military bases, as I am sure the
chairman already knows. That is why the Paralyzed Veterans said there
are many other places we can hunt, and now they would be extended an
opportunity with special accommodations to visit the island like the
rest of the public has.
There have been many attempts on the part of the Park Service, and
this
[[Page H7976]]
will continue, to reach out to people with special needs to make
available the wonderful resources on the island.
I am happy to take the chairman up on his invitation to visit the
island.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. That island is over 50 square miles. Can the gentlewoman
tell me how many people from the public visit the island per day on a
given day?
I yield to the gentlewoman.
Mrs. CAPPS. I don't have those numbers, but I can certainly make them
available to you. Even with it being off limits to the public 5 months
of the year, it is either 5,000 or 8,000 visitors that were out there
last year. Part of the attraction of the island is its remoteness and
the fact that it is set apart.
Mr. HUNTER. Reclaiming my time, if there are 5,000 people per year,
that means roughly 20 people per day on that entire island. That's
5,000 people. With 365 days a year, 10 people a day, so 3,000 people
and if you double that, 20 people a day for 50-square miles. That means
there is one visitor from the public per 2 square miles on that island
per day.
Now we have many, many places in America where we have mixed use,
where you have hunters and fishermen and members of the public. These
disabled veterans, they are not going to push anybody off the island.
If you compare that to our other parks like Yosemite, with thousands of
peole coming per day, 10 or 20 people per day on a 50-square mile is no
density whatsoever.
In fact, I bet you that the park employees, the U.S. Government
employees, on many days outnumber, because there are more than 20 of
them at any time on the island, I bet you they outnumber the number of
visitors.
I will tell the gentlewoman, because you have to take a boat trip or
an airplane to get to that park, you will never have the type of
visitors you get in parks where people can drive up. So that makes it
perfect for these wounded people, these great American veterans, to
come on over and have a great outdoor experience.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the rule before us makes in order a balanced agreement
on the fiscal year 2007 Defense authorization bill. I urge all Members
to support its adoption.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Today, in closing, I want to reiterate the importance of passing this
rule. This rule allows us to move forward and pass necessary
legislation and do the business of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I particularly again want to thank the distinguished
chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter), and also the ranking member, the distinguished
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). They have worked together on
this legislation and presented us with a truly model bill and one I
think they adjusted during the legislative process to meet the needs of
American men and women who are serving under very difficult
circumstances to protect this country.
I particularly appreciate the fact that they made sure that these
deserving individuals got a pay raise, that they made sure that the
people who defended the country in the past were not subjected to
unnecessary fee increases in the Tricare system, and they worked hard
to shift funds towards force protection and the protection of
individual American soldiers. And, at the same time, they addressed the
very, very serious and critical needs of the Army and Marine Corps in
terms of additional personnel and additional equipment.
I think the chairman and the ranking member can be exceptionally
proud of their efforts, and I think all of us can appreciate the
bipartisan spirit that the members of the House Armed Services
Committee acted in, and I am sure when we vote later today we will have
a strong vote in support of the legislation.
Obviously, it comes as no surprise that I intend to vote for the rule
and the underlying legislation. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________