Alan Mollohan

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. His values that he came here with he continued to want to express. It was very important for him to continue his service as chairman of the Labor, HHS, Education Subcommittee where he could really affect all of those constituencies, which really allowed him to do those things that were important to him and to express that progressive attitude. Madam Speaker, David Obey has been a real contribution to the United States Congress. During his career--and it will be lasting after his career--his mark has been indelible in the reforms that are reflected in how we do business here. I don't know of a person in the institution who could have assimilated within the appropriations process--the rules and changes in procedures in the way we did business in response to legitimate concerns about the appropriations process--better than David Obey. It was his ability to separate the chaff from the grain, to understand what were legitimate expressions of concern about the appropriations process, his ability to deal with them, and his embracing the prerogatives of the appropriations process. At the same time, we recognize the process of the legislative branch reflects that which will really be his legacy. Madam Speaker, thank you for allowing me to say a few words. I want to personally thank David Obey for his personal considerations.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to stand up and have the opportunity and honor to say a few words about the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, my chairman, David Obey. We all operate on teams here in the Congress. I'm especially proud to be on David Obey's team, serving as one of the chairmen of one of the subcommittees under David's jurisdiction. David has long distinguished himself in public service. He started in the Wisconsin Assembly in 1963, and served until 1969. At the beginning of his career he may have stumbled into the wrong political party. But seeing the Joe McCarthy experience, he soon learned and developed an aversion for duplicity and felt that the Democratic Party was the home for him. I think they best reflect his Midwestern values and his progressive attitudes. I associate myself with those values and those attitudes, which makes it especially pleasurable to be a part of his team. I'm sure it's been mentioned here before that David served in Congress for a long time and that he came to the Congress as the youngest Member when he came, at 30 years old, and he's served 42 years. So, do the math. And now he's voluntarily retiring from this institution, having left a very distinguished record from the beginning. Arriving with new ideas about how the Congress ought to operate and how it ought to be more open and how it ought to be more embracing of new Members, he was extremely effective in implementing those ideas, moving on through his career to higher responsibilities and becoming, ultimately, chairman of, as we refer to it, the powerful Appropriations Committee.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Madam Speaker, on January 2, 1974, a gallon of gas cost about 53 cents, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 855, and the top-selling 45 on Billboard's chart was Jim Croce's ``Time in a Bottle.'' That was also the day a recent college graduate, Mary Colleen McCarty, began her professional career, reporting to work in the personal office of Representative Robert H. Mollohan of West Virginia's first congressional district. On January 2, 2011, Colleen will bring that remarkable career to a close, retiring from my office as Chief of Staff. For the 37 years between those two January days--9 years spent working for my father and 28 in my office--Colleen built a record of service and accomplishment that few congressional staffers can match. All of us understand how important staff is to our work. It's been one of my privileges to work with many terrific staffers throughout my 28 years in Congress, men and women who have contributed to the first district in a wide variety of ways and whom I am proud to call friends today. But Colleen has always been the one constant. Few staffers survive, let alone thrive, for 37 years in what can be a stressful and demanding work environment. But what's behind that longevity? In Colleen's case, several things. First is a real commitment to public service. Colleen never lost sight of our purpose here. She came to work every day determined to help the residents of the first district. She began her career as a caseworker, helping somebody get the VA benefits he'd earned or qualify for black lung benefits after a career in the mines, or maybe making sure someone else was getting the right social security check or helping an American stranded overseas with a visa problem. There's nothing abstract about that work; you see the results immediately and tangibly, and that was a lesson that Colleen applied to all of her work in my office--what we do up here matters to people and for that reason alone all of us need to do our best. Another thing that Colleen brought to work every day was her honesty and the courage of that honesty. I learned early on not to ask Colleen's advice unless I were willing to hear something completely opposite of what I believed or hoped to hear. Colleen never hesitated to speak her mind to me, and, fortunately, she didn't always wait to be asked. I have always understood how important that quality is. Honesty is only one measure of Colleen's personal integrity. She also has strength and compassion in equal measures. That is true in her personal life as well as her professional one. I know, for example, how deeply her parents came to rely on Colleen as they negotiated the not uncommon challenges of aging. They knew, as I do, that you can always rely on Colleen. A Congressman's Chief of Staff generally has two major responsibilities. The first is to serve as principal adviser. I just touched on how important Colleen's counsel has been. The other role, of course, is building and managing a good staff, something at which Colleen has always excelled. She cares about people, supports them, and helps them grow, both professionally and personally. The culture of my office has always been a positive one, and that is thanks in large part to Colleen's leadership. I speak for myself as well as scores of staffers over the years in thanking Colleen for a thousand kindnesses, large and small, visible and hidden. In a very real way, Colleen retires with two bodies of work. The first is her sizable contributions to the congressional work of my father and me. And the second is the large network of staffers who have benefited from her support and mentoring over the years. In both bodies of work, Colleen enters retirement knowing that she made a difference in people's lives, that she left things better than she found them. And what more satisfaction could one ask of any career? I always dreaded the prospect of having to replace Colleen. She actually tried to retire once or twice but always made the mistake of asking me rather than telling me. My response never varied--``No, Colleen, I just don't think it's the right time.'' And it never was the right time, for me anyway. I simply relied on her too much. Well, Madam Speaker, now it is, finally, the right time. As I prepare to leave office, I take with me many wonderful things. But few mean as much to me as the support and the friendship of Mary Colleen McCarty. My wife, Barbara, and I offer Colleen our warmest wishes for a wonderful retirement.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to alert my colleagues to some growing concerns in Kazakhstan. As an ex-Soviet republic, Kazakhstan has made great strides in the past several decades. In fact, it was just 1991 when Kazakhstan became the last of the Soviet republics to declare its independence. Today, Kazakhstan serves as the Chair of the 56 member-nation Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). While I commend Kazakhstan for the progress it has made over the past several decades toward becoming a more democratic nation, I am increasingly concerned about ongoing allegations of corruption, human rights abuses, human trafficking, religious persecution, election tampering and suppression of free speech within the nation. In recent years, I have seen reports indicating that Kazakhstan's governmental system lacks the basic rights of democracy--elections are often fraught with fraud; political opposition is suppressed; few independent media outlets exist; and respect for human rights, religious freedom, and freedom of speech is questionable. The United States has sought a mutually beneficial relationship with Kazakhstan and provides aid to Kazakhstan to enhance economic growth, democracy, security and humanitarian needs. We understand, because of Kazakhstan's centralized location between Europe and Asia, that it is in a unique position to help bridge East and West. However, I am concerned that the current U.S.-Kazakhstan relationship could be compromised and I think it is time we critically evaluate these very serious allegations. I applaud the work of the Helsinki Commission under the current leadership of Senator Ben Cardin, and previously, Congressman Alcee Hastings for their ongoing commitment to bringing these matters to light and I would urge my colleagues to take the time to look into this issue.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to call attention to an issue that threatens the economic viability of many industries and the existence of thousands of jobs in and around the coal fields of our Nation. That issue, Madam Speaker, is the Environmental Protection Agency's proposal to regulate fly ash, coal ash, as a hazardous material. Over the past 2 years, Madam Speaker, the EPA has peppered the Federal Government and the Federal docket with a myriad of proposed rules and undertaken aggressive, zealous enforcement actions targeted at industries in Appalachian States. This much continued pattern of rulemaking and enforcement action is destructive to the central economic engine that fuels this Nation's energy needs. In its latest round of regulatory bravado, EPA released a proposed rule in June to impose additional regulation of coal combustion byproducts, fly ash, under subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, RCRA, as a hazardous waste. I'm speaking today, Madam Speaker, in opposition to EPA's extreme and burdensome rulemaking option to regulate fly ash as a hazardous waste under subtitle C. This rule, Madam Speaker, would unnecessarily jeopardize construction and manufacturing jobs in addition to increasing the costs of highway and other infrastructure projects which are so vitally needed in my district and in districts throughout the country. Why? Because fly ash is an essential and reasonably priced ingredient in products used by these industries, and this rule would in and of itself dramatically increase that cost. Why is EPA pursuing the subtitle C option when the agency determined under both Democratic and Republican administrations, Madam Speaker, through two reports to Congress and two final regulatory determinations that coal ash does not warrant regulation as a hazardous waste? During EPA's four prior reviews of this issue, it concluded that States can safely manage coal ash under Federal nonhazardous waste rules. EPA's subtitle C option is wholly inconsistent with its own past decisions. Clearly, Madam Speaker, the 2009 impoundment failure to Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston facility, which started all of this review, called important attention to this particular issue and reinforced the need for operational changes to avoid future accidents. The Federal Government must absolutely work to ensure safety and environmental protection where coal impoundments are concerned. EPA's subtitle D option, regulating fly ash as a nonhazardous waste, provides these important protections while protecting the important economic opportunities available through beneficial recycling of coal fly ash. Madam Speaker, regulating fly ash as a hazardous material is overkill, putting precious jobs at stake, and would cost $1.5 billion a year to implement according to EPA's own estimates. These costs will be absorbed by American families who are already facing constraints of tough economic times. Coal combustion by-products are currently recycled for several perfectly safe and beneficial uses, including cement, road materials, and wallboard. These beneficial uses of coal ash create jobs. The subtitle C option would unnecessarily stigmatize coal ash and obstruct its beneficial use in these vital, important infrastructure projects. It's counterproductive to add more waste to our landfills when we could be safely putting it to use in our roads and bridges, creating more jobs and building projects at reasonable prices. In closing, Madam Speaker, EPA's subtitle C option for coal ash regulation will have a significantly adverse impact on job creation and economic recovery. This rule option would be deeply damaging in West Virginia and throughout the Nation, and, therefore, I strongly encourage EPA to pursue the subtitle D option, the nonhazardous option, in its rulemaking process. I appreciate, Madam Speaker, the opportunity to speak this evening about the importance of protecting West Virginia jobs, the Nation's jobs, and reasonably priced infrastructure.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I would be very chagrined if we ever did anything but treat the gentleman fair. He is an outstanding Member of the Congress. Mr. Speaker, a lot of Members are very interested in USPTO and interested in fixing it on the authorizing side and, of course, on the appropriations side. Three of those many Members who are particularly interested in USPTO have cosponsored this legislation. One of them is Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania. Mr. Murphy is here to speak on the legislation. The other two are Chairman Conyers and Chairman Moran: Chairman Conyers in the authorizing committee, and Chairman Moran is a distinguished member of the Appropriations Committee. I just want to note that they've been at the forefront of fighting for PTO and adequate funding so that they can reduce the backlog of which we speak today. Mr. Murphy is a young Member, a distinguished member of the Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee which funds USPTO. He's taken a particular interest in this issue, becoming very knowledgeable about it, and has been in the forefront of moving this legislation that would help them. It is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I note the distinguished ranking member's comments about ``the suspension Congress'' and lack of notice with regard to pieces of legislation. I would just point out that, first of all, he is very familiar with this bill and very familiar with the USPTO. He has handled this legislation very competently as chairman and as ranking member and as a member of the committee. So he is very familiar, I know, with the subject matter of which we speak and the difficulty that USPTO faces because of the structural nature of the way it achieves funding every year. He also knows that their estimating at the beginning of the year is an imperfect process because it's a prediction and it's based upon that prediction coming true in the future and it rarely does. They are either underestimating, or they overestimate. In this case they have financial needs that can be better met with this additional $129 million. And the good news for USPTO is that they underestimated last year. Consequently, if they continue to collect fees at the current rate, they will collect $129 million more than they projected. Given that, it is only right that we try to address those needs in the context of their newly projected fee collections so that they will be able to reduce this unacceptable backlog. As the gentleman points out, in a negative way, that's not known really until it happens or if the trend line begins to become apparent; and it is becoming apparent. We're going on recess here in a couple of days. It would be great to have notice on everything; a week in advance, or 3 days in advance or whenever in advance it would be satisfactory. This is a pretty simple proposal actually and I don't think it's difficult to understand. I must say we on the majority side weren't noticed many minutes before the minority was about the approach to this. I know the gentleman is--or I believe from his remarks and his attitude in the past with regard to recognizing USPTO's needs, not a current but its structural needs of how you fund it, is certainly not opposing this. I just wanted to assure him that there is no intent on our part in any way to mislead the gentleman.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the United States Patent and Trademark Office, on an annual basis practically, has budgetary problems. It arises from the system under which they are funded and estimate their own finances, and the Appropriations Committee responds to that. It's imperfect because their predictions are obviously imperfect. They are talking about revenues that they may or may not receive into the future. This legislation addresses their concerns for this year. The activities of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are fully financed by user fees. And every year Congress appropriates an amount for the agency's activities that is equal to what the agency estimates it will collect in fees. Based on higher-than-estimated fee collections to date in fiscal year 2010, it appears that the agency could potentially collect more in fees this year than was earlier estimated, and these additional fees would be unavailable to the agency this year under its current 2010 appropriation level. What this bill, Mr. Speaker, will do, is allow USPTO to spend up to an additional $129 million in patent and trademark fees if the agency actually collects fees over and above the current appropriation level of $1.887 billion. This additional appropriation was requested by President Obama's administration and is based on a revised CBO estimate of the agency's fee collections for fiscal year 2010. This bill reflects the administration's and Congress's commitment to make fee revenue available to USPTO for patent and trademark activities. The timely and efficient processing of patent and trademark applications is critical to the competitiveness of American businesses and the contributions of individual inventors to economic growth. The USPTO currently takes an average of over 34 months to complete the examination of patent application and has maintained a backlog of unexamined applications for several years. There are approximately 1.2 million patent applications now in the system, with over 750,000 awaiting an initial review by a USPTO patent examiner. We should be clear, however, about what this bill will do and what this bill will not do. If the additional fees are actually collected in the remaining weeks of the fiscal year, the additional $129 million in budget authority provided by this bill will begin to help the agency address the ongoing patent pendency and backlogs. Mr. Speaker, what this bill will not do is fix the underlying structural flaws in USPTO's revenue mechanisms that are the major cause for the patent pendency and backlog problems that have plagued USPTO for years. The only path to a meaningful and permanent reduction in patent pendency and the backlog is for stakeholders to support, and Congress to approve, new fee authorities for USPTO that will lead to patent fees that reflect the actual cost to the agency and to our government. But that is beyond the scope of this appropriations bill. Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that the Appropriations Committee consistently appropriates budget authority for USPTO based on the agency's own estimates of fee collections, and the current year appropriation was no exception to this rule. The administration's request for this supplemental appropriation is based on higher-than-expected fee collections. In cases where fees collected by USPTO but not appropriated in an annual appropriations bill are credited to a specific account within the general Treasury, those additional resources can be made available for appropriation to USPTO in subsequent appropriations acts, such as the one we are considering today. While the bill before us today will not address the underlying problems at USPTO, it will provide additional relief to the agency as it seeks to address the patent backlog issue, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 5874.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5874) making supplemental appropriations for the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to draw your attention to a troubling situation occurring in Ukraine. Less than 100 days ago, President Victor Yanukovich assumed leadership of the Ukrainian government. During this short period of time, there have been alarming reports that many of the democratic achievements of the 2004 Orange Revolution are being rolled back--including the freedoms of speech and media. Some of the reported actions occurring include the Ukrainian Security Service's, SBU, agents approaching university deans to warn them against their students' participation in pro-opposition rallies, as well as instances of the new government intimidating journalists. Furthermore, two TV channels with a history of independent coverage-- Channel 5 and TVi--are under threat of imminent closure due to reported pressure from executive bodies, including SBU. These troubling instances of pressure against Ukraine's beleaguered opposition and independent media outlets are arguably part of a disturbing, coordinated effort by the executive to squelch a healthy political debate and assure an uncritical coverage of the government's policies. In fact, these reports are so widespread that the United States Ambassador to Ukraine, John Tefft, even recently expressed his concerns about the increasingly difficult climate for Ukraine's independent media and stressed that ``it is essential to protect and even expand the media freedoms that emerged'' after the country's 2004 Orange Revolution. I understand that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will visit Kiev, Ukraine on July 2, as part of her five-day, five-nation tour of Eastern Europe. I would encourage Secretary Clinton to raise these issues with President Yanukovich and reiterate the importance of not returning to Ukraine's old system of government pressure on journalists and media companies. I am including a copy of an article titled, ``Ukraine channels cry foul as frequencies pulled'' that appeared in the June 8 issue of The Financial Times, Europe. As such, I urge my colleagues to follow and engage in this vitally important issue. [From the Financial Times, June 8, 2010] Ukraine Channels Cry Foul as Frequencies Pulled (By Roman Olearchyk in Kiev) Two Ukrainian television channels cried foul on Tuesday after a high court pulled crucial broadcasting frequencies away from them, sparking media freedom activists to reiterate concerns of an organized attempt to block objective news coverage. The development follows weeks of growing complaints by journalists about the resurgence of censorship and heightens fears that a Kremlin-styled crackdown on media freedoms could be in the works five months into the presidency of the Moscow-friendly Viktor Yanukovich. Management and journalists from channels 5 and TVi pledged to appeal against the controversial ruling and hope to remain on the air in the near term. But during a press conference held after Tuesday's regional administrative court ruling, they openly expressed fears that media freedoms and democratic gains made by Ukraine since 2004 could be at risk under Mr. Yanukovich. He is accused by oppositionists of setting up an authoritarian regime. ``We lived through 2004,'' said Channel 5 director Ivan Adamchuk, recalling attempts by authorities to muzzle the channel ahead of the pro-democracy Orange Revolution, which overturned a fraud-marred presidential vote for Mr. Yanukovich. ``We could not imagine that those times would return, but they have,'' he added. Oleh Rybachuk, a former presidential administration chief turned civic activist, said ``censorship is re-emerging, and the opposition is not getting so much coverage. There are similarities to what [Vladimir] Putin did when he came to power. We are seeing Putin-style attempts to monopolise power.'' With Mr. Yanukovich's coalition having swiftly consolidated control over the nation's legislative, executive and judicial branches of power, the channels could face an uphill battle if he opposes their survival. Mr. Yanukovich's administration on Tuesday repeated denials of cracking down on free press. But media watchdogs warned that if stripped of the frequencies, the two channels--seen by media watchdogs as rare sources of reports critical of Mr. Yanukovich's coalition--would be blacked out from much of the country. Such a scenario would preserve the strong grip over Ukraine's television airwaves held by Mr. Yanukovich's billionaire business backers. One of them is Valery Khoroshkovsky, currently head of Kyiv's SBU spy agency and owner of UA Inter Media Group, the nation's largest television holding. The latter filed the court appeal asking for the frequencies to be pulled on grounds that they were wrongfully issued in January. Both 5 and TVi have repeatedly accused Mr. Khoroshkovsky of abusing his power and influence to preserve his monopoly control over Ukraine's media airwaves and limit objective news reporting. Mr. Khoroshkovsky denies wrongdoing and insists his wife manages his media empire as he dedicates his time to public service. But on Tuesday, Mykola Knyazytsky, director of TVi, which was set up by exiled Russian businessmen, blamed Mr. Khoroshkovsky for the crack down on the two channels and described his simultaneous role as a presidential backer, intelligence chief and media mogul as a ``huge and blatant conflict of interest.''

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I thank my friend and colleague from West Virginia for yielding. And I know we have many tender memories of the Senator. Mr. Speaker, it was with profound sadness that I learned yesterday of the passing of Senator Robert C. Byrd. This country knew Senator Byrd as one of the lions of the Senate, a ferocious advocate for his State and a principled spokesman for his beliefs, whether it was his opposition to the war in Iraq or his commitment to improve safety and working conditions in the coal fields of West Virginia. This Congress, both sides of the Capitol, knew Robert C. Byrd as the chief defender of its constitutional prerogatives, an unequaled master of its parliamentary rules, an expert on its history, and one of the ablest legislative tacticians either Chamber has ever seen. West Virginia knew Senator Robert C. Byrd as her own. It's difficult to adequately describe the bond of profound connection between the man and the State. People from outside the State might assume that this connection was built on the senator's legendary success in delivering Federal funds to West Virginia, and that would be wrong. West Virginians understand how important that success was, of course. We know that those material contributions are literally incalculable in dollars invested, roads paved, buildings constructed, and jobs created. But the bond between Senator Byrd and West Virginia went far beyond that. It is almost as though his personal story not only inspired West Virginians, as it would most Americans, but that it captured so much of our State's culture and our State's values. That personal history is known throughout the State. Senator Byrd was the adopted son of a miner who graduated as class valedictorian. He was the manual worker who earned a law degree while serving in the United States Senate. He was the husband who relied for almost 70 years on his beloved wife, Erma. Those qualities of discipline, of integrity, and commitment forged in the mountains of West Virginia and exercised in the halls of Washington speak more strongly to West Virginians than any material measure of his immense contributions to the State. I cannot imagine Robert C. Byrd representing any State other than West Virginia, and it is difficult to imagine West Virginia without Senator Byrd. I knew Senator Byrd as a mentor. I was first elected to Congress in 1983. And after 28 years, I like to think of myself as a reasonably seasoned veteran of this body. But then I remind myself, before I took my first oath of office, Senator Byrd had already served more years than I have today. Twenty-eight years ago he was already a master of the legislative branch. From my very first days in this House, Senator Byrd never withheld his support or his counsel. I can remember many times Senator Byrd calling Congressman Rahall and myself over to his office just to consult, to ask what was going on in West Virginia, or to take counsel himself on what was going on in the House of Representatives, or just to find out what was going on in our personal lives, how our parents were, how our fathers were, how our mothers were. Those were touching moments. Senator Byrd, many people have asked me, well, what is Senator Byrd really like? You know, he is such a disciplined person in public. People want to know, well, what is he like in private? And I think there are several insights that we have had glimpses of in previous speakers here this afternoon into what he was like as a man beyond a legislator. I can remember his being very touching and very concerned about his dog Billy, and bringing him to the Congress, or if he were home, worrying about how he was getting along. Very concerned and obviously loving toward a pet. But most poignant was Senator Byrd's relationship with his wife, Erma. It was long. She was his childhood sweetheart. Senator Byrd used to tell the story about courting Erma with another young man's candy. The young man would come to school, and Senator Byrd and him would catch up, and the young man would give Senator Byrd a piece of candy. And Senator Byrd wouldn't eat that candy; he would save it and give it to his future wife, his sweetheart, Erma. That relationship lasted and grew and was warm and inspiring throughout his life. And her passing a number of years ago was a very sad time in the life of Senator Byrd, obviously. It was also a very sad time in the State of West Virginia. They were a couple to be beloved by West Virginia. I remember another touching moment, when my father passed almost 10 years ago. Senator Byrd attended the funeral and continued on after the service for about an hour's drive to where Dad was interred. And Senator Byrd after the service, he pulled me aside and told me what a lovely cemetery this was for Dad's resting place. Finally, I knew Senator Byrd as a friend. I cannot remember a time when he was not in my life. And I will miss my friend. My wife, Barbara, and I offer our deepest condolences and our best wishes to Senator Byrd's family, to his staff, and to that close, wonderful circle of people who knew him and loved him.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding, and I thank him also for his leadership on mine safety and workplace safety. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank the sponsor of this resolution, my colleague from West Virginia's Third Congressional District, Nick Rahall. Coal miners and the coal industry have no greater champion than the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Chairman Rahall. Mr. Speaker, tragedy has visited West Virginia's coal mines again. It is a visitor our State knows all too well. The names of the communities change with each visit, and the years do as well. Monongah in 1907, Dola in 1963, Farmington in 1968, Sago in 2006, and now Raleigh County, April 2010. The names change, Mr. Speaker, but the grief and the sorrow, they stay exactly the same. The mother who lost her son last week is united with the sister who lost her brother in 1968 and the daughter who lost her father in 1907. Mr. Speaker, shy of 2 million people live in my State. Maybe one in 90 earns a living as a coal miner in the coal fields. Most West Virginias have never been underground, and most never will be. But every one of us lives with the knowledge and the full appreciation of what can go wrong whenever a new shift of miners goes underground. Coal mining is not just my State's most important industry, it is central to our culture and our social identity. When tragedy visits one of our communities, it visits our entire State. It brings us together. It reminds us in sometimes a difficult life we can always look to that larger community for support. We saw those bonds in the rescue crews last week battling fatigue and risking their lives. We see those bonds in the volunteers on-site in Raleigh County today. And we see those bonds in the churches and the union halls and the schools throughout the State, wherever West Virginians come together. There is hard work ahead of us and there is pragmatic work ahead of us. The engineers and the experts, they will come and they will analyze what went wrong in Raleigh County last week. This Congress will debate what went wrong last week. We will assign responsibility. And we will consider what actions are necessary to make the hard work of taking coal from the ground less dangerous, to do all that is possible to prevent such future tragedies. That will be the most lasting testimonial we can offer those who lost their lives in Raleigh County. But today we acknowledge their loss, we thank those who tried to save them, we offer our deepest condolences to the miners' families, and we come together again in support of our community.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 3650, the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2009, which recognizes the growing problem of harmful algal blooms in coastal and freshwater environments. Unfortunately, I know all too well the need for this legislation. In September of 2009, a fish kill occurred in Dunkard Creek, a 38-mile creek on the border of West Virginia and Pennsylvania. According to news reports, this massive fish kill eliminated more than 160 species of fish, salamanders and endangered mussels from one of the most biologically-diverse streams in either State. The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection determined that golden algae caused the kill, but much remains unknown. How did the algae arrive in West Virginia? What factors contributed to the bloom? How can blooms be contained from moving throughout the watershed? More information is needed to develop a thoughtful process to mitigate and control the growth and spread of harmful algae. Fortunately, the legislation under consideration today recognizes the increasing number of freshwater algal blooms, and establishes a partnership between NOAA and EPA to research, monitor and respond to those freshwater blooms. Ultimately, this legislation will put West Virginia in a better position to address existing blooms in the State and prevent further spread of golden algae. For West Virginia, this is an ecological and economic issue. Our rivers, creeks and watersheds are recreation destinations, modes of transportation, and are critical to local economies. I am pleased to support this measure, and look forward to its enactment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues today to express my deep sadness at the passing of our colleague, Jack Murtha. As I look around the Floor of the House this evening, I see Democrats and I see Republicans. I see veteran members of the so-called ``Pennsylvania corner'' and I see freshmen members--from California, from the northeast, from the south. I see Jack's fellow appropriators, and I see members who, on other days perhaps, boast proudly of never seeking earmarks. Jack Murtha was one of the few members of this body who could draw together such an eclectic group. That is not a surprise--for Jack Murtha was truly a man of the House. He was a Member's Member. He cared about his colleagues, and he respected his colleagues--even when he thought they were wrong. Being able to disagree civilly has--to the great detriment of our public life--become an uncommon quality in Washington. Jack practiced it better than anyone. Jack was a legislator. His ability and willingness to work with almost anyone was one of the reasons Jack was so effective--if you're a Democrat and wanted something done, you wanted Jack on your side. If you're a Republican and wanted something done, you wanted Jack on your side. Jack was a Representative. He loved his District, respected his constituents, and worked as hard for them as any Member ever has. Jack was an institutionalist. He believed in this House of Representatives, he defended its prerogatives, and he protected them. It has been my great privilege to work closely with two of the greatest defenders Congress has ever seen--the senior Senator from my own state . . . and Jack Murtha. Jack was a leader. His respect for his colleagues and his commitment to this House informed his role as Chairman. Jack recognized the importance of what we do here, and Jack was always--always--prepared. There was never a man more suited to the gavel than Jack Murtha. Jack was a Marine. If he had not been a Marine, he could have played the part--the man radiated strength and purpose in every action he took. But Jack not only looked the part, he was the genuine article. And there is, of course, no such thing as a former Marine--once a Marine, always a Marine. As fiercely as Jack defended the prerogatives of Congress, his commitment to our House took a back seat to his commitment to men and women in uniform. The service member--an infantryman outside Fallujah, a Marine in Afghanistan, an airman in Bagram, a sailor in the Persian Gulf--has never had a better protector than Jack Murtha. Jack was one of them. That is the chief reason he didn't hesitate when he came out so publicly against the War in Iraq--something that earned him the respect of many and the enmity of some. I don't know that he didn't care about either judgment, but I do know that neither applause nor condemnation guided his decision at all. His allegiance was to the men and women in the field. To me, Jack was a friend and a mentor. In a sense that was a relationship I inherited. My father, who represented West Virginia's First District until he retired in 1982, worked closely with Jack. Shortly after I won election to his seat, Dad told me that I would never go wrong seeking Jack's counsel. He was right. Finally, Jack was a family man, a loving husband and partner to his wife, Joyce, and parent to Donna, John, and Patrick. Their loss cannot be described by words. They have my deepest condolences. Jack will be missed by all.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Madam Speaker, Senator Robert C. Byrd today becomes the longest-serving Member of Congress in our nation's history. I join my fellow West Virginians and, indeed, citizens from across the country in congratulating Senator Byrd for this historic record. We mark Senator Byrd's longevity today, but that longevity is not what captures his greatness. I have worked with Senator Byrd for more than a quarter of a century--barely half of his tenure in the Senate-- and I have known him for most of my life. His greatness is built on three pillars. First is his personal story and the way that it has always informed his career. Robert C. Byrd grew up as the adopted son of a miner, graduated as class valedictorian in the depths of the Great Depression. Unable to afford college, he worked where he could find employment--pumping gas, selling produce, cutting meat, welding metal in shipyards. He courted, married, and relied for almost 70 years on his beloved wife, Erma. He earned a law degree even while serving as a Member of Congress. The qualities of discipline, industry, integrity, and commitment underlying that personal history would define greatness in any man no matter his station in life. Second is his profound connection to the people of West Virginia. Senator Byrd is of the people and he is for the people. He has given West Virginians a lifetime of commitment and faithful service, and the people in turn have given him an unbreakable bond of trust, respect, and deep affection. I cannot imagine Robert C. Byrd representing any state other than West Virginia--and I cannot imagine West Virginia without the decades of service Senator Byrd has given it. Finally, Senator Byrd's greatness derives from his devotion to the Senate and reverence for the Constitution that established it. As that other icon of the Senate, Ted Kennedy, put it, ``Bob Byrd personifies what our founding fathers were thinking about when they were thinking about a United States Senate. He brings the kind of qualities that the founding fathers believed were so important for service to the nation.'' Madam Speaker, even as we congratulate Senator Byrd for his years of service to his state and his country, we also recognize that it is not the number of those years we are celebrating but the content of those years. That content demands that for as long as there are people who care about the history of this nation, the name Robert C. Byrd will be mentioned in the same breath as Daniel Webster, Robert La Follette, Henry Clay, Edward Kennedy--the half dozen or so true giants of the Senate.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. For those of you of my colleagues who might support this amendment because you believe that withholding clean needles from addicted drug users is somehow helping in the fight against illegal drug use, please allow me to suggest that that is a mistaken view and that you are really promoting the incidence of infection, of disease, and death among active addicts and those with whom they socialize. Indeed, that's the point. Needle exchange is not about promoting drug use. It is in fact about preventing disease. Now, to understand why this is true, you really must understand that at the heart of addiction is craving. An addict, a person who is addicted, they are addicted because they crave. They have to have the drug that artificially gives them that feeling of well-being, that instantaneous euphoria. There is a powerful craving. There are lots of ways to enable drug use. There's lots of ways to help promote drug use in the country, to enable. Families allowing drug users to have access to resources is the most prominent one. But the needle exchange program advocated for and carried out by health professionals is not one of those enablers because, again, why? At the moment that an addicted person has to have the drug, he or she is driven by this craving and the condition of the needle is not going to deter its use. Now, while that may not be rational, while people who are standing around thinking rationally, Gee, you wouldn't use a bad needle. They are not acting in a rational way. And that's the point. The condition of the needle is not the deterrence and therefore withholding clean needles simply means that they likely use and share dirty needles--and this spreads disease.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Will the gentlelady yield for purposes of accepting the amendment?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment, and we accept the amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I thank the gentlelady, and thank her for her amendment. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Indeed, this would be a huge impact on the Bureau of Prisons. There is not an agency in this bill that is in greater need of additional salaries and expenses money. This amendment would eliminate $97.4 million, the increase for the Bureau of Prisons' salaries and expenses account that the committee provided above the budget request. The amount of the increase was not pulled out of thin air. It was precisely calculated based on an in-depth analysis by the Appropriation Committee's surveys and investigations staff to be the minimum amount necessary to restore BOP's base budget, which has been progressively hollowed out in recent years by inadequate budget requests. Without this $97.4 million, the Bureau of Prisons will be unable to hire additional correctional officers, which it desperately needs, and will likely be unable to activate two newly constructed prisons. The BOP simply cannot sustain another year without additional prison capacity and staffing. The Bureau of Prisons prisoner population is currently 37 percent above the rated capacity for BOP facilities, and the prisoner-to-staff ratio is an appalling 4.9 to 1. A ratio of 3.2 to 1 is the average for the States, which is far better than the average that the Bureau of Prisons used to approach. Not only does inadequate investment in Federal prisons result in unsafe working conditions for prison staff, as we have seen from attacks and even fatalities in our prison system, it also makes it impossible to do the kind of reentry programming necessary to reduce recidivism. The result is more crime in our communities and a higher long-term cost to the taxpayer of future incarceration. I am really not exaggerating, Mr. Chairman, when I say that there is no other agency in the bill for which I am more confident about the need for additional resources. I urge our Members in as strong as possible terms to reject this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.