Nick Rahall

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, this amendment makes four changes to H.R. 1018 as reported by our Natural Resources Committee. First, after further consultation with experts in the field, the amendment will broaden the types of fertility control that would be available to the Bureau of Land Management in order to better manage the wild horse and burro population. Next, the amendment narrows the definition of ``commercial uses'' prohibited under the act. The purpose of this change is to clearly prohibit the sale of horses and burros for slaughter while clarifying that use of these animals on farms or in other commercial operations is allowed. The amendment also makes a technical change to clarify the membership requirements for the Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Council. And, finally, the amendment relaxes the requirement that the BLM return wild horses and burros to the acres of public land from which they have been removed since 1971. The CBO cost estimate for this bill was based on the assumption that significant land acquisition would be required. That will not be the case, however; these horses and burros can be accommodated on existing Federal lands. Restoration of those acres remains an important goal but would not be a legal requirement. This is a good package of small changes which will improve H.R. 1018. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Yes.

Mr. RAHALL. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the CBO estimate, the $700 million that has been thrown out by the other side as a potential cost to this legislation, was done in the last Congress. It was done before the adoption of the manager's amendment that we just adopted today in an earlier voice vote. It was done without considering the ramifications of the other aspects of H.R. 1018 that this House will adopt today. It was done taking into account in a very narrow, single shot-type fashion, if you will, the potential costs of purchasing 19 million acres of additional Federal land for the use of these wild horses and burros. Therefore, when taking into account that cost, as CBO has done, they did not consider the fact that there are already Federal lands owned by the American people that are available and out there. The CBO did not take into account the management tools contained in the pending legislation with which we intend to help the BLM do a better job and improve the status quo. The CBO did not estimate any cost savings from an enhanced adoption program or from sterilization programs. The CBO did not take into account the reduction in costs of these holding pens, which I referenced earlier, the $21 million annually that it costs today--and that number keeps going up--of the current holding pens for these wild horses and burros. The CBO did not consider any of the ``today'' costs or how the improved management tools offered in H.R. 1018 will save dollars in the years ahead. I urge a ``no'' vote, not only on the Hastings substitute amendment but also a ``yes'' vote on the pending H.R. 1018. H.R. 1018 is the humane and right vote to cast today. It will save our mustangs. It will save tax dollars. It will save millions of tax dollars annually. When you look through all of the smoke and mirrors of the numbers that have been thrown out today, you will find that, by implementing herd reduction with birth control, we can save more than $6 million alone each year. Again, when we look at the cost reductions of these holding pens, this legislation is the tax-wise way to go. So I conclude by urging a ``no'' vote on the Hastings substitute and a ``yes'' vote on the underlying bill, H.R. 1018. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a dear friend, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), one of the cosponsors of the legislation.

Mr. RAHALL. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring before the House today H.R. 1018, the Restore Our American Mustangs Act, legislation that will save the taxpayers money while saving tens of thousands of wild horses and burros from slaughter. Earlier this year, the Bureau of Land Management made a truly shocking announcement. This Federal agency tasked with managing our magnificent public lands and resources announced future plans to destroy, i.e., slaughter, 30,000 healthy wild horses and burros entrusted to their care by the American people. The announcement was even more stunning given that Congress enacted the Wild, Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 declaring that these iconic animals were ``living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West'' and ``are to be considered an integral part of the natural system of the public lands.'' How in the world can a Federal agency be considering massive slaughter of animals the law says they are supposed to be protecting? At my request, the Government Accountability Office conducted a complete review of the program, and they documented its numerous shortcomings. The bill before us amends the 1971 act to implement the suggestions made by GAO and give the agency as many options as possible to avoid destroying these animals. Most significantly, this legislation will move the agency toward increasing the acreage available to wild horses and burros. When the original act passed in 1971, 20 percent of BLM land was open to the horses. Today, they are only allowed on 13 percent of BLM land. The agency has never justified the removal of horses and burros from these missing acres. This bill will also require consistency in management planning, with publication of standard operating procedures for managing these animals across all of our public lands. It will require better accounting methods so the agency can be certain how many animals are truly out on the range. It will strengthen the adoption program so that many more eligible horses and burros can go to adoptive homes. And it will authorize cooperative agreements with individuals and nonprofits so that large numbers of animals might be moved onto non-Federal land. Each of these provisions will make this program more cost-effective and will make it more efficient. Despite these improvements, opponents of this bill are going to claim today that it will be expensive to implement. Their solution is to simply pass the same narrow bill prohibiting slaughter approved in the last Congress. You're going to hear that this bill goes so far that it should be called welfare for horses. That's what they will claim. This is a funny line, but it uses high cost estimates to gloss over the fact that since the last Congress we have the benefit now of a comprehensive GAO report identifying many more strategies that we must pursue. Commissioning a good report and then ignoring its recommendations I hardly think is a way to save money. Stopping slaughter is an important step, and I'm pleased to see my friends on the other side of the aisle are now supporting that, but we do need to do more. To be very clear, the pending bill, H.R. 1018, contains no direct spending. We are not creating an entitlement for horses. So the welfare joke falls completely flat. Any increase in funding for the wild horse and bureau program would be the result of appropriations, not this authorization bill. Increasing the number of Federal acres available to horses and burros from the current 13 percent of BLM land back to the 20 percent available to them in 1971 should not cost the taxpayers anything. It is merely a 7 percent management adjustment, nothing more. Our friends across the aisle always claim that BLM owns too much land. Now, we don't think so, but they certainly own enough to accommodate horses and burros. Furthermore, the management efficiencies in other parts of this bill will actually save money, and here is what we are doing: increasing adoptions, contraception and reducing overcrowding that will relieve the agency from having to round these animals up and care for them in long-term holding facilities, an expensive proposition. The status quo is the worst of both worlds. It requires the BLM to hold these animals in expensive, long-term storage right up to the point when the money runs out, and then the agency has to kill thousands of them. And witness these photos. These are American wild mustangs. And this is their fate. This is their fate held in captivity, abused. This is not what America is all about. This is not what America approves. H.R. 1018 will give the agency new and better tools to avoid this outcome and will save money in the process. At the appropriate time, I will be offering a manager's amendment further clarifying that the restoration of the missing acreage is a goal rather than a legal requirement, and so I would urge my colleagues concerned about the cost involved to support that amendment at the time and then support this legislation on final passage. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, before recognizing the distinguished subcommittee chair, I do want to say I'm joined in cosponsoring this legislation by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and by my colleague from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield). At this point, I will yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of our National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands Subcommittee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 1018.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 653, I call up the bill (H.R. 1018) to amend the Wild Free- Roaming Horses and Burros Act to improve the management and long-term health of wild free-roaming horses and burros, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. RAHALL. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I do have the honor and responsibility of chairing our House Committee on Natural Resources. The gentleman from Washington, Doc Hastings, a former Member of the Rules Committee, is my ranking member. His amendment was made in order under this rule. Some allusions have been made on the minority side this morning that there are important issues facing our country, but here we are debating horses and burros because we couldn't find a cats and dogs bill. Well, we take seriously our responsibility on the House Natural Resources Committee as stewards of our public lands. We take seriously our responsibility to all creatures of this great land of ours, whether they be cats, dogs, wild horses, burros, sea otters, turtles, bees, birds. You name it, they appropriately come under our jurisdiction, and they are important responsibilities that the American people value. These are creatures that God has endowed our great country with, that have no vast lobbyists here in Washington representing them; but they represent good old American family values. They represent recreational pursuits. They represent a quality of time that our families can spend enjoying with these creatures that God has so richly bestowed this country with. So for the other side to say that with all these important issues before our country--and they are important issues, and this Congress is addressing them because we on the majority side as well as this administration can, indeed, walk and chew gum at the same time. We are addressing those issues. As the minority knows, since they were once in a position of leadership, we are supposed to be here 5 days a week, working on behalf of our constituents. Our constituents, for the most part, work at least 5 days a week, if not 7 days a week. At least in my district, many of them go to work before the sun comes up. They don't go home and see their families until the sun has gone down. They work a full 8- if not 12-hour day; and yet the minority side is noted for their offering motions to adjourn after we come in at 10 o'clock in the morning. They want to go home at 10:10 a.m. I know this is inside Beltway, inside baseball talk; but the American people want to see Congress do its job. They recognize the many issues that face our country, and they recognize that Congress should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time, just like this administration is doing in a very appropriate way. So we are addressing issues that affect the American people at the same time that we're addressing the issues that affect their daily lives. I think that that's what they want us to do, and they want us to do it in a bipartisan way. So we should not be up here trying to make fun of the matter that we're addressing of wild horses and burros legislation on a Friday because we know that work is being done while we are still discussing this legislation. The committees are meeting, the appropriations committees. The other committees are marking up health care reform, a very important issue. We know here amongst ourselves that if it were not for us having votes here on the floor of the House today, where would Members of Congress be? Some would be in their congressional districts, some would be out around the country doing things that Members do when we have weekends off. So this is an appropriate use of Congress' time.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. I thank the gentlemen for that recognition. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pending amendment. It is, in what I view, a vindictive manner that seeks to prohibit the payment of a salary to any person employed by the White House Council on Environmental Quality, in addition the Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change and a deputy assistant. As the chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources, which has jurisdiction over the National Environmental Policy Act, and hence, CEQ, I can assure my colleagues that eliminating this entity, which is the goal with the pending amendment, would have severe repercussions on our Nation's environment and our economy. CEQ, at least under President Obama, has served to coordinate policy among various Federal agencies and provide regulatory stability, coordination and stability. I witnessed this firsthand recently with respect to coal surface mining in my home State in Appalachia. The EPA was off in one course, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers were off on another course, and the coal industry caught in between was the subject of conflict and requirements with nobody able to provide it with a roadmap on how to obtain permits in order to mine coal in this country. It was CEQ which stepped in, got the regulatory entities together, resulting in an interagency action plan on Appalachian surface coal mining. Now, the efficacy of that action plan remains to be seen, I grant you, but at least a plan is in place and the rules of engagement are set forth. Now, if this amendment is part of a continued protest against the administration's position on climate change, let me be clear on that point. I voted against the House cap-and-trade bill. I did not support it, but I do support, as the subcommittee has said, the right of this President or any President to establish positions in his or her own White House. And if President Obama finds that he wants a White House assistant on energy and climate change, that's his prerogative. That's his right. It was the right of President Bush before him and many other Presidents in the past. So I urge my colleagues to indeed oppose this ill-conceived, vindictive amendment.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I join with my colleagues in paying tribute to the service of Mr. Pope Barrow to the House of Representatives in the Office of Legislative Counsel. It is with regret that I learned recently that Pope has announced his retirement after a career of stellar service to this body. Serving 40 years with the Office of Legislative Counsel, Pope has held a number of positions of increasing responsibility including Counsel, Senior Counsel, Deputy Legislative Counsel and lastly Legislative Counsel. His service to the House has been exemplary and the legislation passed by this House is better because of his efforts. For many years, Pope was the go to guy in the Legislative Counsel's office on natural resource legislation. As a 33-year member of the Natural Resources Committee, I and my staff have called upon Pope numerous times to draft important and complex natural resource legislation. I am grateful for Pope's efforts in drafting legislation that led to the designation in my home State of West Virginia of the Gauley River National Recreation Area and the Bluestone Wild and Scenic River. Madam Speaker, I know that my colleagues will be able to elaborate on Pope's legislative efforts but I want to make note of Pope's skills outside the legislative workplace. Some of my colleagues may not be aware that Pope is an accomplished kayaker. On more than one occasion when I was in my district I would run into Pope who was in West Virginia to kayak the beautiful and challenging whitewater found in my State. But Members did not have to go to West Virginia to find Pope on the water. He is a well-known fixture on the local kayaking scene and could often be found challenging the whitewater rapids of the Great Falls of the Potomac River. Madam Speaker, while I have noted Pope's legislative and kayaking prowess, I would be remiss if I did not mention his greatest attribute; he is genuinely a nice guy. Fair and level-headed, he is proof that nice guys do not always finish last. On behalf of myself and the many Natural Resources Committee staff that Pope has worked with, I want to wish Pope all the best in his retirement and thank him again for the many services he has provided Members and staff over the years.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, at the request of the Pocahontas County Commission of the great State of West Virginia, today I am introducing legislation to provide for a study to determine the feasibility and suitability of including a segment of the Elk River as a component of the Wild and Scenic River System. The Elk River is one of West Virginia's premier natural resource assets. It is the longest river in West Virginia with its boundaries entirely within the State. The study which would be authorized by this legislation, however, would focus only on that segment of the Elk where it begins at the confluence of two streams--Old Field Fork and Big Spring Fork--at the community of Slatyfork and flows North for approximately five miles to the Pocahontas/Randolph County line. The study would be conducted by the U.S. Forest Service. The idea of preserving this river in its natural state is not something new. Indeed, I well recall conversations with one of West Virginia's visionary conservationists, former State Senator Robert K. Holliday, on this matter during the late 1980s and early 1990s. In 1989, the Senate of West Virginia passed a resolution calling for the development of the Elk River into a national recreation area by Federal and State governments. And in 1993, I did propose a Wild and Scenic study for a 57.5 mile segment of the river. For one reason or another, the enthusiasm over this endeavor dissipated. The February 4, 2009, unanimous vote by the Pocahontas County Commission consisting of President Martin V. Saffer, David M. Fleming and Reta J. Griffith to request that a study be conducted on a much smaller segment of the Elk River resurrects this issue and makes it ripe for consideration. The ``Slaty'' segment of the Elk River that would be the subject of the study authorized by this bill, named in reference to the community of Slatyfork where the river begins, was described in a January 2009 letter written by local resident Tom Shipley to the Pocahontas County Commission as follows: ``History abounds around, near and on the banks of the Elk River. She is, in a literal sense, very much as she was back in the early 1800's . . . one of the last rivers on the East Coast that has three naturally reproducing species of wild trout . . . Brook, Brown and Rainbow. As Big Spring Fork and Old Field merge, they form an impressive gateway to the Upper Elk . . . a gift from God to Pocahontas County.'' Indeed, the Slaty segment of the Elk River is a superb fishery, and the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources does a good job in the area. While what is being proposed is a study--not a designation--and while the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is very clear that nothing in the statute ``shall affect the jurisdiction or responsibilities of the State with respect to fish and wildlife,'' I am including in the legislation being introduced today a reaffirmation that the mere act of studying this segment of the Elk River will not change the status quo with respect to State jurisdiction. The legislation being introduced today states that nothing in the bill ``shall be construed as affecting access for recreational activities otherwise allowed by law or regulation, including hunting, fishing, or trapping.'' It further states that nothing in the measure ``shall be construed as affecting the authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility of the State to manage, control, or regulate fish and resident wildlife under State law or regulations, including the regulation of hunting, fishing, and trapping.'' In my view, most people associated with this segment of the Elk River want to keep it the way it is. As Mr. Shipley wrote, the river is ``a gift of God to Pocahontas County'' and I would add, to the State of West Virginia and the Nation as a whole. In his book entitled ``Upper River, Elk's Origins and Beyond,'' Skip Johnson, a long time outdoor columnist and reporter for the Charleston Gazette, concisely summed up the essence of our relationship with rivers. ``Rivers like Elk touch us in a spiritual way,'' he wrote. ``Dave Teets, my neighbor, gave a talk on rivers at our 2004 church picnic. He said that rivers are important in the Bible, important to our soul and mind, and important to God. They also provide recreation, transportation, and natural boundaries. Then he made a less profound but equally important point: `Who hasn't spent at least a part of a day just watching a river roll on?' '' I could not agree more.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, the Congress would be unwise to sit by and simply allow the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as the agency has been mandated to do by the Supreme Court. Similarly, it would be a mistake to sit back and allow other countries to devise international rules that will affect America's economic and energy interests. I do not agree with those who advocate for sitting on our hands and just saying no to everything, sight unseen. The international community has no interest in protecting American businesses, and the Environmental Protection Agency is not required by the Supreme Court to consider the views of our constituents or the economic consequences to our communities. I believe America is the one nation best equipped to lead such a multinational effort and, in doing so, to strike a balance between environmental preservation and the preservation of jobs. The hands-off approach of recent years did nothing to help promote new energy technologies, or to advance carbon capture and sequestration, or to protect American jobs. It is evident that wishing that this complex issue would simply go away will not lead to better results for our Nation or the people we represent. And ``just saying no'' to any and all proposals, sight unseen, is unrealistic and irresponsible. For those reasons, I chose to work with my colleagues and with numerous stakeholders--including the coal industry, manufacturers, and labor--to positively influence this bill and America's climate change strategies. And for those reasons our coal miners and responsible industry members have been at the table, too, rather than on the sidelines. I thank Chairman Waxman, who has made many concessions in this bill, and I thank leadership for listening to my concerns about this legislation and moving to help address them. As well, I commend my colleague Rick Boucher, from southwestern Virginia, who serves on the Energy and Commerce Committee and worked in determined fashion to make improvements to the bill that we both sought. I am grateful that he has been so welcoming of my views and supportive of our interests--such as ensuring the availability of $10 billion to advance carbon capture and sequestration technologies and other changes that are beneficial to the people of our neighboring districts. While this bill is greatly improved from the discussion draft that was first circulated in March of this year--and opponents were saying no even before that draft was written--more improvements are needed to gain my support. Coal does much more than keep the lights on in big cities across America. In southern West Virginia, it covers the mortgage, puts food on the family dinner table, and keeps open the doors of small businesses. While the emissions target in the early years of this program has been lowered from the 20% cap initially contained in this bill, there remains widespread concern that even the reduced cap--17% in 2020--is still too high and too soon to incentivize rapid development and deployment of carbon capture and sequestration technologies, so as to ensure coal mining jobs for the future. We must allow time for expensive clean coal technologies to come on line. These technologies are critical to lowering emissions across multiple sectors of our economy. And they are necessary for keeping hardworking coal miners in the jobs they want, providing power for the country they love. For these reasons, I cannot cast my vote for this bill.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, the Congress would be unwise to sit by and simply allow the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as the agency has been mandated to do by the Supreme Court. Similarly, it would be a mistake to sit back and allow other countries to devise international rules that will affect America's economic and energy interests. I do not agree with those who advocate for sitting on our hands and just saying NO to everything, sight unseen. The international community has no interest in protecting American businesses, and the Environmental Protection Agency is not required by the Supreme Court to consider the views of our constituents or the economic consequences to our communities. I believe America is the one nation best equipped to lead such a multinational effort and, in doing so, to strike a balance between environmental preservation and the preservation of jobs. The hands-off approach of recent years did nothing to help promote new energy technologies, or to advance carbon capture and sequestration, or to protect American jobs. It is evident that wishing that this complex issue would simply go away will not lead to better results for our Nation or the people we represent. And ``just saying no'' to any and all proposals, sight unseen, is unrealistic and irresponsible. For those reasons, I chose to work with my colleagues and with numerous stakeholders--including the coal industry, manufacturers, and labor--to positively influence this bill and America's climate change strategies. And for those reasons our coal miners and responsible industry members have been at the table, too, rather than on the sidelines. I thank Chairman Waxman, who has made many concessions in this bill, and I thank leadership for listening to my concerns about this legislation and moving to help address them. As well, I commend my colleague Rick Boucher, from southwestern Virginia, who serves on the Energy and Commerce Committee and worked in determined fashion to make improvements to the bill that we both sought. I am grateful that he has been so welcoming of my views and supportive of our interests--such as ensuring the availability of $10 billion to advance carbon capture and sequestration technologies and other changes that are beneficial to the people of our neighboring districts. While this bill is greatly improved from the discussion draft that was first circulated in March of this year--and opponents were saying NO even before that draft was written--more improvements are needed to gain my support. Coal does much more than keep the lights on in big cities across America. In my district, it covers the mortgage, puts food on the family dinner table, and keeps open the doors of small businesses. While the emissions target in the early years of this program has been lowered from the 20% cap initially contained in this bill, there remains widespread concern that even the reduced cap--17% in 2020--is still too high and too soon to incentivize rapid development and deployment of carbon capture and sequestration technologies, so as to ensure coal mining jobs for the future. We must allow time for expensive clean coal technologies to come on line. These technologies are critical to lowering emissions across multiple sectors of our economy. And they are necessary for keeping hardworking coal miners in the jobs they want, providing power for the country they love. Madam Speaker, today, I cannot cast my vote for this bill.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. I thank the distinguished member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Polis, for yielding me the time. Madam Speaker, as chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources, I do rise today to express my strong support for the fiscal year 2010 appropriation bill for the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. For many years, many programs in the Department of the Interior were severely underfunded, leaving us with a legacy of tired visitor facilities and a backlog of needs for many natural resources programs. The legislation before us today funds the most important programs harmed by years of starvation budgets. I'm very supportive of the funding increases for our public lands. Madam Speaker, I do wish to commend the Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations chairman, my classmate, Mr. Norm Dicks, and Ranking Member Simpson for the work that they have put in on this legislation. They have provided a needed increase to U.S. Forest Service for both wildlife prevention and wildlife suppression. The legislation also provides the necessary funding for the National Park Service to ensure that park visitors can experience our national parks in their full glory. I'm also pleased to see an increase in funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Further, I applaud the spending items contained in the pending measure for Indian Country. Through treaties entered into many years ago, the United States has a trust responsibility and moral obligation to provide for our Native Americans. The unmet needs of Indian Country can never be addressed by a 1-year spending bill. However, we are making good progress with the increased funding for law enforcement, health care, and education in this legislation. These funding levels show our commitment to meet both our legal and moral obligations to Native Americans. From the standpoint of our natural resources, the preservation of our heritage and keeping faith with Indian Country, this is a very good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 433, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, whenever an opportunity arises for the Congress to step forward and act to ensure that our veterans receive the full benefits they have earned, this Member is at the front of the line. So when I was made aware of the need for monies to offset the cost of H.R. 2990, the Disabled Military Relief Act, I was proud to find the funds within the jurisdiction of the Natural Resources Committee which I chair. Most Americans, I believe, see it as deeply unfair and certainly counter to American values that disabled veterans would be penalized with cuts in benefits when they also receive retirement pay. That policy does not reflect the thanks of a grateful nation. That is a practice that must be stopped. Toward that end, I have been glad to support the use of $50 million in receipts from the Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and Other Petroleum Resources Program to help in the short-term provide our veterans with full access to the benefits they so rightly deserve. While this legislation represents a temporary one-year fix, I look forward to the opportunity to support a permanent solution. There are those who may decry the use of those funds to pay for veterans benefits and who will complain that this offset is too costly to the oil and gas industry. In response I point out an Associated Press article from earlier this month, which reported that the oil and gas industry has accelerated its spending on lobbying during this year faster than any other industry. In fact, Big Oil spent $44.5 million lobbying Congress and federal agencies in just the first three months of this year. Madam Speaker, if those lucrative, multinational firms would simply call off their highly paid, smartly dressed lobbyists for three-and-a- half-month, this offset would be entirely covered. In essence, this amounts to a choice between three-and-a-half months of pay of deep- pocketed lobbyists and the debt we owe our veterans. Madam Speaker, I stand with America's veterans.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to amend the Whaling Convention Act of 1949 (Act) to require that the United States Commissioner to the International Whaling Commission (IWC) be a Federal employee. The Act sets out conditions for the appointment of the U.S. Commissioner to the IWC. It provides that the U.S. Commissioner shall be appointed by the President on the concurrent recommendations of the Secretaries of State and Commerce, and establishes that the Commissioner shall serve at the pleasure of the President. My legislation would add a requirement that any such individual must also be an employee of the Federal Government to ensure that the positions of the Administration are represented by the Commissioner. It would apply to any individual who is appointed, or reappointed, as U.S. Commissioner to the IWC on or after the date of enactment. This amendment would bring the International Whaling Commission into line with other international fora, such as the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. It also would signal a shift in our approach to ending commercial whaling in all its forms at the IWC. Under the last Administration the U.S. Commissioner sought to negotiate an agreement that would legitimize commercial whaling and allow the continuation of so-called scientific whaling. This policy direction was very clearly at odds with the wishes of the American people, past Administrations, and numerous Members of Congress. Further, while we all want to reduce the number of whales killed, unfortunately the proposed agreement would not have achieved this goal. Last year at this time, the House of Representatives passed House Concurrent Resolution 350, which, among other things, urged U.S. leadership to use all appropriate measures to put an end to all forms of commercial whaling around the globe. In the first days of the Obama Presidency, I urged him to ensure that the Bush Administration's flawed policies and negotiation tactics become a thing of the past. Just last month, 34 of my colleagues joined me in calling upon the Obama Administration to modernize the IWC and bring it in line with other international conservation treaties. This bill is the first step in that direction. It is time to set new goals for protecting whales with an explicit commitment to the accountability and transparency that were lost during the last eight years. In her public statement issued prior to this year's Intersessional Meeting of the IWC, Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley confirmed that the Obama Administration views the commercial whaling moratorium as a necessary conservation measure and believes that lethal scientific whaling is unnecessary for modern whale conservation management. In that spirit, it's time for a new direction for the IWC, with a new policy and a new agreement to end commercial and so-called scientific whaling. I look forward to working with the Obama Administration, and this bill will ensure that the next U.S. Commissioner, who will be appointed this year, will be an employee of their Administration, fully in step with their new approach and commitment to opposing the resumption of commercial whaling. As the 61st Annual Meeting of the IWC convenes next week in Madeira, Portugal, I again urge the Obama Administration to take the necessary steps to repair the damage done in recent years and to reestablish our nation's longstanding commitment to protecting whales. As a symbol of that new day, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hank Johnson.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I would advise Mr. Hastings that I am prepared to close with one final speaker if he wishes to use the balance of his time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the sponsor of this resolution and commend him for the quickness with which he has brought this to the floor, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Diane Watson.