Nick Rahall

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, in the 19th Century, it is estimated that as many as 2 million wild horses and burros ranged freely across the American West. Some of them were of noble birth, with blood lines stretching back to the horses which carried Spanish explorers into the New World; all of them were part of the fabric of the romance and the history of the American West. As wild animals living on public land, management of these horses and burros fell to the Federal government, acting through the Bureau of Land Management, BLM. Unfortunately, many decades of underfunding and inhumane management practices combined to destroy these wild herds, leaving fewer than 25,000 wild horses and burros on public lands by the early 1970s. Starting in the 1950s, the American public became aware of the cruelty, disease and death suffered by these iconic animals, thanks in large part to the actions of one woman, Mrs. Velma Bronn Johnston-- better known by the nickname she earned--Wild Horse Annie. The crusade she started--which included a massive letter-writing campaign and eventually a beloved children's book--culminated in 1971 with enactment of the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act. The Act stated clearly that: Congress finds and declares that wild free-roaming horses and burros are living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West; that they contribute to the diversity of life forms within the Nation and enrich the lives of the American people; and that these horses and burros are fast disappearing from the American scene. It is the policy of Congress that wild free-roaming horses and burros shall be protected from capture, branding, harassment, or death; and to accomplish this they are to be considered in the area where presently found, as an integral part of the natural system of the public lands. While this landmark legislation resulted in significant improvements in the management of these herds, our experience since 1971 has demonstrated that the law was far from perfect. While the Act identified 53 million acres of public land on which these herds could roam freely, the BLM has removed horses and burros from nearly 19 million of those acres for a variety of reasons. Since 1971, more than 200,000 wild horses and burros have been removed from public land and either adopted or placed in long-term holding facilities. Six states have lost their entire population of wild horses and burros. Recently, the BLM announced that a combination of a lack of funding, facilities and options may require the killing of as many as 30,000 healthy wild horses and burros. Clearly, the laws and policies in place since 1971 need updating. A recent investigation by the Government Accountability Office identified many of the problems plaguing the wild horse and burro program within BLM. This legislation amends the 1971 Act to implement the changes suggested by the GAO. This legislation would remove outdated limits on the areas where wild horses and burros can roam freely, allowing the BLM flexibility to find additional, suitable acreage. The bill would strengthen the BLM's adoption program, require consistency and accuracy in the management of these herds, allow more public involvement in management decisions, facilitate the creation of sanctuaries for wild horses and burros on public land and place significant new limitations on the authority to remove these animals from the wild. Finally, the legislation would prohibit the killing of healthy wild horses and burros. Madam Speaker, introduction of this legislation is the beginning, not the end, of this process. There are many stake-holders--here in Congress, in the agencies and among members of the public--who are invested in this issue. I look forward to working with all parties in an effort to craft a final bill that would make Wild Horse Annie proud.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to submit for printing in the Congressioinal Record, pursuant to clause 2(a) of Rule XI, of the Rules of the House, a copy of the Rules of the Committee on Natural Resources, which were adopted at the organizational meeting of the committee on February 4, 2009. Rules for the Committee on Natural Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, 111th Congress, Adopted February 4, 2009

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, history is fleeting, unless you are part of making it. Few in this House, nor outside this body, would take issue with the proposition that John D. Dingell has been a maker of history most of his days here. I rise today to honor our esteemed colleague, Congressman John D. Dingell, as the longest serving member of the U.S. House of Representatives. As the youngest elected, longest serving Member of Congress in the history of the House, I can attest to the trials and tribulations, the trophies and triumphs of tenure. It has been my honor to work alongside Mr. Dingell over the last 32-plus years. We have fought together in the trenches of Congress to bring affordable healthcare to the elderly, to craft a reasoned and balanced view of the U.S. role in a lasting peace in the Middle East, and to champion the safe usage of our precious natural resources. Today, the ``Dynamo of Detroit'' has reached a remarkable milestone: 19,420 days of service in the House of Representatives. He stepped into a seat vacated by his late father, John Dingell, Sr., on September 19, 1955, but his service to our Nation began many years prior. In 1941, when serving as a congressional page in our hallowed halls, he was standing on the House Floor, when President Roosevelt asked Congress to declare war on Japan. He not only heard that call but answered it, and went on to serve in the Army, rising to the rank of second lieutenant. After taking up his father's mantle to represent the people of Michigan's 15th Congressional District, he worked on legislation that has strengthened the fabric of our Nation, voting on the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s and helping pass into law Medicare in 1965. Congressman Dingell has not just lived history; he has truly made history. Public service at times rises and sadly falls in the imaginations of our Nation's youth. As testament to what can be the very best of public service, we need to look no further than the legacy of John Dingell. The length of his tenure only serves to underscore his noble service. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague on this great milestone. It has been an honor and unique privilege to serve beside him as my senior colleague, my mentor, and my friend. With my election to this Congress, I am now the longest serving House member from the State of West Virginia, and I look forward to many more years of working together with the gentleman who has served his State and this Nation longer than anyone in the history of this House.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, today I wish to recognize a dedicated and committed young woman in West Virginia, Alisha Young. Ms. Young, a native of Montgomery, West Virginia, has overcome steep odds to gain an education and has tirelessly dedicated herself to the betterment of southern West Virginia and her neighbors. Despite hardship early on, Ms. Young worked part-time in her local community to help her mother provide for their family and got herself through high school and into college. After a series of unfortunate choices, Alisha found herself back at home and joined YouthBuild, a youth and community development program which addresses low-income community challenges, including housing, education, employment, crime prevention, and leadership development. Ms. Young speaks passionately about her work with YouthBuild. In a recent editorial in The Charleston Gazette, she highlighted the opportunity that participants have to obtain their GEDs or high school diplomas while learning career- and leadership-skills and earning money to build affordable homes for homeless and underprivileged families. Now a self-proclaimed YouthBuild leader, Alisha has persevered and hopes to return to her education in the near future. She is currently serving in the AmeriCorps VISTA program and working with the YouthBuild USA Young Leaders Council. It is from Alisha Young's example that I hope we can all learn. Her enthusiasm for her work and YouthBuild are a testament to the strong and compassionate spirit of volunteerism in West Virginia and America. As citizens of this great Nation, it is our duty to help the less fortunate using our strengths and talents to help those in need, and to inspire those who are lost. Today, I am proud to recognize her hard work and determination and congratulate Ms. Young for her commitment to personifying the change she hopes to see in the world through her work.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize West Virginia's Army National Guard for their assistance at the Presidential Inauguration of Barack Obama on Tuesday, the 20th of January 2009. West Virginia provided nearly 500 men and women with the National Guard to usher in President Barack Obama. From crowd control to communication, West Virginia National Guard troops assisted local law enforcement in providing security and other services. In addition, the West Virginia National Guard sent helicopters, airplanes, mobile satellite-communications trailers, medical gear, and a mobile kitchen. Our brave men and women witnessed history and gave their all to help at this historic occasion. Our heroic men and women in uniform are never far from my thoughts. They are our Nation's consistent example of valor and courage. In West Virginia, they earned a Special Category ``First Place'' award in the Army Communities of Excellence, ACOE, competition in May 2008 for their strong strategic planning process, communication, and customer-driven focus. Their excellence reflects the hard work and dedication of the men and women not only of the West Virginia Army National Guard, but also of every family member and friend who stands behind them. It is important to remember that our brave soldiers have given so much and have expected so little in return. I am proud to take this moment to recognize the excellence of the West Virginia Army National Guard for all they do to keep us safe from harm. Our Armed Forces have paid the debt for the freedom we enjoy today, and I will continue, as I have in the past, to do everything I can to honor their sacrifices and service. Our soldiers and their families remain foremost in the thoughts and minds of southern West Virginians, and I will continue to devote my all to those who wear or have worn America's uniform.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, last Friday, January 23, marks the passing of 137 years predecessors in the U.S. House of Representatives began to debate a bill to promote the development of mineral resources in the United States. One described the legislation as ``an experiment.'' On that day in January 1872, Representative Sargent from the State of California noted prior fierce debate in the House over a core element of the proposed mining law--that the Federal Government would be selling off the mineral rights of the United States rather than holding onto Federal ownership and imposing a royalty on future production. Representative Maynard from the State of Tennessee questioned whether the law might encourage speculation. During an April 1872 debate in the U.S. Senate, Senator Cole from the State of California cautioned that the proposed mining law would allow a person to acquire large tracts of land ``which might be worth thousands of dollars per acre, perhaps millions . . .'' Senator Alcorn from the State of Mississippi acknowledged that he had never seen a gold mine in his life, while Senator Casserly, also from the State of California, warned of men who could not imagine the mineral deposits that ``lie to a fabulous extent in value between the Mississippi River and the Sierra Nevada.'' Ultimately, however, our predecessors believed the bill would ``meet with universal favor'' and would prevent litigation among mining claimants. They liked the idea that the bill might, as Representative Sargent hoped, ``bring large amounts of money into the Treasury of the United States, causing the miners to settle themselves permanently, and improve and establish homes, to go deeper in the earth, to dig further into the Hills . . . and build up their communities and States.'' And so, on May 10, 1872, Congress passed a law that encouraged people to go West, locate hardrock minerals and stake mining claims on Federal lands, and remove treasure troves of gold, silver, copper, and platinum from the public domain--for free. The General Mining Law of 1872, or the ``experiment,'' as some of our predecessors named it, has endured for more than one and a third centuries--a total of 137 years. Today, we can resoundingly assert that the experiment has lasted long enough. Consider some of the impacts of the 1872 Mining Law: According to the Congressional Budget Office, it allows the hardrock mining industry to remove $1 billion in precious metals every year from America's public lands, with no royalty payment or production fee to the Federal Government. By comparison, the coal, gas, and oil industries pay royalties of 8 percent to 18.75 percent. According to the Department of the Interior, it has allowed mining claimants to buy American public's lands for $2.50-$5 an acre--lands that could easily be worth thousands or tens of thousands of dollars an acre today. Between 1994 and 2006, the U.S. government was forced to sell off more than 27,000 acres of public land holding valuable minerals for a pittance: $112,000. Finally, as detailed in several Government Accountability Office reports, there have been instances where American taxpayers have paid a fortune to buy back the very lands we once gave away. From Central Idaho's Thunder Mountain, to Telluride, CO, to land outside Yellowstone National Park, millions of public and private dollars have been spent to reacquire thousands of acres of mining claims to protect public access for hunting, fishing, and other recreational opportunities. Given our current economic crisis and the empty state of our national Treasury, it is ludicrous to be allowing this outmoded law to continue to exempt these lucrative mining activities from paying a fair return to the American people. Beyond that, the 1872 Mining Law has allowed unscrupulous owners of hardrock mines to abandon hundreds of thousands of mines--and to require American taxpayers to foot the bill because there is no ``polluter-pays'' funding source, that is, a dedicated source of cleanup funding. In 2007, the U.S. Forest Service estimated that, with its current annual abandoned mine cleanup budget of $15 million, it would take 370 years to complete its $5.5 billion in abandoned mine cleanup and safety mitigation work. In 2008, the inspector general of the Department of the Interior concluded that the public's health and safety is jeopardized by the unaddressed hazards posed by abandoned mines on Federal lands, including lands in the national parks. These old mines are not just eyesores, they are killers. Today, I, along with Representatives Miller, Waxman, Markey, Berman, Grijalva, Holt, Costa, Christensen, Stark, Kildee, Hinchey, Eshoo, Blumenauer, Kennedy, Kind, Capps, Schiff, Honda, Salazar, Tsongas, and Connolly, introduce the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2009. This legislation would end the financial and environmental abuses permitted by the 1872 Mining Law--archaic provisions that fly in the face of logic, and are not what taxpayers, sportsmen, conservationists, and western communities want or need. This is the same bill that the House of Representatives passed by a bipartisan vote of 244-166 in 2007. It contains the same critical requirements, including: An 8 percent royalty on production from future hardrock mines on public lands, and a 4 percent royalty from current mines. A permanent end to the sell-off of public lands holding mineral resources. The establishment of a clean-up fund for abandoned hardrock mine sites, prioritizing the riskiest ones. Stronger review requirements, specifically for mines proposed near national parks, to help protect nationally significant areas such as Grand Canyon National Park, where miners had filed more than 1,100 claims within five miles of the park as of October 2008. A threshold environmental standard for mining. This standard would not preclude mining, but it would make it possible to protect public lands if a mining proposal would irrevocably destroy other equally valuable resources. Every year, the mining industry's fear of losing the sweet deal they currently enjoy on U.S. public lands leads, predictably, to baseless arguments that reform will cause a large scale departure of mining from American soil. But we know there are many reasons companies will still want to mine for hardrock minerals in the United States. In an annual survey of metal mining and exploration companies published by the independent, Canadian-based Fraser Institute in 2008, Nevada ranked second out of 68 jurisdictions worldwide for overall policy attractiveness. Utah and Wyoming also made the top 10, and Arizona the top 20. The survey highlighted why the U.S. has appeal. Relative to many other countries the U.S. offers good enforcement, good infrastructure, a stable political system, minimal risk of terrorism or guerrilla groups ruining a mining investment--and a predictable regulatory system. Imposition of a Federal royalty--or fee--on production--will not change those powerful advantages. We also know that the mining industry is clinging to an outdated boondoggle. Nearly every country in the world imposes a royalty--except the United States. Industry might also trot out the argument that this bill undermines our Nation's secure access to the minerals we use in everyday products. Yet, import reliance alone is not a problem, as the National Research Council of the National Academies asserted in a recent study of critical minerals. Some minerals we have always imported in significant quantities, simply because the ones we need do not exist in mineable quantities here. Furthermore, a 2008 Congressional Research Service report concluded that Mining Law reform legislation would not likely have much impact on domestic mining capacity or the import reliance of minerals like copper, uranium, platinum, and molybdenum, in large part because the vast majority of mining on federal lands is for gold--about 88 percent. Today, our goals for mining policy are no longer what they were in 1872, when Representative Sargent hoped the mining law would encourage miners to ``dig deeper into the earth'' and ``further into the Hills.'' We can aspire to a law that does not merely promote mining, but one that also protects the other values of the hills themselves: clean water, wildlife, recreation, open space, and tourism. We should aim for a law that encourages mining but also encourages responsible corporate citizenship. And, a law that brings a fair return to the taxpayer. That would be a Mining Law worthy of the 21st--rather than the 19th-- century.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, Thomas Jefferson famously observed that were it left up to him ``to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government,'' he would ``not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' Fortunately, Americans have never been forced to make that choice. Jefferson and his fellow Founding Fathers bequeathed us a democratic government that has made us the envy of the world. And, at the same time, the Nation's free press has shown itself fully worthy of the confidence Jefferson voiced in it. This year, a great newspaper in my native West Virginia, The Herald- Dispatch, marks a major milestone in its long and distinguished history--its 100th anniversary--and I am proud to offer this salute to it. The Herald-Dispatch published its first issue in Huntington on January 17, 1909. The newspaper's roots actually stretch back to 1871, the very year of Huntington's birth, when printer O.G. Chase arrived by riverboat and soon was publishing the young city's first newspaper. Known as The Independent, Chase's publication merged in 1875 with the Cabell Press to form a new publication called the Weekly Advertiser. When it later became a daily paper, the name was shortened to The Advertiser. A rival daily, The Huntington Herald, was launched in 1890. Three years later, in 1893, printer Joseph Harvey Long, arrived in Huntington determined to purchase The Huntington Herald, which he did--paying $100 down and pledging to pay a balance of $1,700. Long published The Herald for only 18 months before selling it and purchasing The Advertiser. Floyd S. Chapman, a future several-term mayor of Huntington, was first the city editor of The Advertiser, then editor of The Herald. In 1904, he left to begin his own newspaper, The Huntington Dispatch. In 1909, The Herald and The Dispatch merged to become The Herald-Dispatch. Flash forward two decades and another historic merger occurred in 1927 when The Advertiser and The Herald-Dispatch merged to form the Huntington Publishing Co., with J.H. Long as president. Known to one and all by his honorary title of ``Colonel,'' Long would go on to become the undisputed dean of West Virginia newspapermen. The staff of The Herald-Dispatch moved into The Advertiser's handsome new building on the corner of Fifth Avenue and Tenth Street, but the two staffs remained separate and highly competitive. The building's presses published The Advertiser each afternoon, The Herald-Dispatch each morning and a combined edition, The Herald-Advertiser, on Sundays. Over the years, Colonel Long not only made The Advertiser and The Herald-Dispatch the region's leading newspapers, he and his sons also branched out into broadcasting. In 1923, the company purchased WSAZ Radio and in 1949 founded WSAZ-TV, one of the Nation's first television stations. Colonel Long died in 1958 at age 95. In 1971, the Gannett Co., one of the Nation's largest newspaper chains, purchased the Huntington Publishing Co. newspapers. Under Gannett, the newsroom's typewriters gave way to computer terminals, and the noisy Linotype machines that once spit out lines of hot metal type were consigned to the junkyard. In 1979, The Advertiser became one of many afternoon newspapers to cease publication, a victim of changing tastes on the part of readers who now prefer morning newspapers. At the same time, the Sunday Herald- Advertiser nameplate was retired and The Herald-Dispatch became a seven-day-a-week publication. Many long-time staffers on The Advertiser moved over to The Herald-Dispatch. Gannett published The Herald-Dispatch for 36 years, until May of 2007 when the company sold it to another national chain, Gatehouse Media. A month later, Gatehouse in turn sold the newspaper to a Huntington company, Champion Printing, thus returning it to local ownership. And indeed, the heart and spirit of America's free press, from the beginning, have been individuals dedicated to keeping the public informed, communities educated, and discourse alive and well. Throughout its century of living, the Herald Dispatch's corps of employees has kept the interest and needs of its neighbors foremost in their writing, coverage and opining. On this, its 100th anniversary, I extend my hearty congratulations to The Herald-Dispatch. May it continue to inform and entertain its thousands of readers for many, many years to come.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing legislation, using the authority granted to Congress under the Congressional Review Act, to overturn last minute regulations promulgated by the Bush Interior and Commerce Departments which give federal agencies an unacceptable degree of discretion to decide whether or not to comply with the Endangered Species Act, ESA. Joining me in introducing this measure are Mr. Markey, Mr. George Miller, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Hinchey, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Holt, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Dicks, Mr. Farr, and Mr. Blumenauer. I thank them for their support. The Bush Administration has had a long, though one could hardly say proud, history of trying to undermine the Endangered Species Act and the protection it provides our Nation's most imperiled species. For years, high ranking political appointees in the Department of Interior used their positions and influence to meddle in scientific decisions under the ESA and alter outcomes, potentially harming species and most definitely harming the integrity of the law and morale and reputation of the agency charged with implementing it. The rules we seek to overturn with this joint resolution were rushed through in the final months of the Administration and are the final assault on and insult to one of our nation's landmark conservation laws. They gut what is the cornerstone of the law, the Section 7 consultation process, and allow federal agencies to undertake or permit thousands of federal activities, such as logging or building a dam, on federal land and other areas without obtaining review or comment from federal wildlife biologists at the Fish and Wildlife Service. This incredibly controversial proposal--which could have far-reaching implications on the future integrity of the Endangered Species program--clearly merits more public scrutiny than the Administration provided. First proposed in late August, the Administration rushed a public comment period and environmental assessment and then reviewed more than 300,000 public comments at a rate of more than 6,000 per hour. This last minute, ill-conceived overhaul of the rules governing America's endangered wildlife, brokered behind closed doors, is an affront to the American people who trust their government to do the right thing. Eleventh hour rulemakings rarely, if ever, lead to good government, and this is not the type of legacy the Bush Administration should be leaving for future generations. Not surprisingly, this is not the first time--though fortunately it will likely be the last--that the Bush Interior Department abdicated their responsibility for ensuring that an agency action will not jeopardize a listed species or harm their habitat. Similar regulations proposed to allow the Environmental Protection Agency to decide whether to consult when licensing pesticides were rejected by the Court in 2006, just as we should reject these regulatory changes now. As the Bush Administration fades off into the sunset, they leave behind a trail of last minute regulatory changes that represent the worst in public policy and that Congress and the new President will have to undo. In my role as chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, I look forward to working with the Obama Administration to correct course and promote a positive resource conservation agenda. We need to invoke the change that is needed to restore the vigor and vitality of America, including the unique natural heritage that has carved our Nation as we know it today. Passage of this joint resolution will be one important step in restoring that natural heritage.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, years ago a coal miner from West Virginia wrote a letter to me noting that every single federal law regulating coal was penned in blood. He was referring to the fact that it took an explosion claiming 78 souls in 1968 at a mine in Farmington, West Virginia, to give rise to the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. And that it took the failure of a coal slurry impoundment at Buffalo Creek, in Logan County, West Virginia, that killed 125 people, for the Congress to finally pass the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. Just a few weeks ago, in December, a facility owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) gave way, unleashing an avalanche of coal ash sludge that covered more than 300 acres. This time Heaven intervened, and thankfully no lives were lost. This disaster--which could have been avoided if TVA had exercised appropriate engineering and monitoring regimes at its Kingston facility in Harriman, Tennessee--was a clarion call for action. Now is the time to take that action, before any lives are lost to a similar disaster. Simply put, there are no federal standards for coal ash impoundments. They are constructed and maintained under a patchwork of State requirements, or on a voluntary basis. Today I am introducing legislation to impose uniform federal design, engineering, and performance standards on coal ash impoundments. These standards are aimed at ensuring the structural stability of these impoundments, and requiring adequate monitoring and inspection regimes to avoid a repeat of what happened at Kingston, Tennessee, and what almost happened just last week at another TVA facility in Alabama. Coal ash is a byproduct of the combustion of coal at electric utility powerplants. Some of the coal ash produced is recycled, usually as construction materials like concrete, Portland cement, and wallboard. However, the majority of coal ash is deposited in impoundments, landfills, or mines. The larger issue here is how to regulate coal ash, and, in this respect, the track record is woefully inadequate. Back in 1980, former Representative Tom Bevill of Alabama and this gentleman from West Virginia successfully offered an amendment to what became the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1980 requiring the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to determine how to regulate coal ash. I am sorry to say that after 29 years the EPA has yet to do so. Over the years, I have cajoled the agency to move forward. It came close to making a decision under the Clinton Administration, then retrenched under the Bush Administration. I called for a study by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences on this issue, which was completed in 2006. Following up on that study, last year our colleague, Rep. Jim Costa, in his capacity as the Chairman of the Energy and Minerals Subcommittee of the Natural Resources Committee, held a hearing on coal ash. The study, and the hearing, all pointed to the pressing need for a federal regulatory regime governing the disposal of coal ash, whether in impoundments, landfills, or in mines. I have no doubt that the Obama Administration will finally take action on this issue. In the meantime, however, the purpose of my legislation is to address the engineering aspects of the impoundments themselves. For its part, the electric utility industry says it complies with voluntary guidelines in this matter. And some States claim they have adequate requirements. Yet, as it stands, one State might require strict standards for the construction of a coal ash pond, while the State next door largely ignores how coal ash ponds are constructed. Pennsylvania, for example, requires a solid waste permit for all surface impoundments that receive coal ash, while Illinois and Indiana are among the states that regulate surface impoundments as water pollution control facilities, rather than solid waste management units. Similarly, requirements for liners for coal ash ponds vary State by State. For example, Alabama and Florida do not require liners for surface impoundments for coal ash, while Wisconsin does. The argument that all States have adequate regulations for coal ash is not substantiated by the facts. It is impossible to write off the disaster in Tennessee as a freak accident. The absence of national standards for coal ash has resulted in environmental damage throughout the country--not just last month, or last year, but for decades. In 2007, the EPA recognized 67 contaminated sites in 23 states where coal combustion byproducts have polluted groundwater or surface water. This may be just the tip of the iceberg, because most coal ash sites in the United States are not adequately monitored. The ``Coal Ash Reclamation and Environmental Safety Act of 2009'' requires minimum design and stability standards for all surface impoundments constructed to hold coal ash. The bill draws on the regulatory model for impoundments that is used for coal slurry management under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. Requirements for coal slurry impoundments that would be made applicable to coal ash impoundments under 2 this legislation cover aspects of design, construction, operation, and closure, including: Regulations detailing the engineering and stability of the embankment. Regulations requiring all applications for an impoundment to have a foundation investigation to determine design requirements for stability. Each design plan must include a geotechnical investigation of the embankment foundation area. Each impoundment plan must include a survey describing the potential effect on the structure from subsidence of the subsurface strata resulting from past mining operations in the area. Plans for impoundments must be reviewed by a geologist or an engineer. Regulations requiring that a qualified engineer, with experience in construction of impoundments, inspect each impoundment regularly during construction, upon completion of construction, and periodically thereafter. The ``Coal Ash Reclamation and Environmental Safety Act of 2009'' also requires immediate development of a detailed inventory and analysis of all existing coal ash disposal sites, to guide informed and prompt decisions on how to bring that universe of ponds and lagoons up to safe standards, now. For States that already have careful standards for coal ash disposal, the bill I am introducing will not be a problem. For those that do not, the ``Coal Ash Reclamation Environmental Safety Act of 2009'' will require immediate attention to shocking gaps in coal ash management. As a witness at our hearing last year so presciently reminded the Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals: ``the cost of safe disposal [of coal ash] is not burdensome to industry, although it has proved, at site after site, to be catastrophic to the public and the environment.'' The time to act is now.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, this week, in this Capitol, we are witnessing a convergence of a number of events that will long stand out in our Nation's collective memories. We are on the front edge of a new session of Congress, preparing for a landmark moment in the history of America's presidency. And, at the same time, we are celebrating a major milestone for one of this Nation's most devoted and accomplished public servants--U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd. It was 50 years ago, that Senator Byrd, for the first time, took the oath of office to serve in the United States Senate--an oath he has now taken a record-setting nine times. Yesterday, as numerous Members of the House and Senate raised their own hands and took their own very first oaths, I could not help but think about what it must have been like for our Senior Senator from West Virginia to watch these new ranks at the start of their own Congressional careers. I was reminded of my first day of service in this body. I recall being humbled by the responsibility that had been placed in my hands and awed by the auspicious ceremony and the grandeur of this ornate Chamber. On that first day, I was relieved at the knowledge that I was blessed with the wisdom, the support, and the mentorship of Robert C. Byrd. Throughout my career here, he has been a constant source of encouragement and sage advice. Today, as we embark upon this new session cognizant of the tremendous challenges before us--a struggling economy, two wars, a strapped Federal budget, and growing public need--we can breathe easier knowing that we are all blessed to have the continuing service of Robert C. Byrd to steer us through the rocky shoals. Congratulations to Senator Byrd--our trailblazer, our Leader, our Big Daddy. May he continue to serve the people of West Virginia and the entire Nation for many years to come.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee for yielding me the time and certainly respect his work on this resolution. We have talked about this issue numerous times over our careers in this body. Madam Speaker, I am saddened by the recent escalation and fighting over the past few weeks in the Middle East. I condemn the Hamas attacks and recent air strikes in southern Lebanon into Israel. My hope is that all sides can take a step back, deescalate the fighting, and work together to renew the cease-fire agreement that expired on December 19. At the same time, humanitarian aid and assistance should be allowed to reach those in the region that need it the most, particularly civilian victims of the conflict. Military action alone is not going to be a solution to the problems in the Middle East; we all know that. Working towards a lasting, peaceful solution to these conflicts by addressing the root causes is in the best interests of the United States. The current fighting is not in the best interests of the United States. Only the extremists on both sides are the winners. Those moderates in the middle, both in Israel and on the Palestinian side, are the real losers in the current fighting. Make no mistake about it. This campaign was planned some time ago, not just at the expiration of the cease-fire in December. Recent events in Israel show that the prime minister election coming up in February certainly have been a major factor in these air strikes, witnessing meteoric rise of Defense Minister Ehud Barak from almost nothing in the polls to now leading for prime minister of Israel. So make no mistake about it, there are a variety of factors on all sides that come into play. There's no political will on the Palestinian side. There's no political side on the Israeli side to reach a real agreement in addressing the root causes. This resolution, while there's nothing in that it can be denied, is not in my opinion in the best interests of resolving this conflict. We applaud what happened in the United Nations last night, but we know that what happens in the United Nations is far different than what happens on the ground in the region. We urge the Egyptians, along with the Palestinian Authority, to reach an agreement in Cairo, as they are negotiating as we speak between Israel and Hamas, so that we can start addressing the smuggling of arms and the root causes of the conflict in the region.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Anthony ``Ben'' Borda, Jr. of Huntington, WV and his 36 years of service to the State and people of West Virginia. For the past 36 years, Mr. Borda has served in the Federal Government, 34 years with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and 2 years with the U.S. Department of the Interior's Office of Surface Mining. Mr. Borda currently serves as the Acting Chief of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's Huntington District and New River Navigator for the New River American River Heritage Initiative and is now set to retire on January 2, 2009. Born and raised in Fairmont, West Virginia, Ben has devoted his life to protecting West Virginia's God-given natural resources. He earned a bachelor's degree in Landscape Architecture from West Virginia University in 1972 and a Masters in Biological Science from Marshall University in 1994. For nearly four decades, Ben has been a godsend to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's Huntington District, helping manage land and water usage, and has played a powerful role in dozens of district projects covering three states. From Landscape Architect to Acting Chief of the planning Branch, Ben has left his mark on virtually every aspect of the Huntington District and improved the lives of the people of southern West Virginia. Additionally, Ben is the longest serving New River Navigator in the country, having served for the past ten years as the Federal Liaison for the New River under the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. In this capacity, he has helped the New River Community Partners leverage millions of dollars in federal, state, local, and private funds to help bring economic, conservation and preservation, education, and transportation projects to the New River Area and was awarded the American Heritage Rivers Initiatives' Navigator Award in 2006 for his success. Ben's list of accomplishments far exceeds his years of service. His leadership and vision have been invaluable to the Huntington District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and helped shape environmental policy across southern West Virginia. His dedication to his work and commitment to helping others are examples to us all. I again congratulate Ben for his 36 years of dedicated service to the State and people of West Virginia and wish him continued success in retirement and all his future endeavors.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table House Resolution 1382 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5350) to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to sell or exchange certain National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration property located Norfolk, Virginia, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure be discharged from further consideration of the Senate bill (S. 2382) to require the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to quickly and fairly address the abundance of surplus manufactured housing units stored by the Federal Government around the country at taxpayer expense, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 7017) to amend Public Law 100-573 to extend the authorization of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area Citizen Advisory Commission, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5618) to reauthorize and amend the National Sea Grant College Program Act, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 1582) to reauthorize and amend the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I offer an amendment.

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration of the Senate bill (S. 1193) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to take into trust 2 parcels of Federal land for the benefit of certain Indian Pueblos in the State of New Mexico, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 1474) recognizing the 50th anniversary of the first vertical ascent of the face of El Capitan in Yosemite National Park and honoring the historic climbing feat of the original climbing team, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2963) to transfer certain land in Riverside County, California, and San Diego County, California, from the Bureau of Land Management to the United States to be held in trust for the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration of the Senate bill (S. 3550) to designate a portion of the Rappahannock River in the Commonwealth of Virginia as the ``John W. Warner Rapids,'' and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.