Nick Rahall

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, in evaluating this amendment, I would ask that Members first read section 3 of the underlying bill which states, ``Nothing in this Act shall prohibit or hinder the development, production, conveyance, or transmission of energy.'' So by its own terms, H.R. 1286 will have no impact whatsoever on energy production. The Pearce amendment would require the Secretary to assess the impact this trail designation will have on energy production. In other words, the Pearce amendment would require the Secretary to study impacts that would never exist. That's similar to a requirement that the secretary study the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny. The bill says there will be no impacts, so studying them is impossible. Such a report would read in its entirety, ``We find no impacts on energy production because the bill prohibits them.'' Period. The end. It is my hope that this amendment is simply a platform, and I think the sponsor of it has already used it for that to restate some of their talking points on energy production. It's my hope that no one could ever seriously suggest assessing the energy resources that might lie under George Washington's front lawn. The first part of this amendment is completely unnecessary because the underlying language in the bill makes impacts on energy production a non-issue. The second part of this amendment contemplates oil rigs and wind farms in places that we would never allow them to be built. So once again, as with the previous amendment, this amendment is not necessary. Therefore, I will not object to it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, we are considering H.R. 1286, legislation introduced by our colleague, Representative Maurice Hinchey of New York. I might also add that it was some 9 years ago that the initial study on this legislation was initiated by our colleague from Connecticut, Mr. John Larson, and I wish to commend his leadership, as well as Mr. Hinchey's leadership on the pending bill. The pending legislation will designate a National Historic Trail, tracing the routes taken in 1781 by the armies of General George Washington and French Count Rochambeau on their march from New England to face the British Army at Yorktown, Virginia. The story of this trail is a fascinating piece of our history. The French Army, after wintering in Newport, Rhode Island, marched southwest in early July to join General Washington and his troops at Phillipsburg, New York. On August 18, the soldiers, and their provisions and armaments, started to slip away from Philipsburg. The troops and their supplies traveled 600 miles over a network of strategic roads and waterways through New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, the future District of Columbia, and Virginia. They reached Williamsburg in late September, 1781. With a French fleet in the Chesapeake, blocking British reinforcements from New York or a sea escape for Cornwallis' troops, Washington and Rochambeau laid siege to Cornwallis' army at Yorktown. Three weeks later, on October 19, 1781, the British troops laid down their arms. I would note that when we bring forth legislation of this nature, concerns have been raised in some corridors regarding any potential impacts on private property rights. I can assure this Committee that most of this trail follows public roads or crosses public lands. While the historic route does cross some private lands, the National Park Service does not propose or anticipate any acquisition of private lands. I would also point out that nothing in the National Trails System circumvents the authority of the States over hunting and fishing. However, to make this matter crystal clear, the rule governing debate over the pending measure adopted an amendment which reads as follows. Again, the rule governing debate over the pending measure adopted an amendment which reads as follows: ``Nothing in this act shall be construed as affecting the authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility of the several States to manage, control, or regulate fish and resident wildlife under State law or regulations, including the regulation of hunting, fishing, trapping, and recreational shooting. Nothing in this act shall be construed as limiting access for hunting, fishing, trapping, or recreational shooting.'' I would say this language covers all the bases. Nothing in the pending measure in any way, shape, or form supercedes the authority of the States over hunting, fishing, trapping, and shooting. This is essentially the same language this body adopted last April by a vote of 416-5 during consideration of H.R. 2016, the National Landscape Conservation System Act, per an amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire). I would close by noting that the trail designated by this bill follows the recommendations of a National Park Service study, and the Bush administration supports this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. For some time now, the Democrats on this side have been watching our colleagues on the other side of the aisle time after time on bill after bill come to the floor and defend multinational oil conglomerates, and now they claim to be the friends of coal as well. My colleague from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) gave us a great presentation on coal-to-liquids, as has been done a number of times, and there is not much I can disagree with in his presentation about the coal-to- liquids. But it is, and the fact of the matter is, that it is pure and simple that it is the oil industry and their defenders here in the Congress that have time and time again undermined the viability of a true alternative fuels industry in this country. And let me back that up by example. In the 1940s, the Synthetic Liquids Fuels Act passed the Congress and appropriated over $80 million for research and production. By the 1950s, America was producing thousands of gallons of synthetic gasoline a day at a test plant in Missouri. But the discovery of cheap oil combined with a lobbying effort by the oil industry caused the government to abandon its synthetic fuel research. Let's hark back to the 1970s and that oil crisis that we all faced and the long gasoline lines. The Federal Government briefly pursued synthetic fuel production. But once again, when the price of oil receded, interest in coal-derived fuels faded. And here we are again, with oil prices and talk of synthetic fuels both on the rise. The Congress has a duty, a responsibility to the American people to do much more than simply coddle the oil industry and let history repeat itself. We also need to do more to discourage foreign oil cartels from temporarily manipulating oil prices for the sole purpose of destroying a competitive domestic fuel source. And if my friends on the other side of the aisle were serious about coal, they would be pressuring this White House to back away, the two oil men in charge, to back away from its cozy relationship with those cartels. Instead, they want to roll over and give Big Oil everything it wants, no strings attached. Furthermore, the Republican-led Congress had 6 years under the Bush administration to go about making meaningful contributions to clean coal and coal-to-liquids fuels. If Republicans in Congress were truly serious about producing the next generation of these technologies, then we would already be seeing these technologies coming to light today and the capabilities thereof. I would remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that in 2000, President Bush while running for office pledged to spend $2 billion over 10 years for a clean coal technology program, a program that the Democrats initiated in the 1980s. He never made good on that promise and allowed in only about half of the promised money while claiming credit for the full pledge. During its tenure in leadership of the Congress, the Republican Party did nothing to buck the President's low balling for clean coal programs. Again and again, the President's party voted for his budgets to cut funds for clean coal research. Now, if the other side were truly serious about supporting coal, they would have added funding to clean coal budgets and they would have done more to put coal on a more even footing with oil and gas. They did not, and now we are seeing the consequences of high energy prices that Americans are experiencing. So the fact of the matter is that the energy challenges that our Nation faces demand more than rhetorical battles on the floor of this body. Certainly our constituents would agree, and they are feeling the energy pinch and deserve much better. We need to put our energies into finding common ground to achieve real workable solutions to our energy problems. And towards that end, we need to be working on our energy challenge from two ends at the same time: The environmental end and the supply end. If we take that approach, then we can build a viable coal-to-liquids industry. Unfortunately, too much of the talk in this body in recent weeks has been focused only on supply, and not enough of it has considered the environmental hurdles that we face. As worldwide pressure mounts to address carbon emissions, the coal- to-liquids industry recognizes that to be economically successful, it must also be environmentally successful. But this administration has done nothing to help the coal industry address the environmental side of this energy challenge. So we need to invest more in environmental research and development, something that Democrats have been arguing for, but that our Republican colleagues during their 12 years in control of Congress have continually relegated to the back burners. By failing to lay the environmental foundations for coal's future, this administration has opened the opportunity for foreign nations, most notably China, to bolster their coal fuels industry, putting our own Nation's future fuel production and economy at a disadvantage. This administration has failed to invest in new emissions technologies, technologies that we can use here and we can sell overseas; and, as a result, we risk watching worldwide emissions grow unchecked as we become more and more beholden to yet another set of foreign producers for our fuel, with China at the very lead. So, Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues on the other side who keep coming to the floor on bill after bill and speaking about the energy crunch, which is indeed on the uppermost of every American's mind today and the high price of gas, that we do need to address this in a bipartisan way and in a way that uses all of our domestic sources of energy and in a way that does not coddle one domestic energy fuel over all others, especially when that energy fuel is trying for its own competitive advantages to put other domestic sources of energy at a disadvantage. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. RAHALL. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses a concern that is truly far beyond the likely impact of this bill. The bill expressly limits Federal condemnation of land for the trail which is all that should concern us here and the National Park Service. This amendment seems to be based on the assumption that the Federal Government in some smoke-filled back room conspiracy-type of mind-set is going to conspire with State or local governments to have them condemn land and then turn it over to the Federal government. First of all, I don't believe this happens often, if ever. We have really reached an extreme level of detail here where we have to legislate out to the far corners of what anybody might imagine might some day happen. But for the sake of argument, let's say that a State does decide to condemn land and pay the owner for his property. Such a decision will be up to the State or local government acting in what that unit of government believes to be the best interest of its citizens. Whether the State or local government subsequently conveys the land to the Federal Government is irrelevant. And I might add, just for the record, this is not a trail like the Appalachian Trail which cuts across country and private property, it is more a series of signs like those gray historic markers you see along roads all over the country. Most of the route travels along public highways and roads. No private landowner will be forced to let tourists on their land, and the NPS anticipates no Federal acquisition at all. But nevertheless, in the spirit of bipartisan cooperation and all that I have just said, we are willing to accept this amendment. We think that it is unnecessary, but we are willing to accept it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5541) to provide a supplemental funding source for catastrophic emergency wildland fire suppression activities on Department of the Interior and National Forest System lands, to require the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a cohesive wildland fire management strategy, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, in response to the last speaker, this gentleman certainly joins with her in commending our firefighters, especially those who have volunteered across our Nation to fight these fires where they occur. Our firefighters, as they showed us on 9/11, are certainly on the forefront of our Nation's defense and our first responders in this country. In regard to the price of gas, though, let me remind the gentlewoman that when President George Bush took office, the price of gas, according to his own Energy Information Agency, was $1.47. The last time I left West Virginia yesterday morning, it was $4.14 a gallon. Mr. Speaker, I am very honored to yield now such time as she may consume to the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives, Ms. Pelosi.

Mr. RAHALL. I urge support of the bill.

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

Mr. RAHALL. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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 include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I'm very happy to yield 2 minutes to a very valued member of our Committee on Natural Resources, the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps), and commend her for her assistance in developing this legislation as well.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this year's fire season in California started in unprecedented fashion, when 1,700 fires erupted in a 48-hour period beginning June 21. Already, just over 3 weeks later, fires have burned more than 960 square miles in California. And as of yesterday afternoon, 330 fires were still actively burning there, when citizens received the ominous warning that conditions are right for, as the National Weather Service described it, ``explosive fire growth.'' Our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Big Sur, Santa Barbara County, and other areas up and down the coast, who are experiencing devastating wildfires as we speak. Those California fires are only the most recent example of the dramatic and tragic expansion of our Nation's wildland fire season. For the last decade, the United States has experienced a growth in the destructive nature of fire seasons that have taken American lives, eliminated homes and businesses, and scorched thousands of acres of our treasured public lands. And this is not only occurring in the West. I well recall several years ago when the New River Gorge in my home State of West Virginia was burning. I had the honor to meet with Federal firefighters who flew in from across the country to battle the blazes. Indeed, the Federal Government has, time and time again, answered the call and mobilized legions of brave firefighters to beat back the flames and protect our lands and our communities. But as a result, the government has also dramatically shifted spending priorities, rapidly increasing funding for fire fighting, while axing moneys for other necessary programs. And ironically, some of those programs that have been gutted were created to actually prevent fires. There is little reason to hope that fire seasons for the foreseeable future will be any less catastrophic than those of the last decade. The trend has certainly been working toward more destruction. Knowing that, we must be better prepared. The FLAME Act, which my colleagues Mr. Raul Grijalva, Mr. Norm Dicks and myself introduced, is an effort to correct course, to get out in front at the start of these fire seasons. The bill has received broad, bipartisan support from 56 Members of Congress, including the ranking member of our Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Young. As well, it enjoys the support of the five former Chiefs of the Forest Service, the National Association of State Foresters, the National Association of Counties, the National Federation of Federal Employees, the Western Governors' Association, and nearly 40 other organizations. Within the Forest Service, wildland fire activities now account for approximately 48 percent of the agency's budget, causing the Service to cut back on other important programs to cover the escalating costs of fire suppression. The FLAME Act would help to address that funding problem, as well as the funding issues faced by other Federal agencies that are contributing funds from their limited accounts to fight these fires. The Act would establish a dedicated Federal fund for catastrophic, emergency wildland fire suppression activities, separate from appropriated agency fire fighting funding. The bill would also require the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to present to Congress a long-overdue, comprehensive strategy for combating wildland fire, a strategy that would address the troubling shortcomings in the agencies' response to fires as identified by the Government Accountability Office and the Agriculture Department's Inspector General. I cannot overstate the importance of today's action on the FLAME Act. Without a doubt, this is one of the most serious issues facing our Federal land management agencies, and it is one that, if not addressed properly and appropriately, will continue to cost homes, businesses, communities, public lands, and American lives. The FLAME Act will allow the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to respond to these dangerous fires while also accomplishing other important aspects of their missions, including those that will prevent fires from devastating our communities in the future. I ask my colleagues to support passage of the FLAME Act. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, an individual who has some firsthand experience with these fires, Mr. Sam Farr.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield such time as he may consume to the author of this resolution commending our firefighters, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. RAHALL. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, since June 20, 2008, as we have heard the distinguished Speaker tell us, there have been 1,781 wildfires in the State of California, over 600,000 acres of land have burned, and there are 323 fires still burning in the State. Firefighters have been working for weeks on the front lines of these fires, risking their lives and enduring great hardship. These firefighters are making progress in containing California's wildfires. As to date, over 1,400 fires have been contained. Sadly, several firefighters have been injured and one firefighter has given his life in fighting these devastating wildfires in California. This resolution commends these firefighters for their courageous actions and sacrifices in fighting the wildfires in California. The resolution also extends heartfelt sympathies to the families of those who have lost their homes, businesses, or loved ones in this tragedy. I ask my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1322) commending the firefighters from California and throughout the United States for their courageous actions and sacrifices in fighting the California wildfires.

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 include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. If the gentleman will yield.

Mr. RAHALL. We have these maps that are identified, that we have shown.