Nick Rahall

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 65.

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. To my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this measure, which would extend Federal recognition to the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, is long overdue. For over 115 years, this tribe has sought Federal recognition only. When Congress finally stepped in to take action on this matter, it was in the midst of the termination era, an era in which the Federal Government was in the process of terminating its relationship with existing federally recognized tribes. As a result, Congress recognized the Lumbee Tribe in 1956, but in the same breath it terminated its relationship with the tribe. At no time has the Department of the Interior ever opposed Federal recognition for this tribe based on a belief that the Lumbees are not entitled to such status. Indeed, several studies undertaken by the Department of the Interior have consistently concluded that the Lumbees are a distinct, self-governing Indian community historically located on Drowning Creek, now the Lumber River, in North Carolina. Although the State of North Carolina has recognized the tribe for over 100 years, it has done so under various names. The State of North Carolina, not the Lumbees, is responsible for the various names imposed upon the tribe. It was not until the tribe pressured the State that the tribe was authorized to conduct a referendum to choose its own name. When it did so in 1951, it chose the name ``Lumbee Indians of North Carolina.'' This is the only name ever selected by the tribe, and it is this name by which Congress, in 1956, recognized the Lumbees. Some have expressed a concern about the cost of this bill. I want to note that the cost of this bill is for discretionary programs only. There is no mandatory spending. Any actual cost of this bill is subject to appropriations. Others have expressed concern that the size of the Lumbee Tribe will unduly impact the tribes in their districts. This is not a reason to single out the Lumbees. The Lumbees are Indians organized as a tribe, and they deserve Federal recognition and access to the benefits and services in the same manner as other federally recognized tribes. Congress should not determine whether or not to honor its responsibilities to Indian tribes based on cost. To address claims that the tribe is only interested in Federal recognition so they may conduct gaming, the tribe supported an outright gaming prohibition which has been included in this bill. The gaming prohibition precludes the Lumbee Tribe from engaging in, licensing, or regulating gaming pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act or any other Federal law. Extending Federal recognition to the tribe at this time is not something new nor does it bypass the administrative process established by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Congress first recognized the tribe in 1956. But because of our actions at that time, the tribe is not eligible for the administrative process. Congress is solely responsible for the injustice committed on this tribe. Now, after over 50 years, it is up to us to correct the wrong that Congress imposed so many years ago. This legislation is sponsored by our colleague, Representative Mike McIntyre of North Carolina, and enjoys bipartisan support, including North Carolina Representatives Butterfield, Etheridge, Price, Coble, Hayes, Miller and Watt. I certainly commend Representative Mike McIntyre of North Carolina for his dedication, his persistence, and his devotion to the Lumbee Indian Tribe. They have no better friend in the Congress of the United States. I, too, am a cosponsor of H.R. 65; and I am pleased that Natural Resources ranking member, Mr. Don Young, is also a strong supporter. Importantly, the Governor of North Carolina, Mike Easley, supports this measure, as do two former Governors, former Republican Governor Martin and former Democratic Governor Hunt. The pending measure was reported by the Natural Resources Committee by a roll call vote of 24-7. In closing, I again commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre) for his dedication to this issue. Through his tireless efforts, the bill before us today has 215 cosponsors. So let us join in this effort to grant the Lumbee Tribe the recognition they have long deserved. As Coach Kelvin Sampson, basketball coach at Indiana University noted in his testimony at our hearing, the Lumbees do not need our permission to call themselves Native American, but, unfortunately in today's world, they need our validation. It is up to us to do the right thing by extending Federal recognition to the tribe. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting the pending measure. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Alaska is entirely correct, and I associate myself with his comments.

Mr. RAHALL. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, during general debate, I addressed the issue that is the subject of this motion, as did the ranking member, Mr. Young; as did the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre). The administrative process is for those groups where it needs to be determined whether or not they are an Indian tribe. That is not the case here. Congress passed the Lumbee Recognition Act in 1956, 51 years ago, but in recognizing the tribe, Congress also made them ineligible for Federal services that are normally accorded to recognized tribes. Indeed, the 1956 Act also barred the Lumbee Tribe from going through the Federal acknowledgment process. And let me note that this tribe first sought Federal recognition in 1899, 108 years ago. To now subject them to a process that may take 20 more years is simply an injustice. I urge rejection of this motion.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

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

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield an additional 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre).

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Shuler), a very valued member of our Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to commend the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Grijalva, the respected chairman of the Subcommittee on Parks, Forests and Public Lands, for his efforts in managing the bill on the floor today and bringing this legislation before us. I, of course, do rise in support of H.R. 1100, introduced by one of our newest colleagues on the Natural Resources Committee, a very respected member of our committee, Representative Heath Shuler. I commend Mr. Shuler for his work on this legislation as well as his dedication to his constituents, who stand firmly behind this bill to protect and interpret a local resource that has national importance. Some may call it pork. Whatever you want. But the last time I checked, we are the people's House of Representatives. We represent the people that sent us here. And perhaps because Mr. Shuler is doing such an effective job of that, it raises the ire of some in this body. But he has worked diligently to guide this bill through the legislative process. I applaud him for those efforts. Carl Sandburg was an American poet, a biographer, novelist, and songwriter. Today the farm he owned is preserved as the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site, managed by the National Park Service for all Americans to visit and learn about the life and works of one of America's most beloved authors. During the 22 years Sandburg spent at the farm until his death in 1967, he published more than ten volumes of poetry and prose, including a novel and an autobiography. And it was this farm he returned to after winning his second Pulitzer Prize in 1951. The pending measure is important to the future protection and interpretation of the Sandburg farm. The 115-acre boundary adjustment will allow for the construction of a much-needed visitor center and parking lot. As important, the boundary adjustment will provide the opportunity to protect the views from the Sandburg estate that the author and his family cherished and that today's visitors so richly enjoy. The State of North Carolina's Department of Cultural Resources has recognized the importance of protecting the views from Sandburg's estate by purchasing 22 acres within the proposed boundary expansion area. They intend to donate these acres to the National Park Service upon authorization of the boundary adjustment. All of the other affected landowners have agreed to have their properties included within the proposed boundary adjustment. This is a straightforward bill, as the chairman of the subcommittee has said. It enjoys bipartisan support, and I urge that it be approved by all of our colleagues on the House floor.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, 135 years to the day after President Ulysses S. Grant signed the 1872 General Mining Law, I am introducing legislation to provide much-needed fiscal and environmental oversight for the hardrock mining industry operating on Federal lands. This legislation would overhaul that antiquated statute penned into law by President Grant on May 10, 1872--a law that contains no environmental protection provisions governing the mining of hardrock minerals such as platinum, gold, silver, and copper on public domain lands in the western States. The 1872 Mining Law also allows extraction of these minerals from the public domain without the payment of a royalty to the American taxpayers, and it allows a mining company to purchase mineral rich public lands for no more than $2.50 or $5 an acre, irrespective of the land's true value. This legislation would bring the hardrock mining law into the 21st century. The lack of a royalty in the 1872 Mining Law and the absence of deterrents or penalties for irresponsible mining have caused enormous taxpayer giveaways and liabilities. Under the Mining Law the Federal Government has handed out over $245 billion in mineral rich public lands. To be sure, Congress has attempted to reform the Mining Law at various times over its history--only to be thwarted each time by powerful mining interests. Former Congressman Mo Udall came close to achieving reform of the mining law in the 1970's. During the 102nd Congress in 1991, I introduced mining reform legislation. And we came close to enacting legislation that would have reformed this archaic law in 1994. But, at the last moment, after both the House and the Senate had passed separate bills, the Conference failed to reach a compromise, and the rest, as they say, is history. Since then, I have re-introduced reform legislation in each succeeding Congress. Many Americans support reform and question why Congress does not address this issue. These people believe that American taxpayers are being robbed every time a multinational conglomerate breaks U.S. ground and mines our valuable minerals for free. It is time, well past time, that the Congress replace this archaic law with one that reflects our values and goals. Ensuring a fair return to the public in exchange for the disposition of public resources and properly managing our public lands are neither Republican nor Democratic issues. They are simply goals that make sense if we are to be good stewards of America's lands and meet our responsibilities to the American people. Madam Speaker, during the years I have labored to reform the Mining Law of 1872 those who defend its privileges--and it is indeed a privilege to be deemed the highest and best use of our public domain lands--have often alleged that reform legislation fails to take into account the contribution of hardrock mining to area economies. They claim that reform would have dire consequences on the industry, that if we do not provide the industry with unfettered access to public lands and public minerals, the industry could no longer survive. Let me just say at the outset that there is no Member in the House of Representatives whose Congressional District is more dependent upon mining for employment and its economic benefits than this gentleman from West Virginia. And when we are talking about the effects of mining, I would suggest that there is little difference between coal mining and gold mining. The effects, whether measured in terms of employment, or in terms of the environment, are the same. With that noted, I have engaged in the effort to reform the Mining Law of 1872 these past many years not just for the apparent reasons-- valuable minerals mined for free, Federal lands available almost for free, and no comprehensive Federal mining and reclamation standards. But also because I am pro-mining, because I no longer believe that we can expect a viable hard rock mining industry to exist on public domain lands in the future if we do not make corrections to the law today. I do so because there are provisions of the existing law which impede efficient and serious mineral exploration and development. And I do so because of the unsettled political climate governing this activity, with reform coming, if not in a comprehensive fashion, certainly on a piecemeal basis. So I say to my colleagues from the Western States who resist reform, I understand your concerns. I have been in your situation. In 1977 I served on what is now called the Natural Resources Committee as a young freshman. I was confronted by legislation being advanced by my chairman, Mo Udall. And I recall that the coal industry was dragged kicking and screaming into the debate that led to the enactment of the Surface-Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. I voted for that legislation. It was not an easy thing for me to do. But I voted for that bill because in my region of the country we were grappling with a legacy of acidified streams, highwalls, refuse piles, open mine shafts, and other hazards associated with coal mining practices. That is a legacy, I would submit, that we are faced with today on lands administered by the Forest Service and the BLM in the western States due to hardrock mining practices. The fact of the matter is that the gloom and doom predictions made by industry against the Federal strip mining act all those years ago did not materialize. Predictions, I would note, that are almost to the word identical to those which industry has leveled at times against this Mining law of 1872 reform legislation. Yet, today, the coalfields of this Nation are a much better place in which to live. And today, we are producing more coal than ever before. Certainly, coal continues to have its controversies, whether they involve mountaintop removal coal mining or the problems we are having with coal waste impoundments. But at least there are laws on the books to deal with those situations. At least there are in place basic Federal mining and reclamation performance standards. At least when one mines coal on Federal lands a royalty is paid to the Federal Government. And at least we are making provision for the restoration of lands left abandoned by past coal mining practices. None of this exists with respect to hardrock mining under the Mining Law of 1872. I believe that with enough courage, and fortitude, we can continue to address the problems facing mining, and dovetail our need for energy and minerals with the necessity of protecting our environment. For at stake here in this debate over the Mining Law of 1872 is the health, welfare, and environmental integrity of our people and our Federal lands. At stake is the public interest of all Americans. And at stake is the ability of the hardrock mining industry to continue to operate on public domain lands in the future, to produce those minerals that are necessary to maintain our standard of living.

Mr. RAHALL

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

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would observe that, before the eastern counties of Virginia seceded from the Union at the start of the Civil War, the legal western counties that are now West Virginia were part of the Commonwealth of Virginia, so we, too, owe these tribes our gratitude.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a cosponsor of this legislation, who helped us tremendously in reaching the point where we are today.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I recognized the tremendous efforts of Mr. Moran of Virginia in my opening comments, and I know he spoke on the rule on this issue, but I now recognize him again, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Jim Moran, for 7 minutes.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle I would observe that this is one of those rare moments in this body when history itself seems to hold its breath. We are here today 400 years after the first English settlers landed in what became Jamestown, Virginia, to finally acknowledge a government-to-government relationship with some of the Indian tribes who greeted those early settlers. Reflect upon that for a moment. The ancestors of the members of these Indian tribes were there 400 years ago at Jamestown and facilitated the very founding and early development of this Nation. Spanning the entire history of this Nation, they have been here, and they have endured extreme adversity. These Indian tribes have taken part in ceremonies with the visiting Queen of England commemorating this 400th anniversary of the establishment of Jamestown, and they are a vital part of the official activities continuing this week. I can think of no better time than this week for Congress to step up to its responsibility by using its constitutional authority to acknowledge these Indian tribes. Simply put, the pending legislation would extend Federal recognition to six Indian tribes located within the Commonwealth of Virginia. It is sponsored by our colleague Jim Moran of Virginia and enjoys bipartisan support, including Virginia Representatives Bobby Scott, Jo Ann Davis and Tom Davis. I, too, am a cosponsor of H.R. 1294, and I am pleased that the Natural Resources ranking republican member with us today, Mr. Don Young, is also a strong supporter. Importantly, both former Virginia Governors George Allen and Mark Warner, as well as current Governor Tim Kaine, have endorsed the tribes' recognition and status as sovereign governments. The Virginia Council of Churches supports the measure as well. The authority to recognize a government-to-government relationship with an Indian tribe is a very solemn one for the Congress. It is necessary in this case because the members of these six tribes have faced hundreds of years of discrimination, abuse, and outright attempts to extinguish their very existence and rob them of their heritage. From 1912 to 1947, Dr. Walter Plecker, a white supremacist, set out to rid the Commonwealth of Virginia of any records that proved the existence of Indians or Indian tribes. He was instrumental in ensuring passage of the Racial Integrity Act in 1924, making it illegal for individuals to classify themselves or their newborn children as ``Indian.'' But it went further than that, spending decades changing the race designation on birth certificates and other legal documents from ``Indian'' to ``colored,'' ``Negro,'' or ``free issue.'' Throughout it all, the Virginia Indians did not break, but they held firm to their culture and to their identity. I would note that this bill is named for Thomasina ``Red Hawk Woman'' Jordan, whose lifelong pursuit of advancing Native American rights encompassed ensuring the promise of education for all Indians and securing Federal recognition of Virginia Indian tribes. The pending measure was reported by the Natural Resources Committee by voice vote. To address claims that the tribes are only interested in Federal recognition so that they may conduct gaming, all six tribes supported an outright gaming prohibition which was included in this bill. This gaming prohibition precludes the Virginia tribes from engaging in, licensing or regulating gambling pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act on their lands. In closing, I would like to pay special homage to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) who has spent several years tirelessly working to achieve Federal recognition for Virginia's First Americans. He, Representative Bobby Scott and others I mentioned, Tom Davis and Jo Ann Davis, have been before our Committee on Natural Resources and testified on this issue, and I salute their superb leadership as well. It is because of this dedication to this issue that this legislation is before us today during this historic occasion marking the 400th anniversary of Jamestown. It is time to put this issue to rest and do the right thing by extending Federal recognition to these tribes. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting the pending measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. RAHALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1294.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 377, I call up the bill (H.R. 1294) to extend Federal recognition to the Chickahominy Indian Tribe, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe-Eastern Division, the Upper Mattaponi Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe, Inc., the Monacan Indian Nation, and the Nansemond Indian Tribe, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 1294, including corrections in spelling, punctuation, section numbering and cross-referencing, the table of contents, and the insertion of appropriate headings.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise this today in strong support of the passage of H.R. 1595--the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act. I also commend the gentlelady from Guam for her leadership on this issue. This legislation has bipartisan support and is being considered today because of her determination to seek justice. We are here this afternoon, taking a significant step forward to close a very painful chapter in Guam's history. From the time that Guam had been granted a delegate to Congress in the 1970's, throughout the service of our former colleagues--Mr. Won Pat, Mr. Blaz, and Mr. Underwood--this House has been made aware and constantly reminded that Guam and her people suffered unimaginable atrocities during its occupation by Japan during World War II. For nearly three years, the idyllic paradise became a land of panic, horror, suffering, and death. The personal testimonies of survivors of Guam's occupation has a strong history with the Committee on Natural Resources. They are emotional, sad, and graphic. Many of those survivors who appeared before the Committee to re-tell and, in essence, re-live the pain of occupation have since passed on. There are very few of the estimated 22,000 Guamanians alive today who survived this era, and it is my hope that we can give them closure before none remain. There now have been two federally appointed Commissions that have reviewed the implementation and the parity treatment of Guam's experience--the Hopkins Commission in 1947, and the Review Commission in 2004. Both concluded that the people of Guam were either misinformed or mistreated. Either way, their recommendations to Congress--be it in 1947 or in 2004--are that something needs to be done to make this right. The weight of history now falls on the shoulders of this House, nearly sixty-three years after Guam's liberation. We have the opportunity by passing H.R. 1595 to correct a great injustice for those patriotic Americans who withstood brutal occupation. The issue has been studied to exhaustion and the recommendations have remained the same. We should never forget their sacrifice for our country, nor should we allow for this inequity to continue. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 1595--the Guam World War II Loyalty Act.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, first, I will respond to the gentleman from Georgia that this was an open rule. All Members knew that, and I cannot understand why the gentleman would not have offered this as an amendment during the normal process of legislative consideration of this bill. Instead, he comes at the last moment in the recommittal, which is true to his nature on previous legislation that has passed this body. The gentleman's motion to recommit would change the effective date until 60 days after the date on which the Secretary of the Interior certifies to Congress that the long-term care of all unsold wild horses and burros as a result of this act does not exceed $500,000 annually. There is no time limit placed on that period during which the Secretary of the Interior has to certify. I am assuming that the gentleman is entrusting the same Federal agency, the Bureau of Land Management, that has so mismanaged this whole process in the beginning, entrusting with that agency the same responsibility to do such certification. Again, there is no time limit. It could be 30 days, it could be 30 years, it could be 300 years before the Secretary so certifies. So the amendment is purely a killer amendment. The Members know that is the intent of the gentleman from Georgia, and I would urge its rejection. In addition, as I have emphasized so many times on this bill, there is no PAYGO issue with this bill. The CBO estimated that the administrative cost of this bill is less than $500,000. Third, the impact of this amendment is to allow slaughter for another 60 days, at the minimum, but more likely, indefinitely, as I said, because there is no time limit on the certification procedure stated in the motion to recommit. There is no time frame. The certification is open-ended. We have no idea as to how long that process will take. Again, I respond to the gentleman from Georgia, this is a killer amendment. Every Member that voted against the previous amendment and has voted for this legislation in the past knows that is such. I would urge opposition to the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 249 is important legislation with broad, bipartisan support. I am pleased to be joined in this endeavor by my colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Ed Whitfield, and a number of other Members on both sides of the aisle. This Congress is tasked with the stewardship of much that is invaluable, our breathtaking natural wonders, our healthy rivers and streams, icons of American history; and it is our responsibility as public stewards of our land to manage these resources for the good of future generations. It is a responsibility as chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee that I take very seriously. The proper care and preservation of wild horses which roam public lands in the West fall within our stewardship, and we are failing to live up to our responsibility. I say that because in 1971 Congress formally protected these wild horses and mandated that they cannot be sold or processed into commercial products, in effect, slaughtered. Since that time when the Bureau of Land Management has determined that the wild horse population is excessive to the ability of the range to support them, captured animals have been offered to the public through adoption. But all that changed as a result of a rider tucked away into a massive omnibus appropriation bill enacted during December 2004. The so-called Burns rider overturned 33 years of national policy on the care and management of wild horses and burros by repealing the prohibition on the commercial sale and slaughter of these animals that had been in law. In effect, Mr. Chairman, these animals were earmarked for death. Since that time, some of these animals, which belong to all Americans I might add, and which represent the very spirit of the American West, have been rounded up for slaughter and shipped overseas. And to what end? So their meat can end up on menus in France, Belgium and Japan, where it is considered a delicacy. Incredible. It is truly and simply incredible. We do not allow the commercial sale of horseflesh in this country for human consumption, but we are exporting horse meat for that very purpose abroad. Since I first introduced this legislation during the last Congress, I have received an impressive volume of heartfelt letters and e-mails from across the Nation. The very notion that wild horses, wild American horses, would be slaughtered as a food source for foreign gourmets has struck a chord with the American people. They see in this issue the pioneering spirit and the ideals of freedom. And the current policy has created disillusionment with many over how their government works and what their elected leaders stand for. The measure we are now considering will halt that practice. The sale and slaughter of wild horses and burros must stop not only because it is wrong, but also because the program is a failure. While the Bureau of Land Management, the Federal agency which oversees the program, may sincerely hope that these animals do not end up on menus in France or Japan or Belgium, the Burns rider severely handicaps efforts to protect these herds. Now, some will say the sale authority is necessary because the agency costs of managing the program have grown too high, but this is an issue of the BLM's own making. Each year they round up more animals than can be adopted. The excess animals are sent to holding facilities where their numbers simply increase per year, year after year, driving up management costs. If the agency wants to save money without selling these animals, it needs only to get its round-ups and adoptions in sync. There are also those who say we need to allow these animals to be sold off because there are too many of them on the public lands and they are causing massive resource damage. First of all, it should be noted that there are significantly fewer wild horses and burros on public lands today than there were just 25 years ago. Second, compared to the 3 to 4 million cattle that graze these same acres, wild horses and burros are hardly the most serious threat to our public rangelands. All I seek to do in this legislation, with H.R. 249, is to return the law to the way it existed for 33 years prior to the Burns rider. The House has twice gone on record supporting a prohibition on the commercial sale and slaughter of wild horses and burros. So I conclude by asking my colleagues' support once again today. It's time to do right by these living icons of the American West. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 249.