Nick Rahall

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman who just spoke that he voted for the Pombo bill in both committee and on the floor last year, which included the imposition of these new conservation fees.

Mr. RAHALL. And the gentleman from New Mexico?

Mr. RAHALL. I am sorry, I have the right to close; is that right?

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Tennessee Mr. John Tanner's name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 6.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, President Bush's war in Iraq has now gone longer than America's involvement in World War II. Now we learn President Bush intends to escalate the number of American troops in Iraq. The great question across the land today is: is more of the same, the answer? Will more of the same stabilize Iraq, or for that matter the Middle East? In all this long war in Iraq, we cannot help but wonder, what if? What if we had not gone to war? What if we had listened to that very important and vocal minority who stood against the war when the President lead us down that misbegotten road? Oh yes, I agree we are where we are today and we need to get out of this mess together. I have been patient since my ``no'' vote on this war four years ago and my ``yes'' vote almost 17 years ago for the first Gulf War. Of course, there are others who are also asking what if. They are the family and friends of the young men and women who served their country. They are the loved ones of those who have not been lucky enough to make it home. They are those who sacrificed marriage, children, jobs, all in the name of a war many now casually say was a mistake. They are those, like my son-in-law, who sacrificed seeing the birth of his and my daughter's first child. These moments are painful for families across the country as we recently celebrated the holiday season. These moments make us want to dwell in the hope of the question, what if? But we must not dwell, because in reflection we sometimes miss opportunity. The President is set to announce that he wants to see a ``surge'' force of approximately 20,000 extra soldiers to support the ongoing civil war in Iraq. Madam Speaker, it does not take a rocket scientist to calculate the odds that more troops will mean more wounded, more fatalities, more losses to American families. Is the President ready for 20,000 more grieving families? Worse yet, has the President considered what this will do to the existing all volunteer force? Retired Army Colonel Douglas McGregor has been quoted as saying, ``It will break the force, which in my estimation is broken already. It will leave you with no strategic reserves.'' Retired Army Colonel David Hunt has said, ``Everyone we met was on a second tour, at least, and many were on their fourth or fifth combat tour in either Iraq or Afghanistan. The soldiers are tired; the families are going nuts. It's not the solution.'' But then, Madam Speaker, the President has not shown that this is truly about the sacrifice of our men and women. If it were, all of the options presented to the President would be open for consideration, not just the ones that already fit into his ideological philosophy. The report from the Iraq Study Group would not have been as casually tossed aside as were the advisements of the Presidents own military leaders-- career servicemen and women who have given their entire professional lives to protecting America. Over 3,000 have already lost their lives, and that's only the Americans. One journalist in particular, is asking what if on his own. Keith Olbermann, host of Countdown with Keith Olbermann has asked: ``What if he had already sacrificed 3,003 of them--and was then to announce his intention to sacrifice hundreds, maybe thousands, more? ``This is where we stand tonight with the BBC report of President Bush's ``new Iraq strategy,'' and his impending speech to the nation, which, according to a quoted senior American official, will be about troop increases and ``sacrifice.'' ``The president has delayed, dawdled and deferred for the month since the release of the Iraq Study Group. ``He has seemingly heard out everybody, and listened to none of them. ``If the BBC is right--and we can only pray it is not--he has settled on the only solution all the true experts agree cannot possibly work: more American personnel in Iraq, not as trainers for Iraqi troops, but as part of some flabby plan for ``sacrifice.'' (Countdown, MSNBC, 1/2/ 07) Madam Speaker, the President's proposal reminds me of the ostrich who would rather stick his head in the sand, than face the reality that Americans want our soldiers home now. Not after another 20,000 have had to die for a strategy that is entirely wrong. In Olbermann's words, ``The additional men and women you have sentenced to go there, sir, will serve only as targets.'' Which is exactly what they will be, bodies to absorb the surge in the number of insurgents which this senseless war has created. This senseless, endless war, as Mr. Olbermann states has succeeded in two ways: ``It has succeeded, Mr. Bush, in enabling you to deaden the collective mind of this country to the pointlessness of endless war, against the wrong people, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. It has gotten many of us used to the idea--the virtual ``white noise''--of conflict far away, of the deaths of young Americans, of vague ``sacrifice'' for some fluid cause, too complicated to be interpreted except in terms of the very important-sounding but ultimately meaningless phrase ``the war on terror.'' And the war's second accomplishment--your second accomplishment, sir--is to have taken money out of the pockets of every American, even out of the pockets of the dead soldiers on the battlefield, and their families, and to have given that money to the war profiteers.'' (Countdown, MSNBC, 1/2/07) Which, Madam Speaker, brings me back to the question of what if? In light of all of the evidence to the contrary, what if we, as Congress, allow the President to send tens of thousands of more men and women to keep a peace that does not exist? Madam Speaker, it is my hope that four years from now, I will not have to look back on this question of what if with the same heavy heart that I do for the past four years.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, today I am reintroducing legislation that I first authored in the 109th Congress to restore the prohibition on the commercial sale and slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros. I am again joined in this effort by my good friend and colleague from Kentucky, Ed Whitfield. In both 2005 and 2006 the House adopted amendments I offered to the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill to prohibit the use of Federal funds for the sale or slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros. While we were successful in the House, neither amendment made it into law. In any event, these amendments would have only been a temporary one-year fix. What is needed is a permanent solution to this problem. That is why I am offering my legislation today. It was just a little over two years ago that 36 lines were hidden away in a 1,641 page appropriations bill that overturned more than 30 years of national policy on the protection and management of wild free- roaming horses and burros, allowing these ``living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West'' to literally be slaughtered through the use of a backdoor legislative maneuver enacted without public notice or input. The public reaction to this change in law was swift and deafening. There was a good reason why it had been illegal for more than 30 years to sell or transfer wild free-roaming wild horses and burros for processing into commercial products. Americans were aghast to learn that these animals could be slaughtered for their meat to be served on dinner tables in such foreign countries as France, Belgium, and Japan. Horses are an integral part of the tapestry of this country--a symbol, a promise of possibility, a companion, and a treasured childhood memory. Americans have always championed their survival, and expect that that these creatures will be protected. To allow them to be sacrificed and slaughtered represents great disrespect to the will of the American people and is an affront to our nation's history. Instead of addressing long-term and widespread management problems the Bureau of Land Management, which administers the wild horse and burro program, has been forced to scurry to try to stop wild horses and burros from being sent to slaughter. Unfortunately for several dozen of these animals their attempts came too late and slaughter occurred. Slaughter is all the more senseless since humane alternatives exist and federal agencies have the authority to carry out such humane measures as adoption, sterilization, relocation, and placement with qualified individuals and organizations. The time has long since passed to restore the prohibition on the sale and slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros. I urge my colleague to heed the will of the American public and respond to common decency by supporting my legislation. We owe no less to these living symbols of the American West.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. I yield myself such time as I may consume. The pending measure, as passed by the Senate, may be one of the last items on our schedule this Congress, but it is certainly not the least important. The bill would reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act in order to guide the management of our marine fisheries through 2013. We would not be here today if Senators Ted Stevens and Daniel Inouye had not extended an olive branch. I am extremely appreciative of the hard work that they and their staffs put into this legislation. I also commend our colleague Tom Allen who worked tirelessly on behalf of the fishermen in his district to improve this legislation. While the pending measure does not do everything I would have liked, it does not roll back the conservation principles in this important fisheries management law. The legislation actually strengthens the Magnuson-Stevens Act. For the first time, regional fishery management councils will be required to establish catch limits that may not exceed the recommendations of the councils' scientific and statistical committees. We expect the scientific committees are to take into account a wide range of scientific opinions when making their recommendations. Members of the scientific committees will be required to file financial disclosure forms with the Secretary. This requirement will enable the general public to use the Freedom of Information Act to ascertain whether the scientists are truly independent. For the most depleted fisheries in our country, the legislation will require the Secretary of Commerce to prepare and implement a rebuilding plan that puts an end to overfishing immediately. This is a significant improvement in the law. Studies have shown that the clearest cause of the lack of progress in rebuilding is the failure of many plans to reduce overfishing on those critically depleted stocks. H.R. 5946 addresses this concern. Notwithstanding efforts by this Congress to undermine the National Environmental Policy Act, H.R. 5946, as amended, requires full compliance with the law. The Secretary of Commerce is directed to update the procedures for complying with NEPA, but these new procedures will not supercede existing NEPA regulations and guidance issued by the Council on Environmental Quality. Additionally, H.R. 5946 places a 10-year limit on permits, known as limited access privileges, which are issued to fishermen to harvest a quantity of fish. On this issue, I commend our colleague Tom Allen, who worked to ensure that the limited access privilege program conserves fisheries, is accountable, and protects small fishermen from those who would like to consolidate fisheries. The privileges are to be held by fishermen who are actively engaged and substantially participate in the fishery. The regional fishery associations are to maintain free and open markets for fishermen to sell their catch, and are not to force fishermen into unwilling or involuntary arrangements. H.R. 5946 also encourages the conservation of coral reefs. The bill directs the Secretary to map the locations of deep sea corals for the councils, monitor activity occurring where deep sea corals exist, and develop technologies to assist fishermen in reducing the interactions that fishing gear has with corals. Finally, the bill authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to undertake activities to reduce illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing in international waters. This will assist domestic fishermen who bear the costs when fish harvested illegally result in degraded fish stocks and depressed prices worldwide. In summary, H.R. 5946 will promote the conservation of our fisheries. The bill does not include everything on my wish list, but it improves upon existing law. By reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Act in the 109th Congress, we will have more time in the 110th Congress to devote to other ocean issues, including considering the recommendations of the Joint Oceans Commission Initiative. It is a rare day that I agree with our President, but several months ago he said, ``Overfishing is harmful. It's harmful to our country and it's harmful to the world.'' I agree wholeheartedly and understand that this legislation takes corrective action to curtail overfishing, especially in our most depleted fisheries. I support the bill, encourage my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), a valued member of our committee.

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, the pending measure, as passed by the Senate, may be one of the last items on our schedule this Congress, but it is certainly not the least important. The bill would reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act in order to guide the management of our marine fisheries through 2013. We would not be here today if Senator Ted Stevens and Daniel Inouye had not extended an olive branch. I am extremely appreciative of the hard work that they and their staff put into this legislation. I also commend our colleague on this side of the aisle, Tom Allen from Maine, who worked tirelessly on behalf of the fishermen in his district to improve this legislation. And while the pending measure does not do everything I would have liked, it does not roll back the conservation principles in this important fisheries management law. The legislation actually strengthens the Magnuson-Stevens Act. I support the bill. I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker I yield myself such time as I may consume. I was going to wait until the very end to respond, but I want to say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the distinguished chairman of the House Resources Committee, that it has truly been an honor to work with him during his tenure as chairman of our committee. The gentleman has fought hard for those principles that he has believed in. He has accomplished a great deal during his tenure here. I commend him for his tenacity, and he truly has been a fighter for that which he believes. As he has said, we have not agreed on every issue, but we have had our respectful disagreements and we have worked in good faith as well. I believe we have during his tenure as chairman. I do welcome the incoming ranking member, Mr. Young. I have served on both the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Resources Committee for my entire tenure in this body. Thirty years we have worked together, and now I am glad to have him as the ranking member on my committee and may he stay that way for a long, long time. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who has been a true leader on this issue and fought very hard for this legislation.

Mr. RAHALL. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. RAHALL. The gentleman from Oregon is entirely correct. It is my understanding that the bill would permit the Pacific Council process to continue. We recognize that the Pacific Council has made substantial progress and do not intend to disrupt their efforts to develop and implement an appropriate groundfish management program, consistent with this act.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RAHALL. I appreciate the gentleman's question. I would say that he is entirely correct. In order to help ensure that affected stakeholders have the maximum degree of confidence in the management measures developed by the councils and that those measures are as effective as possible, it is vital that the Science and Statistical Committees operate in an open manner that is receptive to a full spectrum of scientific opinion. Accordingly, it is our expectation that under this legislation, the Science and Statistical Committees would gather information and prepare recommendations in a way that takes into account the research and expertise of a wide range of scientists.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, this concludes debate on our side of the aisle. Again, commending our chairman, Mr. Pombo, wishing him the best on whatever avenue he pursues in the future. I know that he will be spending a great deal of time on the ranch with his lovely wife, Annette. I wish him Godspeed there. I thank Mr. Gilchrest for his work on this legislation, those that have spoken on it for the help they have been, especially, as I started out my remarks, I thank Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye who truly extended the olive branch that broke the logjam on this legislation. As Mr. Allen has already done, I also want to recognize our committee Democratic staff who helped make this bill possible. Chief among them is Lori Sonken, as well as Jeff Petrich and Charlotte Stevenson. I thank Mr. Pombo's staff as well. His staff has put in numerous hours on this over a long, long period of time. Without their work we would not be here today celebrating the passage of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I would like the Record to show that I am voting for the pending legislation because it includes a historic accord to reauthorize the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program and to address, in a comprehensive fashion, the pressing need to insure the long-term financial stability of the funds which finance health care for members of the United Mine Workers of America. My views on the OCS Leasing provisions in the pending legislation are well known. I oppose them. Yet in this case, the health and safety of coalfield residents, takes precedence as it always has, and always will, when it comes to how I discharge my duties.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, this is a technical measure, and we have no problems with it on our side. I support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL

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. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I now yield such time as he may consume to our distinguished colleague from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and again congratulate him on his ascension into the other body.