Nick Rahall

Mr. RAHALL

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

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I would simply note that this legislation, which would designate Federal wilderness areas on national forest system lands within the States of New Hampshire and Vermont, is before us in part due to the efforts of our colleague, Bernie Sanders, and for that, I commend the gentleman from Vermont for his dedication, persistence and willingness to work with us on this legislation. He will soon become a member of the other body, but we shall still maintain our friendship. I salute him for his tenacity in ensuring that his State's interests are included in this measure. I would also observe that the wilderness designations made by the pending measure are clean, and by that, I refer to the fact that they are not coupled with other matters which have nothing to do with wilderness. Wilderness standing on its own here, the benefits of wilderness designation to the local economy, to hunters and fishermen, and to our heritage and future generations of Americans, is on display for all to see. It is not being coupled or being debased with other matters such as the disposal of public lands as the price of obtaining some wilderness designation as we have seen with a number of other bills considered by this body in recent months. So I am pleased to support the 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. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of S. 101 is to convey a small parcel of Federal land to the town of Frannie, Wyoming. While we do not object to passage of S. 101, we do want to ensure that we address concerns raised at the December 7, 2005, hearing of the Subcommittee on Water and Power regarding the intent of Congress with respect to the ownership of this parcel and the purpose for which it will be used. Mr. Speaker, I will include in the Record at this point two letters received from the town of Frannie by Water and Power Subcommittee Ranking Member Grace Napolitano. Town of Frannie, Frannie, WY, December 15, 2005. Hon. Grace Napolitano, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Napolitano: It has come to our attention that there were concerns expressed over the Town of Frannie gaining ownership of federal lands in Frannie Wyoming and then immediately disposing of them. As a smaller governmental entity, we fully understand the concerns on this issue. One of the unique features in the Town of Frannie is on the NE\1/4\ of Block 26. The Town of Frannie holds a Bureau of Reclamation 99-year Special Use Permit for our Centennial (Lasting Legacy) Park. In 1990, as a project to commemorate a ``Lasting Legacy'' of Wyoming's centennial year, the Frannie Elementary students, with community support and help, built this park. The park is a topographical representation of Wyoming with rocks depicting mountain ranges and the pathways are the two main thoroughfares across the state. This children's park holds a special place in the hearts of many of our community members. Past and present Town Council members have been discussing the use for the NW\1/4\ of Block 26. The need for a large group picnic shelter, a community hall, and a maintenance shop are a few ideas that the councils were considering. Before we can commit to developing these lots for public use, we will first need to gain ownership. It is our desire to have this land remain open for public use since it is adjacent to our town hall, basketball court, and library. We feel that we would be better managers and protectors of these lots if they were under our care. On July 19, 2000, the Wyoming State Director of the Bureau of Land Management, stated in a letter to the Bureau of Reclamation, ``Since BLM feels the parcel is not suitable for return to the public domain and management under the public land and mining laws, and the land is no longer needed for BR purposes, it is recommended a means of disposal of this parcel be sought whereby the Town of Frannie can protect its investment.'' We understand the concern with the Town of Frannie turning around and selling the North\1/2\ of Block 26. Although we cannot guarantee what future council members' goals and values will be, you can rest assured that the present council and many of our community members desire that this entire block remain intact for the public's use. We sincerely hope that you will give us your support of S. 101. Sincerely, Jerry Dart, Mayor.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Anthony J. ``Tony'' Zagami, a true public servant who will retire from the U.S. Government Printing Office at the end of this year. I have known Tony since the mid-1960s, when I was an intern in the office of Senator Robert C. Byrd, D-WV, and Tony was a Senate page. Over the years, Tony has been a great friend to me, to my family and to the people of West Virginia, and he will certainly be missed here in the legislative branch. However, let no one argue that Tony has not earned his retirement. After spending 25 years working for the U.S. Congress, Tony left Capitol Hill to become the General Counsel of the GPO. When he departs at the end of the year, he will have set a record as the GPO's longest- serving General Counsel. Throughout his career, both here on the Hill and at the GPO, Tony was known for his dedication and commitment to public service. He has been the recipient of numerous awards and recognitions for outstanding performance and achievement. I thank Tony for his outstanding service and for his friendship over years. The qualities he embodies are getting harder and harder to find nowadays. May God bless this admirable man and his family as he begins his next chapter.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, today the House plans to take up the reauthorization of the Appalachian Regional Commission. Every one of the southern West Virginia counties I represent is encompassed by the Appalachian Regional Commission and ARC support is critical to our communities' livelihood and well-being. It is ARC's ability to serve its mission by adapting it actions to fit the times that makes ARC such an invaluable resource to Appalachia and the Nation. From the Appalachian Development Highway System to e- commerce and broadband initiatives, ARC continues to serve its mission by advocating and partnering with the people of Appalachia to create opportunities for self-sustaining economic development and improved quality of life. For these reasons, among others, I will support the legislation before us today to reauthorize ARC. However, I do so with reservations. For most of the past 41 years of ARC existence, its program has been free of congressional earmarks. Congress has appropriated funds to ARC and ARC, through a formula based largely on need, has apportioned Federal money to the States. In fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007, we have seen significant earmarking of the ARC account. Indeed, my home State of West Virginia has received a number of these earmarks. Why is this? In most instances Members have not requested these funds come from ARC formula funds. However, committee leadership has been forced into this practice of feeding on our own. Why? Because the priorities of Congress have shifted from Middle America to the Middle East. Our appropriators are faced with this dilemma because the $8 billion per month spent in Iraq precludes us from investing in needed infrastructure here at home. I've said many times that dollars for Baghdad would be better spend in Beckley--Beckley, WV. While one of the funded projects has benefited many southern West Virginians directly by providing much needed water and wastewater assistance, I believe it is important we refrain from earmarking the very scarce resources allocated to ARC and, if earmarking the ARC account continues, Congress should require that congressional earmarks are derived from that State's formula allocation of ARC funds. I believe adopting such a provision will benefit all ARC member States and the long-term viability of ARC itself.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, a very valued member of our Resources Committee, for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I share the concerns of some on my side of the aisle that this amendment should have been brought to the floor under a rule so that amendments could be offered by interested Members. Indeed, during the Resources Committee's deliberations on this measure, several members issued concerns, and both the chairman and myself assured them that they would be considered as the process moved forward. Yet the Republican leadership chose to schedule this bill as a suspension, and as such amendments are not made in order. With that said, the bill before the body today is the product of a negotiation which took place between Chairman Pombo and myself as the ranking member on the Resources Committee. The original introduced version bill went too far in my opinion in interfering with tribal sovereignty. As a result of our negotiations, the version reported by the committee, which is pending before us, has a great deal more respect for tribal sovereignty while still achieving the goal of reining in off-reservation casino shopping. Let me be very clear on this point. The letter the National Congress of American Indians has sent in opposition to this bill must be in reference to the original introduced version, not what is before us today. That letter alleges that a tribe would have to seek approval of a local government before gaming could commence. It alleges the bill would subordinate tribes to local governments. This is just plain false. What the bill does require is that a tribe seeks to establish an agreement with a local community concerning the costs of mitigating the impact from public services that could arise from a new casino. That is nothing less and nothing more than good business practice. It is what most tribes do today. On the broader issue, there should be no doubt that this legislation is necessary. According to United South and Eastern Tribes, which represents 24 federally recognized tribes in the east, this bill is critical on tracking down reservation-shopping abuses which are often funded by shadowy developers. The president of the organization, Keller George, in a letter to Congress states: ``This kind of reservation shopping runs counter to the intent of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and well-established Indian policies.'' He urges the favorable approval of the pending legislation. So while I remain concerned about the process, I am in support of the bill. I urge Members to vote in favor of it

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of ``Jack Hardin Day'' which was celebrated in many towns in my District recently. No one is more deserving of this honor than the man for which the day was named-- a man who has served southern West Virginia, both as a journalist and as a community activist, for more than 50 years. Jack Hardin is an icon, an institution, to the people of Huntington, WV., and beyond. It was fitting then, that on Jack Hardin Day, also Jack's 80th birthday, the members of the community came together for a good-natured roasting of their favorite son. It is also fitting that the proceeds of this roast went to an important charity--the Hospitality House of Huntington. Jack wouldn't have had it any other way. While I was unable to attend the roast of my friend Jack Hardin, I would have loved to have been there to hear the tales, the teasing and what I am sure was a good amount of praise for a man who has become a role model to so many. Jack Hardin is a moral man, a family man, and southern West Virginia is lucky to have him. I thank Jack for his contributions to our area over the years and commend the community of Huntington and Jack's family for coming together to put together a celebration worthy of such a man. May this be the first of many ``Jack Hardin Days.''

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, we are not here today to determine whether the events of September 11, 2001 should be memorialized. That process began immediately after that tragic day in truly American fashion, as spontaneous free expressions of grief and unity. Ribbons were pinned on chests. Old Glory was hung from every post. Shared moments of silence, neighbors gathering on front stoops by candlelight, families and friends and total strangers joining hands, churches and football fields ringing of spacious skies and amber waves of grain. Over the last 5 years, States and cities, organizations and individuals throughout our great Nation have chosen to commemorate that day, the sorrow and the heroism, in different tangible ways, with art and statues and structures that will long stand as reminders of our shared experience. Now, national efforts are underway, with congressional support, in Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon. The specific purpose of House Resolution 175 is to place the Congress on record supporting a memorial in New York City that will also be a memorial conceived, designed, and interpreted for our Nation as a whole. It is appropriate that we do this. The brutal attack upon our Nation was intended to be national in scope by its perpetrators. Ground Zero, the Pentagon, and Shanksville, Pennsylvania, were scarred by an attack aimed at the whole of America. And so our national memorials will allow the American people to remember and honor and heal in the manner in which we were attacked, as one. Further, this memorial should be national in scope because we have responded to these attacks, and we have overcome them, as one Nation. Mighty challenges persist, but we are meeting them, and today our liberty has remained intact. Our Nation is scarred, but our Nation prevails. This was not always assured. As the Civil War raged on, Abraham Lincoln publicly contemplated the possibility that a nation conceived such as ours might not long endure. We have often heard our country described as an experiment, the outcome of which is uncertain. But through world wars and a Great Depression, through painful social upheaval and a Cold War, and now through the attacks of September 11, 2001, our Nation has indeed survived. A free people, free to believe as we wish, free to speak our minds, free to raise our children as we see fit, will, make no mistake about it, endure. A resilient people cherishing liberty and equality and the rule of law will endure. Tyrannies can be powerful, but they are brittle. They derive power from the denial of freedom. It is a power founded in the suppression of human potential, and it cannot be sustained. America, 5 years after this brutal attack, is testament that a Nation conceived in liberty and equality will endure. It is a triumph of millions of Americans but it is also the triumph of an idea larger than any one person, larger than any one nation. A memorial in New York should speak to this larger triumph, and so we urge our colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 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 yield such time as he may consume to our distinguished colleague that represents the World Trade Center area, Mr. Nadler.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois for yielding me the time. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. The House has gone on the record three times now in strong opposition to horse slaughter. I hope my colleagues will maintain that record, maintain their consistency and give overwhelming support of this bill. It is a sad state of affairs when we have to fight to prevent the slaughter of more than 90,000 American horses a year. Horses are an integral part of the tapestry of this country, an American icon. The horse is a symbol, a promise of possibility. Most of all, the horse is a companion, as we just heard in the letter of Mr. Jones's constituent in North Carolina. The horse is tied to the spirit of the American frontier, the homesteaders in covered horse-drawn wagons, a cowboy and the wild mustangs. All symbols of America. The horse is a promise of possibility. How often Americans have sat in anticipation, watching the pageantry of thoroughbreds racing for the roses in the annual Kentucky Derby, while fully hoping for the triumph of some deserving underdog, perchance to see a rare Triple Crown winner, a truly American story. But most importantly, the horse is a companion for many Americans in a treasured childhood memory. Little boys and girls for generations have ridden a carousel pony dreaming that some day they will have a real horse to ride, a companion. Horses are a part of our identity and our heritage, and in America they are not for human consumption. But, unfortunately, that is the fate of many of these animals. Today, three foreign-owned slaughter houses operate in the U.S., serving an overseas market in horse meat. Thousands more horses are shipped annually out of the U.S., destined for other foreign slaughter houses. Horse slaughter is an export-driven market. Americans do not want it, and we should not be facilitating it. The horse slaughter industry and its allies are going to extreme lengths to prevent this ghastly, but lucrative, practice. I hope that the House will once again pass this much-needed legislation and not see the Department of Agriculture circumvent the intent of Congress.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment in my capacity as the Ranking Member of the Resources Committee which has legislative jurisdiction over Indian Affairs. This amendment is an insult to Indian Country. It suggests that Native Americans consume horse flesh. And in doing so, it is derisive of their culture and their society. The fact of the matter is that Indians do not eat horse flesh, and the three horse slaughter operations in this country do not sell horse flesh to Indians. The meat of slaughtered horses is all exported by these slaughterhouses to foreign markets. Indeed, I have before me resolution after resolution from Indian Country opposing the slaughter of horses, including from the National Congress of American Indians. But to be clear, there is another purpose behind this amendment, because it seeks to also allow horses to be slaughtered for the consumption of people from cultures that eat equine meat. As a general matter. The fact of the matter is that all of the meat from American slaughtered horses is consumed in European or Asian countries by people who traditionally eat horse flesh. Adoption of this amendment would gut the pending legislation. It would render it null and void. My colleagues, do not be fooled, do not be lulled into complacency by the attempt of this amendment to garner sympathy for Native Americans, when no such sympathy is required. A vote for this amendment is the same as a vote against final passage of H.R. 503. I urge the defeat of the pending amendment.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, the rule governing the debate on H.R. 503 makes in order seven amendments, all but one of which were filed late, beyond the deadline for amendment submission with the Rules Committee. What does this suggest? Normally, as we know, the Rules Committee is not enthused with late-filed amendments. As I recall, the majority on the Rules Committee has even used this as an excuse to not make certain amendments in order. So I think those of us on both sides of the aisle are being sent a signal here. And that message is that there is a concerted effort among some in power in this body to torpedo the pending legislation, H.R. 503, by gaining the adoption of nefarious and ill-conceived amendments that would simply gut the legislation. This is the hand that we are being dealt. And it is apparently the one that we must play. With that said, I rise in support of the rule. I urge my colleagues, especially on my side of the aisle, to vote for it, so at the very least, we can have an open debate on the issue of horse slaughter in the United States, so that we can strive to keep hope alive. Americans do not eat horse flesh. The concept is repugnant to most Americans. Yet the merchants of slaughter will have us believe that it is fine and dandy to slaughter our horses for the sole purpose, the sole purpose, of sending their flesh overseas to support some warped demand among foreign diners for horse meat on their menus. Hear me and hear me now: America, the land of the brave and true, we are sending over 90,000 horses a year to slaughter. Stunned in the head if lucky, throats slit. Explain this to your children. Try to defend this to your constituents. I hope my colleague will vote for the rule, demonstrate that we will stand up to the likes of those who slaughter our horses for profit and slaughter our horses for power.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the career contributions of Mr. Tim Friedman, Assistant Manager of the House Democratic Cloakroom and a public servant of the highest degree. For 30 years, Mr. Friedman has served our country in some capacity within the walls of Congress and he has served these years with dignity and decorum. As Mr. Friedman prepares to retire, I congratulate him and wish him the best. He has certainly earned the opportunity to kick up his heels, enjoy some time with his wife, and play a few rounds of golf. But as a Member of Congress, I must say that it is sad to see him go. For 20 years, he has been a fixture in the Cloakroom--an institution as significant as the Cloakroom itself. Mr. Friedman will be missed, but his work ethic will continue on, through his co-workers who admire him, through the many pages who have looked to him for guidance over the years and through the Democratic Members of Congress themselves. I thank Mr. Friedman for his service and his commitment to the Democratic Cloakroom. The qualities he embodies--loyalty, trustworthiness, reliability--are getting harder and harder to find nowadays. May God bless this admirable man and his family as he begins this next chapter.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I have spent more than half my life as a member of the Resources Committee. In that time I have supported numerous wilderness designations. In fact, I cannot recall ever opposing a wilderness bill. Yet, today, I find myself in a different situation. While I am normally excited, in fact, enthused, whenever a Republican introduces a wilderness bill, H.R. 3603 falls far short of what I see as an acceptable standard for such an exceptional area. Wilderness designations should not be the result of a quid pro quo. They should rise or fall on their own merits. We all understand that compromise is part of the legislative process, yet at the same time, I would submit that wilderness is not for sale. Simply put, I believe we should not seek the lowest common denominator when it comes to wilderness and saddle a wilderness designation with exceptions, exclusions, and exemptions. Wilderness is an endangered species. But instead of treating it as such, H.R. 3603 declares open season on it. With all due respect to the author of this legislation, and its supporters, in my view the focus of this bill is placed on development, with public land giveaways, monetary favors and special legislative provisions for a select few. There is nothing to be ashamed about with wilderness. Wilderness is not defined by the absence of certain activities, but rather by the presence of certain unique and invaluable characteristics. The answer to the oft-asked question, ``why do you want this area to be wilderness'' is that these areas are already wilderness. Congress cannot ``create'' wilderness. That is done by the hand of God. But what we can do is look beyond the fleeting uses these wild lands could be put to and preserve them as they are and as they have been for generations. President Lyndon Johnson, at the signing of the Wilderness Act in 1964 perhaps summed it up best when he said: ``If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them something more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it.'' H.R. 3603 falls far short of the standard that has been set for wilderness designation over the past forty years. It treats wilderness as a bargaining chip, something to be used to gain other ends. I simply cannot support eroding protections in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area, the transfer of public lands to developers, or the payoffs to mining speculators to name but a few issues. H.R. 3603 does not enhance the cause of wilderness, it cheapens it. The rush to bring this bill to the floor, without even a Committee Report, only shows that proponents fear a little sunshine on this legislation. They don't want you to look too closely at the backroom deals that were made, the favors that were granted, or the real resource protection for these public resources that is being forgone. Madam Speaker, H.R. 3603, is bad wilderness policy, it's bad resource management policy and it is bad fiscal policy. I urge defeat of the legislation.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, it was 24 years ago almost to this very day that I led an official congressional delegation to the Middle East, appointed by then Speaker Tip O'Neill. This six-nation tour included meetings with heads of state in every one of the countries we visited, including the Prime Minister of Israel, Menachem Began. We were in Beirut those first days of August 1982 when Israeli bombs were falling all over the country and all over the city, as they are this very day. The Israeli aim at that time was to rid Lebanon of the PLO. Then President Ronald Reagan got on the phone to then Prime Minister Menachem Began and said enough is enough. Stop the bombing. President Reagan had that courage, had that sense. There immediately ensued negotiations and a peaceful evacuation of Americans in the area, and we initially sent over marines, maybe a month later, at which point in time we were considered peacekeepers and all the Lebanese were welcoming the American presence. That later turned sour. That is part of history and I shall not go there. But I have written President Bush last Friday urging him to take this same action as President Ronald Reagan took 24 years ago. I commend him for calling Arab leaders as he is and asking the Arab leaders to urge restraint upon Hezbollah and to urge the release of the hostages, which is a proper action. I also asked the President that should he not be calling the Israeli Prime Minister at the same time. What is wrong with this course of action? The point where we are today is a point that is unfortunate. It was stupid of Hezbollah, Hamas to take the actions they took. I condemn the hostage taking. Israel has a right to defend itself. It has the right to pursue to the nth degree those that abduct their soldiers. The Israeli action of current days, and as we speak in Lebanon, however, has other repercussions than just the stated agenda of destroying Hezbollah. That is not going to happen. We know that there is no military action that is going to wipe out every member of Hezbollah, that is going to wipe out every member of Hamas. That is not the way this problem is going to be resolved. It is time for cooler heads to prevail if peace is to have a prayer. It is time for a cease-fire. It is time for Secretary Rice to go to the region. It is time for Hezbollah to, as the first step, simultaneously with the calling of a cease-fire release the hostages. That must be done, step number 1, with the calling of a cease-fire, and then negotiations should continue. As to whether there will be future and sequential release of Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners held by the Israelis, many of whom have not even had the first charge read against them yet, but that is for later, Israel has done this in the past, to their credit. Yes, we do not negotiate with terrorists, but we do. We know the reality. So I say, Mr. Speaker, that the current actions of Israelis have gone beyond going after Hezbollah. This resolution that is before us seems to hint at that pretty strongly. The Government of Lebanon is targeted in many different points in the resolution before us. The Government of Lebanon is demanded in this resolution to disarm Hezbollah. That is something that 18 years of Israeli occupation of Lebanon could not achieve. The Israelis cannot do that. But we are demanding now that a year-and-a-half-old Lebanese Government, prodemocracy, pro-American, so much hope after the Cedar Revolution of a year and a half ago, we are now demanding that they disarm Hezbollah in this resolution. Not realistic. Who are the losers if a cease-fire is not immediately implemented? Who are the losers in this fighting and the loss of innocent lives and civilian infrastructure continues? The losers are the moderates. The losers are the Siniora government in Lebanon, a government that has not approved, has not condoned the taking of hostages, as a matter of fact has spoken against it; a government that cannot at this particular point in time control fully its borders, but was getting its act in order previous to the current invasion. In the Palestinian territories, who are the losers? The moderate Palestinian leader Abu Mazen is the loser, an individual who was negotiating with Prime Minister Olmert, very close to a deal on prisoner exchange, when all of a sudden this kidnapping occurred, and that almost deal went down the tubes. So the moderates are the losers the longer the fighting goes on, the longer we are without a cease- fire. The likely scenario, of course, is that the Israelis will continue. They did a massive hit just as we speak against a Hezbollah bunker in south Beirut. It remains to be seen whether they got the head of Hezbollah or not, but there will be some mopping-up operations in the next week or so, and then Secretary Rice will go to the region and be the big peacemaker. I hope that is the scenario and that it is over that quick. I hope indeed that is what will occur. But we must request and we must demand that Hezbollah release the kidnapped soldiers as the first step with the simultaneous announcing of a cease-fire and let cooler heads prevail if we are going to give peace a chance.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas and the gentlewoman from Florida for yielding me the time, and I commend him. The plethora of scenarios that he has just taken this body through, some of which are scary, are certainly scenarios of which we need to bring to the American people's attention. We have seen the neocons have their way much too often in this administration. They got us into the war in Iraq, with some prodding from our allies in the region. And now those same individuals would have us strike at Iran. Yes, Iran, Syria are culprits in this recent kidnapping. There is no doubt in my mind, although there probably is not proof out there. Earlier I condemned Hezbollah and Hamas for these kidnappings. Were they taking their directions directly from Damascus, directly from Tehran? Probably, or at least some wink along the way. Or was Nasrallah going off on a tangent on his own? I am sure he did not expect the Israeli response that he got. I am sure the Israelis have learned something from this latest fighting, just what is in the Hezbollah arsenal, missiles that perhaps both Israeli Army intelligence and our own did not forecast. So perhaps this current scenario that will play out hopefully over another week or 2 is a learning experience, a feeling-out experience on both sides to determine just what other surprises are up one's sleeve. But regardless of that, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) just accused, and it is a reality, that Hezbollah rockets have hit civilians in Israel. Unfortunate. Were they targeted? I hardly think the Hezbollah missiles are of the same guidance technology as Israel missiles. For the most part, these Hezbollah missiles have been landing in barren deserts. That does not seem to be a targeting of civilians. And when they do find a target, yes, unfortunately there have been civilians that have been hit. Israeli technology and Israeli IDF are certainly much more advanced, much more advanced in their guidance procedures and in their ability to target their targets. The response is Hezbollah has their weapons, their missiles in civilian populations, in mosques, in innocent civilian homes. I have no doubt that that is accurate. And where that is proven to be, those targets are fair game and should be hit. But the Beirut airport, hardly a hideout for Hezbollah missiles, hardly a place that Hezbollah would use to receive arms, hardly a place that they would take their hostages for transportation elsewhere. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this debate, the tenor of the debate. The quality of the debate has been superb. The time that all sides have agreed for an extension is great. This is an important issue, and it should be debated as much as this body wishes to. But the fact is that the country of Lebanon has never taken any hostages. Lebanon has never attacked anybody. Lebanon has been used as a chessboard upon which all other countries in the region play their games and seek their own motives, whatever those motives may be. The Iranians have their motives. The Syrians have their motives. The Israelis have their motives. The other Arab countries in the region certainly have their motives. But Lebanon, the innocent bystander, is the one suffering the damage here. They have suffered an unmeasured response. The gentleman from California, Mr. Berman, again asked what should a response be then if Israel, as I have said, does have the right to go after their kidnapped soldiers, and how do you measure what is appropriate and what is inappropriate? I happen to believe that the Israeli intelligence, as I have said, and their technologies, are far superior to Hezbollah, are far superior to any country in the region, far superior, and they can use that ability, that superiority, to better track where their soldiers may be and where they are unlikely to be. It is that type of response that they have the right to pursue to the fullest extent to go after their soldiers. Not in Christian suburbs of Beirut that were hit today. I hardly think that is a hiding point for Hezbollah rockets and missiles. I hardly think you are going to find Hezbollah there. There were none found there. Yet a very pro-Christian, previously thought safe section of Beirut was hit just this afternoon by Israeli missiles. So there can be a better consideration of the innocent civilians. The resolution to which Mr. Issa referred, which we Lebanese- Americans support, H.R. 926, mentions that protection of innocent life and civilian infrastructure in the very beginning up in the first paragraph, not the next to the last paragraph, as the current resolution before us does.

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. 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. Speaker, in 1972 Congress enacted the Marine Mammal Protection Act to protect marine mammals from harmful human activities. It is a landmark statute in our pantheon of national environmental laws, providing for the conservation and management of whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals, sea lions, and other marine mammals. In the past, consideration of amendments to MMPA was done on a bipartisan basis, such as significant changes made by Congress in 1994. However, during this Congress, I have stood opposed to further consideration of MMPA legislation the Resources Committee approved almost 1 year to this day, until today. Let me emphasize that my opposition was until today. This was because the bill would have eliminated a fundamental mandate of MMPA known as the ``deadline for the zero rate mortality goal.'' In other words, we, as a Nation, are to strive to put into place management regimes which will reduce, and ideally eliminate, marine mammal fatalities at the hands of human beings. The troublesome provision which would have eliminated the deadline has been dropped from the legislation we are now considering. In this regard I would like to express my appreciation to Chairman Pombo for agreeing to this, and I am pleased to say that I support the bill as amended today and urge its approval by this body. 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. Speaker, the majority has already explained the purpose of H.R. 4376, which was introduced by our colleague from Massachusetts, Representative Richard Neal. For nearly 200 years, the Springfield Armory was important to the manufacture of U.S. military small arms. The national historic site, which was established in 1974, includes historic resources administered by the National Park Service as well as historic resources owned by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on behalf of the Springfield Community College. The gentleman from Massachusetts, Representative Neal, is to be commended for his efforts to preserve this historic site. He has worked diligently to maintain and enhance the relationship between Federal, State and local interests involved in the preservation and interpretation of the historic resources located at the Springfield Armory site. Mr. Speaker, we support H.R. 4376 and urge adoption of the legislation by the House today. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.