Nick Rahall

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. By extending ``no leasing'' buffer zones to 125 miles away from the State boundaries, this amendment is I must admit an improvement in the current bill from the perspective of its Florida sponsors, and I certainly understand that and commend them for the effort here. However, as is in the underlying bill, the amendment gives effective control over national resources to the States. The OCS lands and oil and gas resources belong to all the people of America. The name of every West Virginian, the name of other citizens of our country are on the deed to these properties. So these oil and gas resources belong to all the American people and not just to those who reside in the adjacent States; and, as such, Congress should retain the powers to make the decisions regarding those national resources on those grounds. It is for that reason that I object to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), one of the cosponsors of the original underlying bill.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I certainly do not begrudge the gentleman from Virginia or the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia for their efforts to obtain additional funding for the transit system in this region. I have ridden it. It is a very valuable part of our infrastructure not only in our Nation's capital but in this country. Quite honestly, I do not see any link here between OCS, oil and gas leasing, and funding a particular transit system. I have got some roadways in my State I wish I would have thought to include in this bill as well. But nevertheless, the only specific authorized use of these funds is for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, up to a total of 900 million each and every year. That is important to my State. There is a linkage here with conservation of our land and water resources being financed with revenues obtained from the development of these resources in this bill. So if there is a linkage but here between OCS and WMATA, I see no linkage. Second, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit, as all mature transit systems are, is eligible for funding and it does receive funding through the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund. There I am happy to support it as well through my position on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. And I know that the authority is not really scratching for dollars these days, so that is why I claimed this time in opposition. Again, I salute Mr. Davis for his dedication as well as the gentlewoman, Ms. Holmes Norton. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. RAHALL. Well, it is hardly a ringing endorsement. I have been here 30 years, and I have seen administrations endorse legislation or I have seen where they wanted to move along the process. Reclaiming my time, the way I read it, although I don't have my glasses, it is to move this process forward. ``The administration strongly opposes revenue sharing . . . '' I am reading now. My eyes just focused. ``The administration strongly opposes revenue-sharing provisions that do not incentivize production and that would reduce Federal receipts relative to current law and have a long-term impact on the Federal deficit. The administration's preliminary estimate is that the revenue- sharing provisions of H.R. 4761 would reduce Federal receipts by several hundred billion dollars over 60 years.'' Is that a ringing endorsement? Is that support of the legislation? Read the English language. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Yes, I will yield. Did they say that it was signed into law?

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. That hardly sounds like a ringing endorsement of the legislation. When the administration says they want to move the process forward, I hardly think that means that they will sign the current bill as written into law. And I have the administration's language here in front of me.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), a very valuable member of our Resources Committee, and the ranking member on the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, has the chairman explained the amendment yet?

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, as I understand, if I am on the right amendment, the pending amendment drops some provisions of the underlying legislation such as new royalty relief, which should never have been part of the bill to begin with. On balance, however, the amendment consists of budget gimmickry designed to hide the true costs to the Treasury of the bill and to pacify CBO by pushing the spending beyond the 10-year scoring window. Under the manager's amendment, State revenue sharing will cost the Federal Treasury $18 billion in the first 10 years under the CBO analysis. According to the MMS, Minerals Management Service, which administers the offshore OCS oil and gas leasing program, this legislation's provisions for diverting Federal revenues to States will cost $74 billion over the first 15 years and a staggering $600 billion over six decades. So under the manager's amendment, the new gimmickry, as I understand it, the Federal spending is largely deferred until 10 years and then the costs escalate rapidly and continue permanently. So that is the basis for my opposition. It is a new, permanent entitlement program with 80 percent of the diverted Federal revenue goes only to four States, as we have heard in previous debate, those States being Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, and Mississippi. This is revenue that is generated from the development of oil and gas resources owned by all the American people. All of our names are on the deed. And it currently goes to the Federal Treasury and is allocated by Congress for many, many national priorities that are getting slashed these days. And despite assertions to the contrary, this is not new revenue to be generated by this bill, but rather it is existing revenue that is generated under current laws allowing for the development of oil and gas on Federal OCS lands, primarily in the Gulf of Mexico. The publicly-owned OCS resources are far beyond the State boundaries, and to grant the adjacent Gulf States a permanent entitlement to those revenues is to the detriment and at the cost of all the other States. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time in opposition to the manager's amendment.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, Norman Mineta last week announced his resignation from the President's Cabin as Secretary of Transportation-- the longest serving Transportation Secretary in the history of the Department. His departure comes gracefully and on his own terms, just as were his more than three decades in public service to the American people. Norm's public service can't be condensed into a press release or simple statement of appreciation. His years of service to the country he loves--on behalf of his California constituents and in the arena of transportation--are unparalleled for their impact and effectiveness. The past 30-plus years have proven Norm a giant in his field and a true friend to those of us that served with and learned from him. On occasion Norm joined me in the mountains of southern West Virginia, each time increasing his understanding of our unique landscape and transportation needs. In his years as a Member of Congress and as Transportation Secretary he did a great deal to improve the infrastructure of southern West Virginia and, indeed, the lives of southern West Virginians. I am certain Norm will continue his outstanding record of service as a private citizen in the years to come and I congratulate my friend on his decision and wish him, his wife Deni and his two children, David and Stuart, the very best.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise on this special day to honor my home among the hills, the great state of West Virginia. It was on June 20, 1863 that West Virginia became the 35th state to enter the Union. The Civil War changed the landscape of America, and nowhere was its impact felt more significantly than in the Virginias, which, like so many families fighting this bloody war, was rendered into two halves, west and east, North and South. By some standards small in circumference but by any standards big in heart, West Virginia might have been born a child of national turmoil, but has grown to a State blessed with hard-working and generous people, awe-inspiring natural beauty, and a fount of natural resources. The natural beauty surrounding us lures people from across the Nation and around the world to visit and play here. Traditional industries have long played an integral role in our State's economy, and they continue so today. Agriculture provides dairy, poultry, and feed crops for our State. The lumber industry makes use of our forests that cover 75 percent of our beautiful terrain. And, we all know the coal industries motto in West Virginia, ``Coal Keeps the Lights On.'' West Virginia is also a leader in steel, glass, aluminum, chemical manufacturing, and natural gas industries. And we will continue to support these traditional industries that have powered our Nation, and kept America running. But, as the old saying goes ``nothing endures but change.'' And we are seeing a change in West Virginia. West Virginia's Renaissance will be marked by West Virginia's foray into the technology industry. On that front, we have only just begun, but today our future is as bright as an early summer morning sunrise over the Appalachian hills-- hills that we are reminded of today by the gentle words of a classic tune that continues to strike a chord among all who have a ``Home Among the Hills'': There's a land of rolling mountains Where the sky is blue above. And though I may roam, I hurry home, To those friendly hills I love. Where moonlit meadows ring with the call of whippoorwills Always you will find me in my home among the hills And where the sun draws rainbows in the mist Of waterfalls and mountain rills My heart will be always in the West Virginia Hills There, autumn hillsides are bright with scarlet trees and in the spring, the robins sing While apple blossoms whisper in the breeze And there is music in the flashing streams and joy in fields of daffodils Laughter through the happy valleys of my home among the hills --Words & Music by E.W. James, Jr. Today, and every day, West Virginians thank the Lord for our bountiful blessings, and bound together in loyalty and love for our fine state remind ourselves that, yes, West Virginia is truly almost Heaven.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, what do you get when you multiply the power of the beacon by the strength of a workhorse by the steadiness of an anchor: Robert C. Byrd? We can celebrate his length of service today but we will always prosper more from his daily leadership for West Virginia over these past years. We celebrate that definition of Senator Byrd, today as he becomes the longest serving Senator in the history of the Republic. Today, June 12, 2006, marks a record 17,327th day Robert C. Byrd has served in the United States Senate. While we desire to mark this milestone and unrivaled achievement with celebration, I suspect the senior Senator from West Virginia will spend this day as he has every day for the past 48 years--by going to work to improve and enrich the lives of the people of West Virginia and ardently defending the Constitution of the United States. In total, Senator Byrd has served this Nation nearly 54 years in the U.S. Capitol. Senator Byrd served three terms in this body before being elected to the Senate. Here on the House side, in Statuary Hall the old House Chamber, overlooking all, stands sentinel, Clio, the Muse of History, in a winged chariot, a symbol of the passing of time. There to witness and record the history of the Republic for future generations. Time does tell all, Mr. Speaker. That is why today is so significant. Time trumpets talent, but talent ultimately triumphs over time. Senator Byrd's time here is a direct measurement of his talent, witnessed by the wisdom of the people of West Virginia who have returned him to serve again time after time. Democracies breed talent. The time of tenure validates talent. I send words of congratulations and comfort to my Senator on this day, as I know it marks above all the birthday of his lovely and beloved Erma, who recently left us to rest eternally with our Lord in Heaven. It remains one of my life's great privileges to serve with a man I consider a mentor and friend. I have never seen a greater example of a public servant and I have attempted to emulate my service after his. Senator Byrd has been an architect of advancement for our state; the influence of his steady leadership over the past five decades can be seen from the hills to the valleys, from our towns and villages to our cities. And it is with great excitement that I look forward to the continued service of West Virginia's senior Senator. For that is the brilliance of Robert C. Byrd--always with his stern gaze firmly fixed on the future, a better, more prosperous, more secure future for West Virginia and all America. As a beacon you will continue to shine your light of advancement and progress across our entire State and Nation; as a workhorse you will continue to spend each day of your service dedicated to providing your people opportunities for prosperity; as an anchor you will continue to steady our land while giving generations of West Virginians and Americans hope, faith, and prosperity. To my friend, I congratulate you on all you have achieved for your beloved West Virginia and all that you will achieve in the future for our Nation.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by commending the gentleman from California for his over three decades of work in this body on behalf of our coal miners and our working men and women of this country. I salute his dedication and his career that he has built in helping improve those conditions. Mr. Speaker, myself, speaking on behalf of myself, I will take a back seat, however, to no Member of this body in regard to standing up for our coal miners, standing up for their fair health and safety conditions, and standing up for pneumoconiosis benefits, over my entire career here as well. This has been a dark, mournful year for our Nation's coal miners. Thirty-three deaths, 33 lives lost by decent hardworking men who have placed their trust in a mine safety system that failed them. Today the clouds begin to part. The mine tragedies of this year resulted from many years of growing complacency and diminishing compliance. They happened because our Nation's mine safety system has been veering in the wrong direction for far too long. Indeed, several years ago I issued a siren's call when I offered an amendment on this floor to the labor appropriations bill to block the Mine Safety Health Administration from issuing regulations that would have allowed a four- fold increase of respirable dust in our underground coal mines. We must recall that Congress armed MSHA with a sharp regulatory axe. But instead of using that weapon, in recent years MSHA has opted for the warm and fuzzy gimmick called partnership. What should have been sharp, steep and painful fines for safety violations have been reduced repeatedly to little more than love taps. As new safety technologies have become commonplace in the mines of foreign competitors, MSHA failed to prod American mines that have plodded along with old devices. It did not punish and deter habitual violators. It did not update and maintain safety rules. It did not fulfill its statutory mandate or its responsibility to the miners it has been charged with protecting. The pending measure will begin, begin, I stress, to change all that. This bill is not a cure-all. It is not a perfect bill. The only perfect bill around this body anymore is naming a post office after somebody. It is misleading and dangerous to suggest that any bill can be a cure- all, but it is a step in the right direction, a step that must not be delayed. To delay this legislation, no matter how noble the intentions, is to gamble recklessly with the lives of our Nation's coal miners. Indeed, I would say to the gentleman from California, good decent George, that there are provisions missing from the pending legislation that were in our West Virginia bipartisan congressional bill. There are also provisions in the gentleman from California's and my bill that are not in this legislation. But as I said, this bill at hand is a beginning. The death toll in my congressional district, the death toll in the State of West Virginia, the death toll across our Nation's coal fields must halt, no more delay in acting. The MINER Act pending before us, the Senate-passed bill, does include a number of improvements over the current law. That is what we are talking about, taking a step in the right direction. The pending bill is supported by the United Mine Workers of America, by the National Mining Association, by the Governor of the State of West Virginia, and might I add by the daughter of a miner quoted by the gentleman from California, Amber Helms, who said, ``We support The MINER Act recently passed by the United States Senate because we believe it is better than what we have in our law right now. But if it can be improved upon without delay that is where we stand. If this bill as written right now is the best we can do today, then we urge the United States Congress to pass it immediately.'' This bill is the best we can do today. It must be acted upon before further deaths occur in our coal mines. The bill does call for immediate action to incorporate workable communication devices. The bill that we are talking about today does make immediate requirements for more oxygen, enough to evacuate miners in the event of an emergency and enough to maintain miners for a sustainable period of time if they are trapped underground. The act does not designate a 48-hour supply, as the gentleman from California would do, because how does one honestly determine that 48 hours of oxygen is sufficient as opposed to 49 hours or 72 hours? Indeed, the act requires each coal operator, in consultation with the miners and their representatives, to look at the individual mines, and as the gentleman from California knows, mines are different, and determine, subject to approval in a biennial review by the Secretary of Labor, what is an adequate amount of oxygen. This bill addresses the seals. It requires the Secretary of Labor to develop promulgations and rules to strengthen the seals that have been the cause of recent disasters. This bill is a workable piece of legislation. It cannot be amended; otherwise we go to a conference committee. Who knows when it will then be passed, and it must be acted upon today. I urge passage.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I pause today to remember the men, our brave veterans from the Greatest Generation, many who gave their lives on June 6, 1944 to begin the liberation of Europe. Sadly, fewer and fewer of these brave men are left with us who were actually there on June 6, 1944, when Supreme Allied Commander General Dwight D. Eisenhower gave the go-ahead for the largest amphibious military operation in history: D-Day, code-named Operation Overlord, the Allied invasion of northern France. Unfortunately, we are saying goodbye to these veterans in greater numbers with each passing year. But for those who remain with us and in memory of those who died that day and who have subsequently passed since, we pause today to honor their great deed. At 6:30 a.m. on June 6, 1944, our brave American troops came ashore at Utah and Omaha beaches. On Omaha Beach, the U.S. First Division battled heavy German fire and rough waters and many wounded Americans ultimately drowned in the high tide. Our British and Canadian brothers landed at Gold, Sword beaches, and Juno beaches, and also were met with heavy German fire, but by day's end had established beachheads. Total Allied casualties on D-Day are estimated at over 10,000. The breakdown of United States casualties was 1,465 killed, 3,184 wounded, 1,928 missing and 26 captured. Before the day ended however, 155,000 Allied troops would be in Normandy, bringing with them the beginning of the end of the Third Reich. The world has not forgotten what these men did on June 6, 1944, and we must remain vigilant in making sure we never forget their great sacrifice.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, for decades this Nation has been researching, debating, drafting, and redrafting national energy policy. Unfortunately, the long gas lines of the 1970's that motivated the kind of original thought needed to end our dependency on foreign oil slipped from our memories as supplies increased and prices dropped. Today, we are punished with oil prices floating in the range of $75 a barrel, record prices at the pump, and an unstable world market for the foreseeable future. At the same time, according to the Department of Energy, $35-$45 a barrel oil is attainable from a source within our borders. It is our most abundant domestic energy resource--coal. With technology that has been around for decades, coal can be liquefied and turned into a liquid fuel, and eventually sold for approximately half of what we are paying now per barrel. The true value of coal is misunderstood and many ignore its potential to free us from foreign oil at our own peril. We risk stepping into the same trap that has caught so many promising energy policy advances by the ankle for decades. Research has brought us a long, long way from the days of smokestacks and gray skies. True, there remain many less efficient, older generation power plants in this Nation, but largely because, while the Government draped oil companies in rich tax advantages, it devoted mere dribbles of money to providing incentives for clean burning coal plants. Thirty years of government and private-sector research and development has created a product, according to the Department of Energy, that is cleaner than required under EPA Tier II fuel standards. And with this Nation's refinery capacity operating on all cylinders, these fuels would fit right into our energy mix as they would require very little additional processing. Coal-to-liquids can curb our appetite for foreign fuel. Dtsturbingly, however, for all of our Nation's pride in our competitiveness and innovation, we stand behind a number of other countries in liquefying coal to end our foreign oil dependence. For instance, these fuels represent about one-third of the consumption in South Africa, which began its production and use in the 1950's using the Fischer-Tropsch process developed during the 1920's by two German researchers. China, India, and Indonesia, recognizing the problems of relying on foreign sources of oil, are all aggressively pursuing coal liquefaction as key components of their energy production. For the U.S., our continued myopia about coal liquefaction is particularly numb-headed, since coal is our most abundant natural energy resource. In order to catch up to the rest of the world, a position to which the U.S. is unaccustomed, we must invest in our future and Congress began to travel down this road with the reauthorization of the Nation's surface transportation laws last year by including two new excise tax credits aimed at promoting the use of alternative transportation fuels, including liquid fuel derived from coal. While a helpful first step, due to the restrictive nature of the existing tax credit, I am pleased to join my colleague John Shimkus and others in introducing legislation aimed at helping far-sighted firms better afford their foray into coal liquefaction. Our bill would reduce some of the risk that these firms and their investors take as they try to lead our Nation into a new energy frontier. Simply put, our legislation would extend until 2020 the 50 cents per gallon tax credit for liquid fuel derived from coal that is set to expire in 2009. The legislation does not address other alternative transportation fuels, just coal-to-liquids. The aim is to provide a level of predictability for a number of years to those willing to put money into coal-to-liquids production. It would help to smooth out some of the ups and downs associated with fluctuating oil prices and the gamble investors make in the financing of these high-tech energy ventures. Unfortunately, while other governments have been footing the bill for this kind of research and development for decades, our Government has been ``playing footsie'' with Big Oil. In comparison to the big tax giveaways enjoyed by the oil industry, precious few U.S. budgetary resources have been devoted over the years to cutting-edge coal technologies. This is mind-boggling policy, given coal's abundance on our own shores. The United States will never drill its way out of our oil dependency. But using proven, coal-to-liquid technology and American initiative, we could revolutionize our way to a new energy era. This bill helps to level out Federal tax policy that has long been tilted against the public in favor of rich oil companies.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to exercise restraint and perspective in our consideration of H.R. 4681. President Bush's Administration has already stated the bill is ``unnecessary as the Executive branch already has ample authority to impose all its restrictions and it constrains the Executive branch's flexibility to use sanctions, if appropriate, as tools to address rapidly changing circumstances.'' With that kind of endorsement, we must ask ourselves what this legislation seeks to accomplish. Additionally, the so-called Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 limits diplomatic visas to members of the Palestinian Authority and would tie the hands of the foreign policy community when it comes time to negotiate peace between the PA and Israel. How many times has peace been brokered on American soil? Eliminating dialogue does not help to advance peace in the region. Peace only comes through mutual understanding. Reasonable, even intelligent people can, and frequently do, disagree on how best to achieve peace in the Middle East, but, peace must be the goal of our foreign policy tools, whether they be by the stick or by the carrot. Peace cannot come from punishing the Palestinian people. Even Israel's Foreign Minister knows that. He states in Reuters, that, ``Israel is prepared to release Palestinian tax revenues into a proposed aid mechanism being set up by Middle East mediators to avert the collapse of the Palestinian health sector . . .'' Instead, this legislation seeks to accomplish exactly what President Bush's Administration and the Israeli Foreign Minister realize is counterproductive. I can tell you that after 30 years in Congress, I have seen legislation succeed and fail. This legislation is rigid, and unnecessary. To put it plainly, when you take from people who already have nothing, you breed trouble, you don't combat it. How easy will it be for Al-Qaeda to tell a man whose child is dying that the doctors are no longer there because the Americans took them away? How easy will it be to recruit a whole new generation of listless, impoverished youths? Madam Speaker, I reject the idea that this legislation will combat terrorism. I reject it because we have history as our teacher. The best nation-building, goodwill act that the United States has ever produced was the Marshall Plan after World War II. By rebuilding Europe, America continues to be stronger. Yes, there were communist factions that the United States deplored, but we knew the need was real, and punishing the whole for the acts of the few was wrongheaded in the extreme. Today, our actions must be motivated only by our intense desire to achieve a just and lasting peace. The compassion and charity of the American people should be reflected in this legislation, though sadly, they are silenced. Madam Speaker, make no mistake, a vote cast in favor of H.R. 4681 is not a vote for peace, it is not a vote for America and it is not a vote that I will cast. I urge my colleagues to cast their votes against this unwise and unproductive resolution.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hinchey royalty relief amendment and am proud to be included as a cosponsor. When the original deep water royalty relief legislation was on the House floor in 1995, I opposed it and said that it was ``an early Christmas'' for big oil. Eleven years later, the holiday has never ended and royalty relief keeps on giving ever-bigger gifts. We were assured by the champions of royalty relief that the 1995 act was a miraculous piece of legislation that would end up making money for the taxpayers by giving away publicly owned oil as an incentive for drilling. But the concept of paying big oil companies to do what they would do anyway did not make any sense then and it makes even less sense now. Simply put, the taxpayer should not continue to massively subsidize an industry reaping the benefits of record prices and swimming in profits. According to a recent estimate by the GAO, deep water royalty relief under the 1995 act will cost the taxpayers between $20 billion and $80 billion over the next 25 years, depending upon the outcome of an industry lawsuit. Thankfully, today we have an opportunity to adopt the Hinchey amendment and put a halt to this fiscal rip-off. This carefully crafted amendment provides an incentive for the major oil and gas companies which were granted royalty-free leases under the Clinton administration--companies such as ExxonMobil, Shell, and others--to renegotiate those leases to include a price cap on royalty relief. The companies may choose not to do so, but would then not be eligible for new OCS leases. Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of false bravado and empty rhetoric in this Chamber when it comes to reducing the budget deficit. But this amendment is the real deal. Let's stand up for the taxpayers and adopt it.

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

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has been passed unanimously by this House in previous years, including last year. Mr. Chairman, last year the House voted 249 to 159 to adopt my amendment to end the sale and slaughter of wild horses and burros. I ask the House today to reaffirm the stand it took to protect these icons of America's western heritage. Earlier this year the Nevada State Quarter was issued by the U.S. Mint. Now, Nevada is known as the ``Silver State.'' However, if you look on the back of the quarter, you will not see a picture of a silver mine. No, what the good people of Nevada chose as the representation of their state was a wild horse. Nevadans are rightly proud of the heritage of their wild horses. It is unfortunately a heritage at risk because of a legislative rider inserted into an Appropriations bill in the dead of night in late 2004 that puts thousands of wild horses and burros in danger of ending up on dining tables overseas. We need to stop the slaughter of wild horses and burros not only because it is morally wrong but also because the program itself is a failure. As a result of this failure, 41 wild horses have been slaughtered and thousands more face an uncertain fate. While the Bureau of Land Management may have good intentions to prevent sales for slaughter, the legislative rider that created this problem in the first place severely handicaps any such effort. Make no mistake about it, more wild horses and burros will end up slaughtered. After all, if the purpose of the legislative rider was to only sell off these animals to good homes, why was the long-standing prohibition on slaughter removed from the law. According to the BLM's own statistics, the agency has approximately the same number of wild horse and burros in the sale program today as when the program started. For each one the agency has sold, another one has been added to take its place. BLM has resorted to sending out letters to public land ranchers pleading with them to buy a horse. It has teamed up with a private entity to offer limited financial incentives to purchasers. These are not the actions of a sound program but the desperate attempts to implement and unwise and unsound policy. Mr. Chairman, the wild horse and burro program is a failure both morally and administratively. We can and must do a better job of protecting these magnificent creatures. It is time to sheath the sword that hangs over these animals. I urge the adoption of my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). (Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment to increase funding for PILT. I am proud to join my colleagues from Western States to make the point that PILT is a vital part of communities across this great land. PILT funds help make communities safer, cleaner and healthier in 49 of our 50 States--from Maine, to West Virginia, to California. In seeking adequate PILT funding, we are truly all in this together. Now some may say that, in the grand scheme of our Federal budget, PILT payments to counties are just not that important. Well I can tell you that the PILT funding received by Greenbrier County or Pocahontas County in West Virginia is crucial to their ability to provide the quality and quantity of local services the families of West Virginia deserve. I am also here to support more funding for PILT because I support public land ownership and acquisition, where it is appropriate. As the ranking member on the House Resources Committee, I have the privilege of working with the other committee members to oversee our national parks, forests and refuges. These lands are part of our national identity and they are a birthright we will pass on to future generations of Americans. But along with responsibility for these public lands comes a responsibility to the surrounding local communities. PILT payments compensate these local communities for lost revenue due to public land ownership. Making good on those payments is part of being a good steward but it is also part of being a good neighbor, and that is something we take very seriously in West Virginia. The budget priorities chosen by this administration and this Congress force many very painful decisions. However, funding for a program as broad and important to local governments as PILT must be funded adequately. I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, and I want to address that portion of the pending appropriations bill concerning the Office of Surface Mining, and specifically the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. In regard to the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund, there exists an unexpended balance in the AML trust fund approaching $2 billion, and it is my hope that in conference this particular appropriation will be increased. With respect to the Office of Surface Mining, I would observe that just yesterday news emerged that the President intends to nominate John R. Correll to serve as the agency's director. I have not met the gentleman, and I look forward to doing so. But what immediately catches the eye is that, since 2002, Mr. Correll served as the deputy assistant secretary of labor and was responsible, according to the administration's press release yesterday, of all aspects of the mine's safety health administration. Now, it is no secret that 26 coal miners have perished this year, a rate that this Nation has not witnessed in recent memory. It is also no secret that many of these fatalities could have been avoided if MSHA had been doing its job. Mr. Correll had been part of the leadership of MSHA during the time when the policy floor fell out. Under his leadership, the philosophy at MSHA changed from one of oversight and compliance to one of partnership and complicity. Rule-makings were abandoned, opportunities to improve coal mining safety were closeted away, and Mr. Correll and others within the Bush Labor Department advocated partnering with industry to address safety concerns rather than to enforce the law. In fact, in 1998 Mr. Correll testified before the House Committee on Education and Workforce, Subcommittee on Workforce Protection, advocating fewer inspections, incentives over penalties, and cooperation over regulation. While other nations have soared ahead in mine safety, incorporating new technologies to ensure and improve protections for their most precious mining resource, their workers, this Nation through a cultural shift at MSHA remained at the dust. It has been a shameful record that I would be loathe to see carried over to OSM. The health and safety of the residents in our mining communities should not be gambled on in the way that the health and safety of our mine workers has been. It is time that concern and compassion and correctness for our miners take precedent over loyalty to industry and loyalty to this administration. So it is passing strange, to say the least, that the Bush administration would nominate as OSM director a person who presided over MSHA during the worst rash of coal miner fatalities in recent times. One must wonder if this person will bring the same philosophy to overseeing the environmental protection of coalfield citizens. I urge opposition to this rule for many other reasons that have been stated by my colleagues.