Nick Rahall

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, we are all too aware of the damage that can be inflicted during wartime by conventional weapons. However, the Ukrainian genocide is evidence of the shocking and deadly potential of an unconventional weapon such as hunger. In an attempt to permanently cement the Ukrainian people under Soviet control, the grain supply to Ukraine was purposely manipulated by Joseph Stalin, beginning in 1932 and leading to widespread hunger and starvation. While precise figures are difficult to calculate, historians place the number of dead as a result of this policy between 8 and 10 million men, women and children. In rural Ukraine, it is thought that one in four people starved to death. These deaths have rightly been labeled one of the worst genocides in human history. Yet outside of Ukraine, this horrific chapter in human history is not well known. Working with the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America, our colleague and valued Member, Congressman Sandy Levin, from Michigan hopes to change that beginning with H.R. 562. This legislation amounts to formal acceptance by the United States Government of a memorial gift offered to this country by the people of Ukraine. The memorial is to be located here in our Nation's Capital and is intended to commemorate for Americans, as well as visitors from around the world, the incredible sacrifice made by the people of Ukraine in their long struggle for freedom. In addition, the memorial gift honors the 1.5 million Americans of Ukrainian descent who treasure their heritage and cling to the memory of their ancestors' struggle for freedom, a struggle which was finally won with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. However, true independence was achieved more recently in Ukraine as the world watched in awe as the Orange Revolution swept away a corrupt regime without a single drop of bloodshed. Mr. Speaker, Congressman Levin is to be commended for his dedication and hard work in bringing this measure to the floor today. He has talked to me numerous times personally about it. I commend him for his tenacity and dedication. It is not only appropriate that we pass this legislation to accept this memorial gift; it is an honor. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN 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 have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo), a very distinguished member of our Resources Committee whose help was tremendous on this legislation.

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, while the temptation to sweep this shameful chapter of American history under the rug is powerful, we must resist that urge. The pending legislation will, we hope, prevent future discrimination against groups of Americans based on race, ethnicity, or religious belief by preserving and interpreting a dark chapter in American history when our actions fell far short of our ideals. Mr. Speaker, it is sobering to realize that the internment of Japanese Americans did not take place in some far distant past history. Rather, the horror of internment camps are real for many Americans, among them a very good friend and colleague of ours and now the Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Norm Mineta. After he and his family were forced from their home and interned, Secretary Mineta devoted his life to serving the country which had treated him so shamefully to ensure that such injustice will never be repeated. Secretary Mineta overcame the labels placed on him as a child and went on to carry labels including soldier, city councilman, mayor, Congressman, Mr. Chairman, and now Mr. Secretary. Throughout this distinguished career, he was often the first Asian American to hold those titles. Another great American victimized by internment was our friend and former colleague, the late Bob Matsui. Like Norm Mineta and many others, Bob Matsui overcame injustice and adversity suffered as a child to build a career of distinguished public service. His widow and dear colleague of ours today will be heard from in just a moment. While he might have been forgiven for being bitter or angry, Bob Matsui was universally praised as one of the most diplomatic and cordial Members of this body. He took his experiences as a child and turned them into a passion for serving the young, the sick and the elderly, those most at risk for uncaring treatment by government. Representative Matsui's life work has been taken up by his wife, Representative Doris Matsui. She, along with Representative Mike Honda, has worked tirelessly to bring this measure to the floor; and they are to be commended for their efforts. This legislation is not only a tribute to those who suffered the injustice of internment but also to the triumphs of these distinguished former colleagues. We urge support for H.R. 1492 in their names and in the names of all of those who have faced or continue to face injustice. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to our dear and, in every sense of the word, distinguished colleague from California (Ms. Matsui). (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), a very important member of our Resources Committee.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a person who I consider not only a leader in Indian Country, but a friend, Tex Hall, for all of his hard work as President of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI). Tex Hall is a man who has led by example, dedicating himself to advancing the standard of living for our Nation's first citizens through bold vision, dedication, and integrity. A tireless advocate, Tex has used his position as NCAI president to promote strong tribal sovereignty through self-governance. He has addressed both the challenges and opportunities that lie before today's American Indian and Alaska Native nations. As Tex stated earlier this year in his State of Indian Nations address, tribes are ``A vital part of this country's conscience, its past and its future . . . Strong, healthy tribal self-governance is not just good for the economy of tribal nations, but for the economy of the United States as a whole . . . Today, Indian Country is moving forward and in the right direction,'' For Tex Hall, 2005 marks the end of four outstanding years as head of the National Congress of American Indians, the Nation's oldest and largest Native American organization, representing over 200 Indian tribes in the continental United States and Alaska. Tex's successful 2001 election marked the first time in history that an individual from his tribe, or from the state of North Dakota, had been chosen to lead NCAI. Tex has played a key role in the great strides that Indian country has made, keeping promises, and making a difference in the lives of Indian people--for generations to come. Tex G. Hall--whose Indian name ``Ihbudah Hishi'' means ``Red Tipped Arrow''--grew up on his family's cattle ranch in Mandaree, located in the heart of the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation in North Dakota. One of eight children, Tex and his three brothers and four sisters were instilled with a deep respect and appreciation for education. In the mid-1970's, Tex received his high school diploma at a time when fewer than 40 percent of the Nation's Native Americans were graduating from high school. Persistent in his educational quest, Tex attained his bachelors degree--in an era when only 8 percent of his fellow Native Americans graduated from college--and proceeded to obtain a Masters degree in educational administration. Tex wished to instill the importance of education in the Indian youth of his reservation. For 11 years, Tex served as the Superintendent and Principal of Mandaree School. Both his classroom instruction and basketball coaching earned Tex 1995's award of North Dakota Indian Educator of the Year. To this day, Tex lives and learns by example--he is currently pursuing a Ph.D. degree in education. As a committed leader, Tex followed in the footsteps of both his father and grandfather, winning a seat on the Tribal Council of the Three Affiliated Tribes (comprised of the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara tribes, having joined together in the mid-1800's) at Fort Berthold in New Town, North Dakota. Eventually becoming the Chairman of his tribe-- exactly 40 years after his grandfather was elected Chairman--Tex has served two terms, winning re-election in 2002. Among other positions, Tex has served as Secretary and Treasurer of the United Tribes Technical College, Chairman of the Great Plains Tribal Chairmans' Association, Chairman of the Native American Bank Corporation, Co- Chairman of the National Tribal Leaders Task Force on Trust Reform, and President of the NCAI President's Health Technology Task Force. As president of NCAI, Tex successfully worked to ensure that the government-to-government relationship and consultation was strictly adhered to on all important matters. As Co-chair of the Task Force on Indian Trust Funds, he brought together representatives of all tribes together with the Department of Interior to work through problems with trust fund management. He is truly a uniter and not a divider as he has managed to work with Indian country to consolidate and unite on like matters. Tex has also worked with me in my capacity as the Ranking Democrat on the Resources Committee on legislation to protect Indian sacred sites from being destroyed by human abuse. We worked together on drafting the Native American Sacred Lands Act and Tex stood shoulder to shoulder with me as we announced the introduction of this important legislation. Though we have not been able to enact this bill as of yet, I know Tex will continue to fight with me to protect the rights and the sites that our first Americans hold sacred. Tex Hall has been a major force in several advancements made by tribal governments on a national level. In 1999, Tex chaired a meeting on Indian treaty issues with President Clinton and representatives of the Great Plains Tribes. In 2000, as a result of that meeting and others, President Clinton signed an Executive Order on Consultation with Indian Tribal Governments, stating, ``There is nothing more important in federal-tribal relations than fostering true government- to-government relations to empower American Indians and Alaska Natives to improve their own lives, the lives of their children, and the generations to come. We must continue to engage in a partnership, so that the First Americans can reach their full potential. . . . This Executive Order builds on prior actions and strengthens our government- to-government relationship with Indian tribes.'' Multiple hurdles still obstruct elevation of the standard of living for Indian people. As Tex told Judy Sarashon of the Washington Post in 2004, ``Unfortunately, the first Americans have been the forgotten Americans.'' Nevertheless, Tex Hall is a man who continues to dedicate his life to advancing the opportunities for Indian Country; an assiduous champion in the fight to protect Indian sacred sites, I have had the honor to work with Tex and hope to successfully pass legislation that addresses the protection of Native American sacred lands. Whether it is his work strengthening the Violence Against Women Act, tackling the fight to protect sacred sites, or his willingness to travel wherever needed to help work out a problem, Tex Hall will be remembered as a great president of the National Congress of American Indians; and I am proud to call him my friend. Tex, thank you for your service.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, among the many egregious provisions of the Budget Reconciliation recommendations recently approved by the Resources Committee is a raid on America's public lands and our natural resources heritage of almost unparalleled proportions. Included in these recommendations to be considered by the House Budget Committee is the worst kind of ``sham reform'' of the Mining Law of 1872 that has ever been promoted during my tenure in Congress and if enacted would result in a blazing fire sale of Federal lands to domestic and international corporate interests. It is actually a step backward from this 133-year old statute. Signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant, the Mining Law of 1872 to this day governs the mining of valuable ``hardrock'' minerals such as gold and silver on Federal western public lands. The law allows private companies to patent--purchase--public lands containing valuable minerals for a mere $2.50 to $5.00 per acre, prices set in 1872, without paying a royalty-- production fee--on the mining of these minerals to the taxpayer. Since 1872, more than $245 billion worth of minerals have been extracted from public lands at these bargain-basement prices. Further, a land area equivalent in size to the State of Connecticut has been sold to the mining industry for less than $5 an acre. Since 1987, when I chaired the Energy and Minerals Subcommittee, I have worked to rewrite this antiquated law, introducing comprehensive reform bills in each successive Congress. In addition, at my urging, since 1994, and with strong bipartisan support, Congress has placed an annual moratorium on the patenting of mining claim on Federal lands. To be clear, bona fide mining can and does take place on unpatented mining claims. There is no indication or proof that this over one decade ban on the patenting of mining claims has diminished in any respect the actual production of hardrock minerals from unpatented mining claims on western public lands. Yet, the Resources Committee's budget reconciliation recommendations would repeal the moratorium and reinstate patenting--the sale--of these public lands. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this provision would only raise an estimated $158 million over the next 5 years by patenting public lands for $1,000 an acre or fair market value of only the surface of the land--far from the true value of the minerals underneath. Let me emphasize that. The Resources Committee provision would allow the sale of potentially mineral rich public lands for the mere cost of the surface estate, completely ignoring the value to the underlying mineral estate. In contrast, an 8 percent royalty on the actual mineral production from mining claims which I have long advocated would raise $350 million in the same time period. Keep in mind that if one mines coal on Federal lands, the company is required to pay either an 8 percent or 12.5 percent production royalty depending on whether the coal is deep or surface mined. Further, producers of onshore oil and gas on Federal lands pay a 12.5 percent production royalty. But producers of gold, or silver or copper. . . . zero, zilch, nothing. The Mining Law of 1872 provisions adopted by the Resources Committee without benefit of public hearing also go far beyond just reinstating the much-maligned ``patenting'' provision. In fact, the provisions would require the Federal Government to sell such public lands to potential buyers, whether or not it is in the public interest to do so. Under the Resources Committee legislation, a prospective purchaser would merely (a) file a mining claim or mill site or ``blocks of such claims,'' (b) present evidence of mineral development work performed on the lands they want to buy totaling at least $7,500 per claim, (c) pay for a land survey, and (d) show up to get the deed. As such, under these provisions anyone, including real estate developers and oil and gas companies, could purchase and develop natural areas that are currently important for recreation, wildlife, fisheries or regional drinking water supplies under the guise of a mining law. This would enable oil and gas companies to purchase the land they currently lease from the Federal Government. Not coincidently, since most Federal oil and gas leases occur on Federal lands not protected by this legislation, this provision would put at risk the rents, royalties and bonus payments currently collected annually by the Federal Government and shared with the States from onshore oil and gas leases which in fiscal year 2004 totaled $1.850 billion. Further, while the Resources Committee legislation would put off- limits to its provisions certain Federal lands, such as National Parks, from location of new mining claims, it does not protect National Forests and Wilderness Study Areas, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, and other similar areas, even if these other areas have been withdrawn from new mining claim location. For example, there are currently more than 60,000 acres of mining claims in the Tongass National Forest, the largest intact temperate rainforest in the world, which would be available for sale under these provisions. And the Resources Committee provisions do not protect National Parks, Wilderness Areas, and National Wildlife Refuges that have unpatented claims within them. In National Parks alone, there are more than 900 unpatented mining claims that would be subject to sale for $1,000 per acre if these provisions become law. In addition, the bill does not require that the lands have been used or will be used for mining. As written, purchasing the land need only facilitate sustainable economic development. Since the term is not defined, sustainable economic development could include condominium construction, ski resorts, gaming casinos, name it. A unanimous Supreme Court said in 1979 that ``the Federal mining law surely was not intended to be a general real estate law. The American Law of Mining, the standard industry treatise on the mining law, says that the law does ``not sanction the disposal of Federal lands under the mining laws for purposes unrelated to mining.'' Yet, according to John Leshy, former Solicitor of the Department of the Interior, ``Subtitle B is effectively a `general real estate law' and will put in the hands of corporations, the keys to privatize millions of acres of Federal land.'' In order to make it easier to dispose of Federal lands, these provisions would also free the potential buyer from performing ``mineral development work'' on each unpatented claim or block of claims or millsites. Instead, it states that this type of work should be performed on ``the Federal lands identified and submitted for purchase.'' In other words, the potential buyer need only show that there has been some mineral development work somewhere on the lands being sold. The tracts could be huge because the proposal contains no limit on the acreage or numbers of claims that could be purchased. Moreover, the provisions so broadly define ``mineral development work'' as to render it essentially meaningless. It could involve activities that never come close to the land itself; e.g., geologic, geochemical or geophysical surveys, which can be done remotely. It could involve, for example, buying and looking at satellite data, or going through USGS reports; or hiring a consultant to do on-line or library searches. And, it could include environmental baseline studies, or ``engineering, metallurgical, geotechnical and economic feasibility studies.'' Again, consultants doing on-line searches and library work would qualify. These provisions also prohibit any other fees or fair-market-value assessments to be applied to ``prospecting, exploration, development, mining, processing, or reclamation, and uses reasonably incident thereto''--which would prohibit the government from levying any royalty or other production fee on mining operations. As a long time advocate of responsible reform of the Mining Law of 1872, after reflecting on these provisions, I find it hard to believe that they would even be supported by responsible elements in the hardrock mining industry. Further, they represent an assault on America's natural resource heritage and to the American taxpayer. And given my history on this issue, I find them personally insulting as well. In closing, I would note that the following groups, on behalf of the millions of members from across the country, agree with me that these provisions should be deleted from the Resource Committee's portion of the Budget Reconciliation Package: Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, Alaska Center for the Environment, American Rivers, Amigos Bravos Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Native Ecosystems, Citizens for Victor Clark Fork Coalition, Colorado Environmental Coalition Colorado Information Networks for Responsible Mining, Earth Island Institute, Earthjustice, EARTHWORKS, Environmental Protection Information Center, Environmental Working Group, Friends of the Clearwater, Friends of the Earth, Friends of the Panamints, Gifford Pinchot Taskforce, Great Basin Mine Watch, Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Guardians of the Rural Environment, Idaho Conservation League, Indigenous Environmental Network, The Lands Council, Maricopa. Audubon Society, Mining Impact Coalition of Wisconsin, Montana Environmental Information Center, Mount Graham Coalition, National Environmental Trust, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northern Alaska Environmental Center, Okanogan Highlands Alliance, Oxfam America, Rock Creek Alliance, Save the Scenic Santa Ritas, SHAWL Society, Sierra Club, Silver Valley Community Resource Center, Siskiyou Regional Education Project, Sky Island Alliance, South East Alaska Conservation Council, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Umpqua Watersheds, Westerners for Responsible Mining, Western Organization of Resource Councils, The Wilderness Society, and Women's Voices for the Earth. I urge my colleagues to join me in recommending that these provisions be stripped from the Budget Reconciliation Package if they are included by the House Budget Committee. America's public lands are held in trust for future generations. They deserve to be protected, not sold off at fire sale prices. American taxpayers deserve to be paid a fair royalty for the minerals taken from public lands, not to be cheated by a bill that sells their land to corporations for much less than its true worth. We can do better.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, October 8, 2005 46 teams of active-duty men and women from military installations around the U.S. converged in West Virginia's Gauley and New River Gorge to compete in the sixth annual ``Wilderness Challenge.'' I am proud to have such an event in West Virginia that allows our armed forces the chance to display their skills of physical endurance and of course, bragging rights. There is not a better place to host the Wilderness Challenge than the New River Gorge National Park. It has superb overlooks, historic scenery, rugged Appalachian trails and peaceful valley flats, not to mention the world class whitewater. Rafting the waters is no easy task, as one could imagine by the names of some of our rapids such as ``Big Nasty'', ``Even Nastier'' and ``Heaven's Doors,'' just to name a few. The Challenge begins with a 20-mile mountain bike race which precedes a half-mile swim on the Lower Gauley River, and ends with each team tackling a 13-mile stretch of Class III to V whitewater. The next day the competitors start with a run, paddle a section of the New River in inflatable rubber kayaks called ``duckies,'' and finish with a 14-mile hike that entails the steep slopes of the New River Canyon. The whole event is sponsored by a whitewater outfitter Class VI River Runners, which supplies the event with the rafts and equipment used in the outdoor extreme sports match. It is really a pleasure for me to see such a group of well trained, highly motivated soldiers compete. I know that there is friendly competition between the branches of service and West Virginians as well as all Americans hold them all in the highest regard.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I honor Crescent Elementary School in Raleigh County, West Virginia for their remarkable academic achievements. Next month, Crescent will receive the highest national honor in education as a No Child Left Behind Blue Ribbon School. Out of 738 schools in West Virginia, Crescent is one of just three to receive the award, and one of only 295 in the United States. Crescent Elementary School qualifies for this award because the school has dramatically improved student performance on the State assessment test. In light of the fact that 62 percent of Crescent's 284 students, are of low socioeconomic background, this accomplishment is even more commendable. On the State assessment test, the entire school tested in the 80th percentile in math and reading. Another great achievement for the school is a 98 percent attendance rate during the 2004-2005 school year. At the November ceremony to honor the 2005 No Child Left Behind-Blue Ribbon Schools, United States Assistant Secretary of Education, Kevin F. Sullivan, will recognize each recipient and award the representative with a plaque. Receiving the award for Crescent Elementary School will be Principal Danny Pettry, along with speech teacher Stephanie Anderson and first-grade teachers Mary Haynes and Pat Hudson. I am very proud of the many achievements this school has made in its pursuit to educate the future leaders of this country. Having an educational institution such as Crescent in my State and my district is something in which to take pride.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, today, the House of Representatives voted on H.R. 1461, the GSE Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005. This bill will not only substantially overhaul the safety and soundness of the housing government-sponsored enterprises, but it will also establish an Affordable Housing Fund. I voted in favor of this legislation, but with some reservation. The Affordable Housing Fund provides funds to grantees to build housing that is affordable to low income families. This is an important goal, and while I support the bill and the establishment of the Affordable Housing Fund, I do not support the inclusion of language that blocks non-profit organizations from non-partisan activities that encourage citizens to participate in our democratic process. This is why I voted against the manager's amendment to H.R. 1461 earlier today. The amendment included language that will prohibit grantees from using even their own funds to encourage citizens to exercise their right to vote and would retroactively penalize organizations that have done so in the past. This language would restrict non-profits who engage in first amendment political activity, with their own funds, from receiving Affordable Housing Fund grants. In short, it will have a chilling effect on the free speech rights of non-profit organizations. By keeping funding out of the hands of non-profit and faith-based organizations that are associated with any kind of voter registration activities and exempting for-profit companies from the same restrictions, I ask, what legitimate governmental interest is there in preventing nonpartisan voter participation activities? Political participation is a foundation of our Constitution. I hope that when H.R. 1461 reaches Conference, a bi-partisan effort will come together to strike this language from an otherwise worthy piece of legislation. I will continue to protect our citizens' ability to register to vote and have a voice in the political process.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, today, I honor Mercer County, West Virginia, for being recognized by the America's Promise Organization as one of the best communities in the Nation for our youth. This is because of their successful efforts to provide a healthy, safe and caring environment. As Mercer County was the only county in West Virginia to be named in the report, their efforts set the benchmark very high for all of WV and beyond. Mercer County is also taking great strides to become an even better community with its innovative Mercer Drug Treatment Program. This innovative program provides services to nonviolent offenders with a history of drug use and minor possession. The Mercer County Drug Treatment Program was recently awarded a grant of $27,282 from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program; I have seen the program in action first hand and my visit easily convinced me of the meritorious value inherent in this exemplary program. Treatment Programs such as the one in Mercer County play an important role in our community and their financial support certainly has merit, especially with the ongoing problems of methamphetamines throughout our state and nation. This funding is crucial in helping people get back on their feet and helping them to rectify past mistakes they have made. By providing cost-effective, pro-active, community- inclusive and community building solutions such as this, we show the compassion of our Nation, and live up to our West Virginia heritage of brotherhood and dedication to our fellow man. I am proud to have a county in my State and specifically my district that is taking such positive steps to actively engage all of its citizens, young and old, in working for a greater community.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, today, I honor a historic anniversary as the Kiwanis Day Care Center in Huntington celebrates its 75th anniversary. This is without a doubt a one of a kind day care center with a unique history. The center is the oldest day care facility in West Virginia and is also the oldest continuous Kiwanis service project in the world. The Huntington chapter of the Kiwanis embodies their international motto ``We Build'' with the chapter's dedication to building brotherhood, camaraderie and community as displayed through building and maintaining a 75-year-old service project. The center is operated and sponsored by the Kiwanis Club of Huntington, and President Bob Mauk has been doing a fantastic job for the organization. The center started from a donated residence in 1930 and has since grown to a modern building with seven classrooms, a kitchen, offices and a large, well equipped playground. Recently a formal ceremony was held where several Kiwanian and government officials were on hand to offer congratulatory remarks and give praise to the center's 23 workers and volunteers. The 72 children served daily by the Kiwanis Day Care Center were on hand to sing Happy Birthday to the center during the ceremony. I take great pride in knowing that a wonderful organization such as the Kiwanis has been working so hard for nearly a century in Huntington to maintain a safe, fun and educational environment for the youth of the Mountain State.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, today, 7th Lance Corporal James R. Sargent USMC, was laid to rest at Arlington Cemetery after being listed as missing in action for more than 37 years. Lance Corporal Sargent, a native of Anawalt, WV, was a true American hero and today marks the end of a long journey for his family and friends. Lance Corporal Sargent, like so many West Virginians, answered our Nation's call to arms. He wore the uniform and gave his life for freedom's cause. Lance Corporal Sargent was part of an artillery platoon airlifted to provide support to the 11th Mobile Strike Force, which was under threat of attack from North Vietnamese forces near Kham Duc in South Vietnam. On May 9, 1968, the Strike Force had been directed to reconnoiter an area known as Little Ngok Tavak Hill near the Laos-Vietnam border, in the Kham Duc Province. Their base came under heavy attack by North Vietnamese Army troops, but after a 10-hour battle, all of the survivors were able to withdraw from the area. LCpl, Sargent, one of 13 Marines killed in this battle, was awarded the Meritorious Unit Commendation for his heroism at Ngok Tavak. The Bible says in the book of John, Chapter 15, Verse 13, ``Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends.'' Today we honor not only Lance Corporal Sargent, but all of the soldiers, airmen and Marines who, through commitment and courage, have answered the call to protect the ones they love. This is truly the greatest gift one can give. I would also like to submit for the Record The Secretary of the Navy Citation for the Meritorious Unit Commendation--a detailed account of Lance Corporal Sargent's heroism: The Secretary of the Navy takes pleasure in presenting the Meritorious Unit Commendation to: Detachment, Battery D, Second Battalion, and Thirteenth Marines, First Marine Division (Reinforced) Citation For heroic achievement in action against enemy Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces during the defense of the Civilian Irregular Defense Group camp known as Ngok Tavak on 10 May 1968. The detachment, consisting of one officer and 43 enlisted men, was tasked with the mission of providing artillery support to the camp. In the early morning, while providing this support to a mixed force of U.S Army Special Forces and Vietnamese irregulars, the detachment's defensive position came under attack by a determined and well equipped enemy force of estimated battalion size. Employing an intense mortar barrage, grenades and heavy small-arms fire, the enemy breached the outer defensive wire in two places and surged through the wire in superior numbers, launching a series of assaults directly against the small defensive perimeter the Marines had formed around their howitzers. Although seriously depleted by heavy casualties, including the detachment commander and the platoon sergeant, the gallant men of the detachment steadfastly met and contained each assault with withering fire from automatic weapons, grenades, and point-blank individual weapons. On separate occasions, Marines braved the hail of grenade fragments and automatic weapons fire to man a 4.2-inch mortar, an 81mm mortar, and a 30-caliber machine gun belonging to the Special Forces Detachment. Although continually exposed, they brought the fires of these weapons to bear on the attacking enemy and inflicted heavy casualties. When the survivors of the detachment were ordered to abandon their position, mute evidence of their ferocity as fighting men lay about them in the form of 31 confirmed enemy dead. The successful evacuation of the position was completed under the direct observation and fire of the remaining enemy force. Accompanied by the surviving Civilian Irregular Defense Group forces, the men of the detachment marched for six hours through dense enemy-infested jungle until successfully extracted by helicopter. Of the original detachment, 13 Marines were killed in action and 20 were wounded in action. By their effective teamwork, aggressive fighting spirit, and individual acts of heroism and daring, the artillerymen of this detachment achieved an illustrious record of courage and skill in keeping with the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service. All personnel attached to and serving with Detachment, Battery D, Second Battalion, Thirteenth Marines, First Marine Division (Reinforced), during the cited action, are hereby authorized to wear the Meritorious Unit Commendation Ribbon. For the Secretary of the Navy, L. F. CHAPMAN, JR., Commandant of the Marine Corps.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, on March 1, 1872, President Ulysses S. Grant signed into law a bill creating the world's first national park: Yellowstone. Known from its inception as ``nature's wonderland'', Yellowstone has embodied a simple and straightforward concept of a place unexploited and unspoiled by economic or other development. In 1872, the vast wilderness of the west was viewed by most Americans as something to be tamed, to be explored, settled, mined, logged, ranched, and farmed. Most people at that time did not value the west for its wilderness, but rather for the material and economic treasures that it could yield. It is therefore remarkable that during such an age, Congress set aside an area roughly the size of my home State, West Virginia, as the world's first national park--an area that would be closed to farming, timbering, mining and open to all Americans for present and future recreation use. Several months after the 54th Congress created Yellowstone, they sent the General Mining Law to President Grant for signature. Following on the heels of the California Gold Rush, the Mining Law of 1872 was enacted in order to promote orderly mineral exploration and development of the West and to provide certainty and legal protections to those Americans willing to take on the task. It is first and foremost a land law; it does not contain environmental or public health and safety provisions. The Mining Law of 1872 has, like Yellowstone, remained largely intact and unchanged over the past 133 years. While most people would agree that the continued preservation of Yellowstone is a good thing, most would disagree that maintaining and preserving the Mining Law of 1872 is a good thing. To keep a law on the books that has no environmental protection provisions, prevents the Federal Government from stopping ill-advised proposed mines on Federal lands, and has left the headwaters of 40 percent of western waterways polluted by mining, is irresponsible and just plain ridiculous. Even more absurd, the 1872 Mining Law also allows extraction of valuable minerals from the public domain without payment of royalties to taxpayers and at the same time allows mining companies to purchase mineral rich public lands for no more than $5 an acre irrespective of lands true value. In recognition of the fiscal irresponsibility of this situation, Congress has since 1994, annually placed moratoria on mineral claim patents in appropriations bills, most recently in the fiscal year 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act, allowing only patents applied for prior to 1994 to be processed. However, it is far past the time for this moratorium to become permanent rather than being subject to annual renewal. To be sure, Congress has attempted to comprehensively reform the Mining Law at various times over its history--each time to be thwarted by powerful mining interests. Former Congressman Mo Udall came close in the 1970s. During the 102nd Congress in 1991, I introduced mining reform legislation and we came close to enacting legislation in 1994 that would have updated this archaic law. Unfortunately, at the last moment, after both the House and the Senate had passed separate bills, the conference failed to reach a compromise and the rest, as they say, is history. Since then, I have re-introduced reform legislation in each succeeding Congress. Today, Representatives Jay Inslee, Christopher Shays, and I, joined by our colleagues, Maurice Hinchey, Dennis Kucinich, Earl Blumenauer, George Miller, and Raul Grijalva are introducing legislation similar to what we introduced in earlier Congresses. However, this bill differs from past efforts in one significant way. The Federal Mineral Development and Land Protection Equity Act of 2005 has as its centerpiece, the recognition that there are special places, often sacred sites, that should be off-limits to hardrock mining. This simple but important provision is necessary because under the 1872 Mining Law, the Federal Government can not stop a valid mining claim from being developed on public lands, regardless of what other values are present. For example, the proposed site for a 1,600-acre, open-pit gold mine in Indian Pass, California, is the sacred place where Quechan Indian tribes ``dream trails'' were woven. The Bush administration revoked a Clinton-era ruling that said mining operations would cause undue impairment to these ancestral lands, an extremely sacred place to the Quechan Indian tribe. Now the tribe is left fighting for its religious and cultural history. Although the State of California has taken action to help protect this site, the Federal Government remains poised to permit the gold mine. Sadly, the threat to Indian Pass is not unique. American Indians, the first Americans, were the first stewards of this land. They respected the earth, water and air. They understood you take only what you need and leave the rest. They demonstrated that you do not desecrate that which is sacred. Most Americans understand a reverence for the great Sistine Chapel, or the United States Capitol. However, there are times when we have difficulty applying the same reverence we give to our sacred man-made places to a mountain, valley, stream or rock formation held sacred to Native Americans. The Federal Mineral Development and Land Protection Equity Act of 2005 has as its centerpiece, the recognition that there are special places, often sacred sites, that should be off-limits to hardrock mining. Our mining law reform legislation also recognizes that there are other special places in the U.S. with spectacular natural and cultural resources and values that should be protected from the unavoidable, and often irreversible, damage caused by hardrock mining. Our legislation would bring hardrock mining law into the 21st century. It would protect precious water resources from toxic mine waste with much needed environmental standards, and prevent mining industry rip-offs by requiring the industry to pay a production-related royalty on the extraction of publicly owned minerals. It would also prevent mining operations from endangering federally designated wilderness areas and other special places by requiring land managers to weigh mine proposals against other potential land uses when making permitting decisions. The lack of a royalty in the 1872 Mining Law and the absence of deterrents or penalties for irresponsible mining have caused enormous taxpayer giveaways and liabilities. Under the Mining Law the Federal Government has given away over $245 billion in mineral rich public lands. In return, the mining industry has left taxpayers with a cleanup bill, for their business and mining practices, estimated to be in the range of $32 to $72 billion for hundreds of thousands of abandoned mines that pollute the western landscape. It is time, well past time, that the Congress replace this archaic law with one that reflects contemporary economic, environmental and cultural values. Insuring a fair return to the public in exchange for the disposition of public resources, and properly managing our public lands are neither Republican nor Democratic issues. They are simply ones that make sense if we are to be good stewards of America's lands and meet our responsibilities to the American people. Mr. Speaker, during the years I have labored to reform the Mining Law of 1872 those who defend its privileges--and it is indeed a privilege to be deemed the highest and best use of our public domain lands--have often alleged that my mining reform legislation fails to take into account the contribution of hardrock mining to area economies. They claim that reform would have dire consequences on the industry, that if we did not provide the industry with unfettered access to public lands and public minerals, the industry could no longer survive. Let me just say that there is no member in the House of Representatives whose Congressional District is more dependent upon mining for employment and its economic benefits than this gentleman from West Virginia. And when we are talking about the effects of mining, I would suggest that there is little difference between coal mining and gold mining. The effects, whether measured in terms of employment, or in terms of the environment or cultural values, are the same. With that noted, I have engaged in the effort to reform the Mining Law of 1872 these past many years not just for the apparent reasons-- the sins of giving away the public's valuable minerals mined for free, selling off Federal lands available almost for free and providing no comprehensive Federal mining and reclamation standards. But, I continue to wage this effort because I am pro-mining, because I no longer believe that we can expect a viable hardrock mining industry to exist on public domain lands if we do not make corrections to the law. I do so because there are provisions of the existing law which impede efficient and serious mineral exploration and development. And I do so because of the unsettled political climate governing this activity, with reform if not coming in a comprehensive fashion, certainly continuing to come in a piecemeal manner. I believe that with enough courage, and fortitude, we can continue to address the problems facing mining, and dovetail our need for energy and minerals with the necessity of protecting our environment. For at stake in this debate over the Mining Law of 1872 is the health, welfare and environmental integrity of our people and our Federal lands. At stake is the public interest of all Americans. And at stake is the ability of the hardrock mining industry to continue to operate on public domain lands in the future, to produce those minerals that are necessary to maintain our standard of living.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, there is probably not a Member of this body that cannot get up and tell some horror story with the current administration of the Endangered Species Act. We all agree there is need for reform and change. The previous gentleman, while not speaking to the legislation whatsoever, should take note, and he has referred to the cost to a hospital in his district that had to pay some enormous costs, but it is important to realize anytime we allow species to go extinct we lose enormous potential to understand and improve our world and to create medicines that many times can save people's lives. Nowhere is that more evident than in the world of medicine. I have my chief of staff who has returned from the hospital, thank the Lord to many medicines that have been produced from nearly extinct species. It has made him well and brought him to this floor, and I could go down the list. There are a number of important medicines, including possibly the next effective treatment of cancer, AIDS, or heart disease that can come from species that we are trying to protect and save on this world. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), ranking member on the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations and a member of my class.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), a very valued member of our Committee on Resources. (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California and I have been working together for the last several months to try to find common ground on the amendments to the Endangered Species Act. As the chairman knows and many of my colleagues, I came to our discussions with the view that the ESA does not need amendment, that most of its problems could be fixed by additional appropriations or administrative changes that this administration is not willing to make. Recognizing reality, I decided to enter into good-faith negotiations with my chairman, and that is what they were. I salute the manner in which the gentleman from California conducted himself and the manner in which his staff treated the minority during this entire process. It was a fair process; and, indeed, when we had problems, we found open communication was received from the other side of the aisle, and I appreciate that. In the end, however, we could not reach agreement. I do not support the pending legislation, but I must admit that we have come a long way. Yet we still have differences that divide us, differences in some instances that I have yet to discover. In fact, the manager's amendment has been redrafted so many times, the latest version is still hot off the presses. I wish the bill, because of these latest changes in the manager's amendment, were not being rushed to the House floor. I wish that the driving force was not the zeal to pass anything that could be labeled ESA reform, but instead could be labeled truly species recovery. With a little more time to consider how much this bill is going to cost the American taxpayers, we could at least have had a chance to see how much we are going to lose in the exchange. In the last several hours, the bill passed out of the committee has completely blown apart. For example, the manager's amendment abandons the definition of jeopardizing a species we agreed upon in committee. Instead, the Secretary of the Interior will use existing regulations which allow Federal actions to proceed, even if they will reduce the likelihood of a species' survival and recovery. The survival standard is akin to keeping a patient on life support without any chance of recovery. According to the Congressional Budget Office, if this is enacted into law, it will increase direct spending and would cost almost $3 billion to implement from the years 2006 to 2010. So in my view, this bill offers endangered species less protection at far greater cost. Not only was fiscal responsibility thrown to the wind in this process, but we have turned back the clock to an era in which DDT was commonly known as ``drop dead twice.'' H.R. 3824 includes a provision adopted in the Committee on Resources that would repeal the Endangered Species Act provisions that protect threatened and endangered species from the harmful impact of pesticides. H.R. 3824 would insulate those who use pesticides from the Endangered Species Act prohibitions against killing endangered and threatened species. As long as corporations comply with Federal requirements to register pesticide users, they will have no obligation to meet the requirements in the Endangered Species Act. The economic and environmental implications of this provision are staggering. But where the budget really leaks is from the gaping hole created by a new, potentially open-ended entitlement program for property developers and speculators. This, I might add, is where we truly broke down in our negotiations. Section 14 would establish the dangerous precedent that private individuals must be paid to comply with an environmental law. If this language were applied to local zoning, no mayor, no city council could govern a community without fear that their decisions might drive the community into financial ruin. This section pays citizens to comply with the law. What is next, paying citizens to wear seat belts, to comply with speed limits, to pay their taxes? This bill also contains provisions that would severely weaken the consultation process, the very heart of the ESA. Under current law, the Fish and Wildlife Service analyzes a proposed action to gauge if it is likely to place the continued existence of a species in jeopardy. The process is grounded in science and must meet reasonable criteria. This bill, quite to the contrary of current practice, wipes away any standards for that process. It wipes away review by wildlife experts. Gone. Proponents claim this change is justified because of the service's heavy workload. Instead of fixing the problem by giving Fish and Wildlife more resources, the bill simply changes the rules and undermines species recovery. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I oppose another provision that would further weaken the section 7 consultation requirement when applied to state cooperative agreements. Under section 10 of H.R. 3824, no additional consultations will be required once the Secretary enters into a cooperative agreement with a State. It is questionable whether consultation would ever occur, even in those situations causing jeopardy to a listed species. These provisions, taken together, raise a whole host of questions and concerns. What is clear is that this bill will not improve species' ability to recover. Quite likely it will result in more extinctions, the loss of more of the creatures God has placed in our care. Frankly, we cannot be good stewards of His creation and pass this bill. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose H.R. 3824. However, I have worked, as I said in the beginning, well with the gentleman from California on this bill; and I do salute his tenaciousness, his patience, and his courage in bringing this bill to the floor. I would have preferred we keep trying to resolve our differences, but that is not the situation we are in today, so I would urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 3824. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).