Nick Rahall

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the Transportation bill. As the remaining days until the August District Work Period tick down, it is looking more and more likely as though we are not going to get a bill finalized this year. This is a sad state of affairs. The White House clearly does not want us to finalize this bill in an election year, and the House Republican Leadership just follows the orders of the Cheney-Bush Administration. We should complete the bill, and if the White House wants to veto it, it can go ahead; there are clearly enough Republican and Democrat votes to override a veto and get the Transportation bill finished. But by doing nothing, the House Republican leadership is siding with the White House, and it is preventing Congress from carrying out its Constitutional role as a coequal branch of government. To add insult to injury, the Washington Post reported on July 3, 2004, on page A9, that the White House has only spent $366 million of the $18.4 billion that it got Congress and the Republican Leadership to appropriate for Iraqi reconstruction. Why the Cheney-Bush White House won't now spend the money that it insisted it needed is anybody's guess. But this is money that could and should have gone to reinvestment in America rather than into Iraq in the first place. Instead, it lies unused and serving no purpose. Under the Constitution, as my dear friend Senator Byrd has noted so many times, it is the responsibility of the Congress to decide how federal funds should be spent; it is not the White House's role. Yet, this White House has insisted on investing in Iraq rather than America, and it has gotten its way even if it doesn't know what it wants to do with the money. States like my home state of West Virginia have been waiting for far too long now to see just what, if anything, they could expect to receive from the federal government in order to finance important highway and transit projects, to focus on congestion mitigation, and to provide good-paying jobs that are sorely needed in this uncertain job market. Mr. Speaker, I have an editorial from a distinguished newspaper in my district, the Bluefield Daily Telegraph, which I would like to submit for the record to accompany my remarks. This insightful viewpoint from yesterday's paper demonstrates quite clearly the problems with which we are saddling the states due to Congressional inaction. The article reads as follows: Funding Setback: House Delays Highway, Streetscape Work Not only did the U.S. House's extension of the federal highway funding bill last week cause a slow down on financing new or continued construction on I-73/74 through the West Virginia coalfields area, it also causes problems for existing programs that rely on the bill. One such project is the downtown Streetscape project in Bluefield. The program is ready for Phase II, a refurbishing of Chicory Square between Bland and Federal streets. The city earlier received funding for an extensive project in downtown that involved sidewalk replacement, new lighting and the installation of high-tech communications infrastructure. Phase I got underway in 2003. City officials said the Coal Heritage Authority has three projects that can't be started until a new highway bill is approved. Bluefield officials were hoping for a smooth transition between the first two phases of the downtown Streetscape project with the passage of a new six-year federal highway administration spending bill. But, for the fourth time, the majority party in the House has decided to use its power to delay consideration and passage of the bill. Needing even more funding, the King Coal Highway Association, which joins Tolsia Highway in the 1-73/74 project through the southern coalfield counties from Huntington to Bluefield, is awaiting millions of dollars to carry through with work already planned on the $2 billion undertaking. They had hoped to be able to move forward with those projects this summer. Most political observers think there will be no action on the new federal spending act until after the November presidential election. That means communities like Bluefield, Kimball, Mount Hope and all those anticipating construction jobs for I-73/74 have lost a year in financing. Maybe voters should find out which Representatives are holding up the bill and remember them in November.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Chairman, reserving the right to object, I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado agreeing to withdraw his amendment. Of course, I would have spoken very vehemently in opposition to it. The gentleman has mentioned that my home State of West Virginia is not necessarily being improved by the ARC. I would submit those conditions from whatever report the gentleman is quoting are based on other conditions, other than what ARC has done for our region, because the Appalachian Regional Commission has dramatically improved life in Appalachia, and it has helped us get back on our feet in many depressed areas of this country. It is a program that works, it works from the grassroots up, not from the top down. So I would submit to the gentleman that the ARC is still vitally needed in many Appalachian poor rural parts of this Nation. My home State of West Virginia happens to be the only State that is totally within the 13-state ARC region, and we strongly support the program. Madam Chairman, I rise to protest the amendment to gut the Appalachian Regional Commission ARC, just as we prepare to cut the ribbon on a new wastewater treatment system for Baghdad paid for by the American people. The ARC provides vital infrastructure investments throughout Appalachia, a historically distressed area of the country that spans 13 states including all of West Virginia, my home state. In the 1960s, President Johnson carried out a promise to help raise the Appalachian region out of its crushing poverty when he formed the ARC. His efforts created a federal-state partnership that works with the people of Appalachia to create opportunities for self-sustaining economic development and improved quality of life. Today, the ARC plays an integral role in providing for development and jobs throughout 410 counties across a 200,000 square mile region. And, the Appalachian region is dramatically improved because of this effort. Madam Chairman, some have questioned the value of the ARC. In response, I would like to note a few examples of the good work the ARC has done most recently in Southern West Virginia: $1 million grant to the Wyoming County Commission and the eastern Wyoming Public Service District (PSD) for construction of a new water treatment plant that will allow the consolidation of seven local providers into a regional water system serving 1549 customers. Six area communities are currently served by small private water systems (originally built to serve coal camps) that chronically violate water quality standards. A $250,000 grant to West Virginia Citizens Conservation Corps, Inc. to the Twin Branch Recreation and Environmental Education Center near Davy, located on reclaimed mine lands, and with the purpose of developing a sustainable outdoor recreation center that would attract visitors to McDowell County. The complex will ultimately include trailheads on the Hatfield-McCoy trail system, campsites and cabins, a retreat center, and an environmental education center. Other recent ARC projects about which I have proudly spoken in the recent past include: A $100,000 grant to the Prichard, WV Public Service District to construct a wastewater collection and treatment system that will provide water to 225 customers and create 148 jobs in Wayne County, WV. A $1 million grant to the Glen White/Trap Hill Public Service District in Raleigh County, WV, will fund construction of a three water storage tanks and replace some existing water lines while extending service to surrounding communities that had to rely on underground wells. In Boone County, WV, a $680,000 grant from the ARC is being used to extend waterlines to Julian, WV. A $75,000 grant to the West Virginia Access Center for Higher Education in Bluefield, WV, to help increase the number of high school students who go on to attend college. Now, I don't think the people who live in Wyoming County, Twin Branch, Prichard, Glen White, Julian, or Bluefield will claim that the ARC is somehow not worthwhile. However, Madam Chairman, Mr. Speaker, there remains more work to be done to fulfill the promise made. We're still struggling to get on our feet. But the amendment will undo all of those efforts. At a time when the Appalachian people need the sustained help to achieve their potential, this amendment would pull the rug out from underneath them. Madam Chairman, that's just wrong. It's crass, and it's craven. Madam Chairman, that great West Virginian, Senator Robert Byrd, is the sponsor of a Senate bill to complete construction of the Appalachian Development Highway System. I proudly note that I am the sponsor of the House version of the same bill, H.R. 2381, which is cosponsored by my fellow West Virginian and close friend, Alan Mollohan, and that stalwart ARC supporter from Ohio, my friend Ted Strickland. Each of us recognizes the value of the Appalachian Regional Commission. I urge my colleagues recognize that value too. I urge my colleagues to remember the ARC is a worthwhile program that has benefited so many lives, and continues to do so. Vote against this amendment.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, as Ranking Member of the Committee on Resources, today I am introducing a bill that would bring the management of our Nation's ocean fisheries into the 21st century. In this regard, l am pleased to note that the ``Fisheries Management Reform Act of 2004'' is being introduced with 15 original cosponsors including the gentleman from California, Sam Farr, who serves as co- chair of the House Oceans Caucus. For my part, I am introducing this measure for two fundamental reasons. First, I believe that we have a responsibility to ensure that our fish stocks--a public resource that belongs to all Americans--will be managed sustainably and based on science, not politics. More importantly, because without sustainably managed fisheries, there will be no fishing industry at all. I do not come to this point lightly, and I appreciate the importance that this issue holds for many Members and their constituents. As it stands, two separate and well-respected commissions--the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Ocean Commission--were both charged with reviewing our ocean management systems and both made recommendations regarding the need to reform our fisheries management system. Their reports represent several years of research by ocean experts who traveled to coastal communities dependent on commercial and recreational fishing. The Fisheries Management Reform Act of 2004 represents the first legislation proposed to implement those expert recommendations. This is a small step of many that we, as Congress, can take to remedy a system of governance that has not done enough to protect our oceans and, consequently, the communities that depend on them. In this regard, the ``Fisheries Management Reform Act of 2004'' would require a broader public interest representation on the Regional Fishery Management Councils, the bodies that are stewards of our Nation's fisheries and are currently dominated by commercial and recreational fishing interests. I am aware of no other public trust resource where management decisions are being made by the very industry that is to be regulated. The bill would require training of all appointed members in fishery science and basic stock assessment, social science and fishery economics, and the legal requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and other pertinent laws. Not only will these two provisions diversify the interests on the Council, but also ensure that those appointed are knowledgeable about fisheries management. Second, the bill would strengthen current conflict of interest provisions in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. An individual would not be allowed to vote on a Council decision affecting their financial interests. Understanding the unique nature of fisheries management, I fully support and appreciate the participation of fishermen in the Council process. In instances where fishermen, commercial or recreational, are faced with decisions affecting their livelihood and simultaneously, the sustainability of the fishery, the current process puts these individuals in the compromised position of serving two masters. Generally, it is the fish stocks that pay the price. This legislation also would ensure science-based management of our fisheries. By allowing scientists to recommend appropriate catch limits and the Councils to determine how that catch should be allocated, this bill would remove council members from that untenable position of choosing between the health of the resource and catching enough fish to pay their health insurance. Scientists are better suited for determining sustainable harvest levels, while fishermen, who will remain an integral part of the Council process, should not have to be experts on the vast complexities of ocean science. Their expertise can be used best in managing and allocating the resource, and in developing improved fishing methods and technologies, without also being responsible for the status of the stocks. Not the timber industry, not the mining industry--as a matter of fact, no other industry I can think of is allowed to regulate itself like the fishing industry does. This system may have made sense when Congress first put it in place more than two decades ago, but it's clear now that a chronic condition of conflict of interest has created a system that is not working for fishermen or for the fishery resources. In fact, 76 stocks are overfished--over 35% of known stocks. I do not assume that this bill alone will ``fix'' in its entirety the current system. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy was clear that changes are urgently needed. This bill addresses just one of many problems plaguing ocean resource management. However, the principles of the bill--to manage fisheries for the public good, to reduce financial conflicts of interest, and to ensure that fisheries management is based on the best available science--are indisputable. I urge my colleagues to support this bill in a bipartisan fashion. The fish do not vote, so I can not offer them as political capital. But if this bill were enacted, we will be better able to ensure sustainable fisheries on a continuing basis, as is required by law, but all too rarely accomplished under the current system. The long-term benefits would affect the constituents of every district in this country. Fishermen would be able to pass on their trade to their children. Our inland states would enjoy more fresh seafood caught in our domestic waters. And everyone would be able to catch a big one on their summer vacation.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we passed a fourth extension of the highway bill that expired last fall. That is all fine and good, but no longer can we leave the States holding the bag because of a veto threat from the Bush administration and a reluctance by the Republican leadership to lend the necessary investment that industry, commerce and the workers of this Nation want in our infrastructure. Investment in our infrastructure spells jobs. Tell me what is wrong with a bill that creates jobs. One would think that Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush would jump on a chance to create jobs. Since the first day the Cheney-Bush leadership took over in Washington, 9.9 million private sector jobs have been lost. Today, 8.2 million people are looking for work, and 4.7 million people are working part-time for economic reasons. Unfortunately, this highway bill has fallen victim to political differences within a divided Republican party. Even though we have had enough support to pass this bill since last year, the divided Republican party has held up passage of a fully funded bill for months. The President opposes congressional Republicans from both the House and the Senate. House Republicans are divided against each other. The President has even gone against his own Department of Transportation when they say what is necessary for investment in infrastructure in this country.

Mr. RAHALL

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

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I would respond to the gentleman that I condemn those attacks as well, and I would say that there have been attempts thwarted by the Israeli security forces. Mr. Speaker, the Israelis have not done that alone, they have had a great deal of information submitted to them from a lot of other countries, and from moderate Palestinians, working within whatever security apparatus they have left. The Palestinians who truly want to see peace and recognize how horrendous these actions are want to help stop terrorism. In addition, let us not forget innocent Palestinians. I am sure the gentleman would agree there have been a number of those that have lost their lives since the Intifada and many other skirmishes. I would say to the gentleman as well, I am sure he recognizes that under this administration, there have been over 900 Israelis and foreigners who have lost their lives during the last 3 or 4 years, which is 10 times more than the number of Israelis and foreigners that lost their lives under the Clinton administration. So let us help this President take advantage of the opportunities that are presented to him to achieve a breakthrough in the region. I hope and pray to God such may be on the table today being worked through back channels.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California for obtaining the extra time, as well as the gentlewoman from Florida for yielding that extra time to this side. Mr. Speaker, I do want to state in the beginning, as one who has rather regularly opposed what in the past have traditionally been grossly one-sided resolutions, inappropriate, in this gentleman's opinion, for U.S. best interests in the Middle East, I do find the current resolution a minute, itsy bitsy, tiny bit headed in the right direction. And I do say that, taking into perspective what I view is in America's best interests in this region. Mr. Speaker, it has well been documented, and many in this body have always pointed out, how U.S. credibility and morality across the world is at an all-time low today. I do not think there are many countries that would doubt that statement; and it is due to many, many factors: our go-it-alone approach to the war in Iraq, unprovoked attacks, an in- your-face type of attitude to our allies, many of whom we badly need at this point in time. There were no weapons of mass destruction found, false reliance upon the neoconservatives, bosom buddy, Ahmed Chalabi who gave us shabby information; an insurgency in Iraq that was more vigorous than even the neo-cons in the Pentagon could ever imagine, far from the statement that Americans would be greeted as liberators. We found no direct involvement of Saddam Hussein on 9/11, and I could go on and on. But there is one particular false perception we were lead to believe that is tied directly into this resolution today. We were told by the administration that the victory over Saddam Hussein would lead to a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We are still looking for that statement to be proven correct. And, indeed, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is linked to our actions in Iraq, linked to the view of Americans around the world, linked to our morality and credibility. It is all linked together. Peace on the Palestinian-Israeli front I hope and pray is near; and perhaps in secret channels that may be the case. We have not had any suicide attacks, for example, in the last 3 or 4 months. There has not been, thank God, in this period an Israeli to lose his or her life in these horrendous, condemnable suicidal bombs that go off. So now we come forth with this resolution from the U.S. Congress: ``Regarding the Security of Israel and the Principles For Peace in the Middle East.'' I agree. Except I would add one word in that title, and that is Regarding the Security of Israel ``and Palestinians'' and the Principles of Peace in the Middle East. The resolution goes on to state: ``whereas, President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon have subsequently engaged in dialogue with respect to this initiative.'' My question would be, where were the Palestinians in this dialogue? Is it not their future at stake as well? Where were the Palestinians in this dialogue? The response will come back, of course, that there is no credible Palestinian with whom to negotiate. There are credible Palestinians and moderate Palestinians and those who condemn suicidal bombings and terrorism as much as me and any other Member of this body. And they are the ones we should be reaching out to involve in these negotiations. Continuing further to quote from the resolution, on the second page, second whereas clause: ``but realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.'' Again I ask, where are the Palestinians in discussions about these ``mutually agreed upon'' efforts? The very next paragraph: ``any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a permanent alternative and settlement of Palestinian refugees there rather than in Israel.'' True. I would not dispute that. But where is that permanent alternative? Again, where are the Palestinians involved in discussions upon the no- return issue? Is their future not at stake here? Should they not be involved in the negotiations? Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with paragraphs in this resolution. On page 3, the second and third paragraphs, yes: two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security; and in the next paragraph, yes: all Arab states must oppose terrorism, support the emergence of a peaceful and democratic Palestine. But there is a disconnect between those whereas clauses and the first paragraph of the resolved clause: stating the security and well being of the State of Israel, and again I would say the words ``and Palestine'' should be inserted therein.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, clean water is again flowing into the Tigris River thanks to the U.S. Taxpayer and the good people from my home State of West Virginia. How grand, how good, how generous the Cheney- Bush bunch can be, until it comes to investing between America's shores. Yes, health and welfare is on the mend from Baghdad to Kirkuk, but for our communities in Southern West Virginia, this Administration has no money. I recommend to my colleagues a story on the front page of the New York Times this past Saturday by James Glanz. According to the article this project has been cloaked in secret for security reasons. I agree, it's for security alright, to secure the Cheney-Bush reelection. They don't want the American people to know that they build in Baghdad while we weep in Appalachia for clean streams, a healthy environment, and a safe harbor for our children. Last week, another decision was made to deny the people of West Virginia, and of Appalachia, clean water, better health and education, as the House Appropriations Committee voted to cut the Appalachian Regional Commission's (ARC) funding by 40 percent following on the heels of an effort by the Cheney-Bush boys last year to cut it by 50 percent. Apparently the Cheney-Bush bunch, including their cronies in Congress, don't think twice about sending $4 billion to Iraq for their water infrastructure needs, but are unwilling to provide the ARC less than 1/100th of that amount for services that do the same and more for West Virginia. I can name a few better places to spend our taxpayers money. In Raleigh County, just one of our wastewater projects is going to cost $22.5 million to serve 1200 new customers in the Glen Daniel/ Fairdale area. This is a matter of public health, of bringing in new jobs, fueling the economy. Where is the money for that program? Greenbrier Valley Airport in Lewisburg is 35 years old, and in need of a new terminal. The upgrade is expected to cost $15 million. Where is the money for Lewisburg? Greenbrier Valley Airport's parking apron used for housing aircrafts, also needs a $10 million upgrade. Due to lack of funding availability, this project has already been broken into six phases in the hope of completing it. But where are funds for these phases? In Wyoming County, $1 million is needed for a water project to serve 200 customers in the Crouch Farm area who presently have no water service at all. Where is their money? The Cheney-Bush bunch wants to rebuild the oilfields of Iraq and expect the coalfields of West Virginia to pay for it. West Virginians are told by this Administration and this Congress that we can't afford to meet our wastewater needs, not when we're investing in other countries rather than our own. What in the dickens is going on here, Mr. Speaker? I recall our not too distant history, when this Nation was able to fight and win a world war, rebuild the western European continent, and Japan to boot, and college educate a generation of Americans who fueled the greatest economic boon to which the world had never laid witness. Now the Cheney-Bush bunch and the House leadership tell us again and again, there is no room for investment in America, and that the American people must take a back seat to the citizens of Baghdad. I say no more. This Administration continues to show indifference to our Nation's infrastructure needs, including threatening to veto a highway bill that will bring over $2 billion to my home State of West Virginia, money we need to build roads in a mountainous terrain. Mr. Speaker, I recall--shortly after the bombs fell in Baghdad and the President pledging that America would rebuild Iraq--on a trip back home, folks in an economically hard hit county in West Virginia, in all seriousness, asked me to tell the President to send the bombers to them, so then they could apply for help from America. It was a sad moment for me, Mr. Speaker, even sadder for America.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the pending measure has been adequately explained by the gentleman from Nevada. We have no objections to it on our side. In fact, I join in commending the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo) of the Committee on Resources for his initiative in this matter. We support the legislation. 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, when this legislation was considered by the Committee on Resources, the majority of Democratic Members opposed it after an amendment I sought to offer was not made in order. That amendment would have made two important changes to the bill. First, it would have provided that amounts distributed to the Western Shoshone would not be treated as income and subjected to Federal or State taxes. Second, it would have directed the Interior Secretary to devise a list in consultation with the Western Shoshone of lands that may be suitable to be held in trust for the tribes. Today we are considering a modified version of that legislation, which contains the language of the Senate-passed version, S. 618, and I am pleased to note it contains a provision I sought to exempt, the claims distribution from Federal and State income taxes. That is a very important change. It must be stated that while this legislation would distribute over $130 million to the Western Shoshone, there is not consensus among the tribes on this issue. While we do not have an exact count, there is a segment of the Western Shoshone who are opposed to this legislation. They believe that if the claims award is distributed, they would then be precluded from expanding the land base of the various Western Shoshone Indian tribes. The ancestral lands of the Western Shoshone are rich with natural resources and minerals. Some have put mining receipts on these lands in the tens of billions of dollars since 1960s. Yet, there are no Western Shoshone billionaires and, to date, no moves to give back some of these rich lands to the tribes. In that regard, I would report that the Senate sponsor of the pending legislation has personally advised me that he would pursue legislation to deal with the land issue. Based on that commitment, I find that I am able to vote for the pending measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) has adequately explained H.R. 3706, which was introduced by our good friend and colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). I would just note that the boundary adjustment is about as small as anyone can recall, covering about 9,500 square feet, or just two-tenths of an acre. However, this adjustment is necessary to clear up a land title problem and allow the construction of a needed visitor center and facilities for the historic site. The National Park Service supports this legislation, and there is absolutely no controversy with it. I commend our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for his work on the bill. I urge passage of H.R. 3706. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I read in this Saturday's Washington Post Business section an articled entitled, ``US Airways Cuts Fares at National, Dulles.'' The article explains that the airlines are launching a fare war out of the Washington, DC area, which will result in great savings and travel options for air travelers. I naturally read this article with great interest, Mr. Speaker, because US Airways is a very important carrier at airports located in the Congressional District that I represent in Southern West Virginia. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the price reductions offered by US Airways and the other airlines are the result of competition. Unfortunately, these price reductions are not available to travelers who need them as much as--and maybe more than--any other air traveler. That is the air traveler in the rural areas and in the small cities. If the airlines had true competition in the rural areas and in the rural areas and in the small cities, ticket prices would be fairer. Instead, as is so often the case, the competition and the resulting discounts and travel options are only available in the large metropolitan areas. As we recognized at the time of deregulation--and as we should recognize right now--we need to ensure that rural airports can continue to operate and provide much-needed air service and jobs. one primary program aimed at doing this is the Essential Air Service program (EAS). EAS is very important to rural airports, which have seen their air service and ridership fall dramatically over the years. Recently, 2 airports in my district, Beckley and Bluefield, proved themselves eligible to receive EAS funding for the next 2 years. I can't overstate how badly this funding is needed to foster competition and ensure air service in that part of my State. Ever since we deregulated the airlines, we have been moving the rural areas farther and farther out of the mainstream for air travel. Furthermore, every time Congress appropriates money to the airlines, or establishes assistance such as the Air Transportation Stabilization Board, it is the rural communities that get overlooked. While small communities in over 25 States rely on this Federal funding to help them manage through this time of economic distress at the State and local levels, the Bush Administration has consistently proposed to cut the EAS program by more than half. Likewise, Republicans want to make many rural and small communities pay a local share to qualify for EAS funding. But, Mr. Speaker, I submit that doing these things would greatly harm many local economies. Rather than further strapping the rural areas and small towns with costs that will further inhibit competition, we need to push policies that will increase air competition and provide cost-savings to travelers.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Nevada has adequately explained the pending legislation. We have no objection to it on our side. In fact, I commend our colleague on this side of the aisle, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for his diligence in pursuing consideration of this bill by the House. The gentleman is a valued member of both the Committee on Resources and the other committee upon which I sit, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for his comments. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) has given a perfect example of why my amendment is necessary. The gentleman worked it out in his State. I salute him. That is the way it should be. That is what the executive order is all about. But it is not being done like that everywhere else. The purpose of my amendment is to get that process working, exactly as the gentleman has said it has worked in his home State.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Chairman pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, throughout this Nation, sites on Federal lands held sacred for religious purposes by Native Americans are being desecrated, often needlessly, by adverse developments. In response, I have introduced the ``Native American Sacred Lands Protection Act.'' This legislation would make the protection of Indian sacred sites on Federal lands a matter of Federal law and put into place a petition system that may lead to the designation of these sites as unsuitable for development. Tex Hall, the President of the National Congress of American Indians, described this bill as protecting ``the essence of what Indian Country is.'' Unable to have this legislation considered under regular order and considering the immensity of the threat posed to these sacred sites, I am now offering an amendment that would simply prohibit the expenditure of funds made available under the pending legislation for activities which would adversely affect the physical integrity of sacred sites. Long before my ancestors arrived on these shores, American Indians were the first stewards of this land. They respected the Earth, the water and the air. They understood that you take only what you need and leave the rest. They demonstrated that you do not desecrate that which is sacred. Most Americans understand the reverence for the great Sistine Chapel or the United States Capitol. Too often, non-Indians have difficulty giving that same reference we give to our sacred places to a mountain, valley, stream or rock formation. For example, Mount Shasta in California, considered the birthplace of the Earth and sacred to several California Indian tribes, is under threat by geothermal industries. The Zuni Salt Lake in New Mexico, where tribal medicine men gather minerals for use in sacred ceremonies, is under constant threat by mining interests, as is the Huckleberry Patch in southern Oregon, which contains plants and berries essential to the Cow Creek Tribe. In fact, I have received a letter from Sue Shaffer, Chairman of the Cow Creek Tribe, supporting this amendment of mine, in which she states, ``Given the traditional cultural, religious and subsistence significance of the Huckleberry Patch to the Cow Creek Tribe as vital to our identity as an Indian tribe, we appreciate your efforts in proposing an amendment which would protect Native American sacred sites on Federal lands from significant damage.'' Now, some may ask why a Congressman from West Virginia should care. I care because it is morally offensive for these religious sites to be destroyed. It is not the American way. I care because the history of Appalachia is similar to the history of our treatment of the American Indian. Back in the days of rape, ruin and run, our lands were left as moonscapes and our forests were denuded as coal and timber was extracted and shipped out-of-state. Armed mercenaries stormed the homes of our coal miners, throwing women and children out in the cold. So I understand. But I also understand that we have worked to reclaim our land, to address the legacy of acidified streams and ravaged landscapes, to take back the land and restore our homes and communities, that the history of the past should not be the prologue of the future. Let that be so in Indian Country. So today I stand here in common cause with those from Indian Country who are struggling to have their voices heard in this, the Capitol of the United States of America. Today, let their voices be heard. Let their voices be heard above the roar of mining operations which threaten to sweep away sites that are sacred to them. Let their voices be heard above the din of drilling rigs which seek to desecrate their places of religious worship. Let their voices be heard above the babble of corporate greed which would sacrifice their lands and waters on the altar of profit and wealth. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the pending amendment.

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

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to respond to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), in his charge that the amendment is too broadly drafted. He then referred to Executive Order 13007. That is the referenced executive order, of course, in my amendment. In that executive order it clearly very narrowly defines what sacred site means. In Section 1, Subparagraph (b), number iii, ``Sacred site'' means any specific, discrete, narrowly delineated location on Federal land that is identified by an Indian tribe or Indian individual determined to be an appropriate authoritative representative of an Indian religion, as sacred by virtue of its established religious significance to, or ceremonial use by, an Indian religion; provided that the tribe or appropriate authoritative representative of an Indian religion has informed the agency of the existence of such a site. So I think that is a pretty narrow definition of ``sacred site,'' as opposed to the broad charge leveled by the distinguished subcommittee chairman.

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

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me. In response to the assertion that the Indian tribes do not like legislative riders on an appropriations bill, the respected chairman himself has been calling this an amendment throughout his remarks. So it is a matter of who is offering what here as to how we describe it. I describe it as an amendment, as the gentleman has adequately described it. A rider is something that the gentleman does not favor. So I think it has been properly described as an amendment, and I have already described the NCAI's position on this by the words that were written to both of us in regard to the substance itself. In regard to the feeling that the gentleman does not know how this is going to be interpreted, my amendment is clearly the language of an executive order. An executive order is pretty clear. I have already outlined how that executive order defines sacred site. As far as what it would affect, I can give the gentleman a site in his home State of California that would be affected by my amendment, and that is that the BLM could have said no to allowing a mining operation; under my amendment, under this executive order, that the BLM could have said not approved, that is, a plan of operations for a mining operation for the Quechan Indian Pass in California. That operation was allowed to proceed because my amendment was not in place protecting this sacred Indian site. So I think, again, in response to the amendment, it is pretty clear as to what it would do, and an executive order has been issued in this regard; and that is what my amendment is.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, my hometown newspaper, the Register-Herald, of Beckley, WV, hit the nail on the head today with its editorial, ``Pledge: Issue still unresolved,'' as the Supreme Court sidestepped a chance to help cement the moral foundation of our Nation. It used a technicality to overturn a decision by a lower court that had declared the use of the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. For well over 200 years the moral fiber of this Nation has been built not upon the law of man, but rather upon the law of God. The Supreme Court held in its hands the people's eloquent expression of what many of my fellow West Virginians already know, that only under the watchful eye of God can all we hope for be accomplished and all we dream of come true. And, though the dismissal was welcomed, the Court's reason for the dismissal wasted an opportunity to forever strengthen our national character. The Register-Herald best summed up the missed opportunity by our Supreme Court with the editorial that follows: Pledge Issue still unresolved The words ``under God'' can stay in the Pledge of Allegiance, says the Supreme Court, whose Monday ruling actually resolves next to nothing. Instead of taking on the substance of the issue, the court ruled on whether the man who brought the case in the first place had proper standing. He doesn't, the court said. Three justices did indicate that they see no violation of the Constitution in the pledge's language. Good for them. The First Amendment aims to keep Congress from establishing a state religion, which would require a great deal more effort from Congress than inserting a couple of words in the pledge a half-century ago. Children cannot be compelled to recite the pledge or even listen to it if they don't wish to. The Supreme Court will sooner or later have to delete the phrase or else rule in its defense, an action requiring only this: respect for constitutional language and a grain of common sense.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I would note that the pending bill continues a trend that we have seen from the White House and the Republican leadership. I certainly commend the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for his leadership, as well as the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), but it is a trend that is coming out of this pending legislation as well as the Congress, the trend of not keeping faith with the American people when it comes to various Federal trust funds. With the highway bill, it is very apparent. There are those of us who want to return to the American people from the Highway Trust Fund the taxes that are paid at the pump in the form of better roads and bridges, and there are those who do not. In the pending legislation, there is a trust fund account called the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund, financed by a fee imposed on the coal industry. This is the industry's version of Superfund. It is meant to provide funding to finance the cleanup of abandoned coal mine sites that pose a threat to human health and safety. The unspent balance in that trust fund is approaching $2 billion. Yet the pending bill flatlines the amount it would make available. I could go on and on. There is another trust fund involved with the pending legislation; and here, too, this bill does not keep faith with America. That is called the Land and Water Conservation Fund programs, which is authorized at 900 million. The total is less than $150 million in this bill. Funding that would improve and expand the wildlife refuges, National Parks, and National Forests is sacrificed at the altar of tax relief for the rich. Apparently, the money for the Bush tax cut really did grow on trees. What is more, the Bush administration, along with the majority here in the House, fails to provide these funds even though half the money goes directly to the States for conservation and recreation purposes. If the Bush administration supports making rich people richer, that is their choice; but the American people should know where the money is coming from. The American people should know what the real reason is when they go to a national park this summer and find it surrounded by commercial development because there will be no funds to conserve the lands around the park. The American people should know that even though we are supposed to have the money sitting in a trust fund, dangerous abandoned mine sites will not be reclaimed because that trust has been broken as well. Gutting conservation spending to fund a tax cut is short-sighted and cynical. Members need to come to this floor during the debate on this legislation and tell the American people where they stand. It appears that this administration and its friends in the Congress have thrown the keys to the Treasury off the continent, funding a war that we were not properly advised on its true cost and which is going to reach astronomical proportions. Now we are left with depleted funds, from roads and infrastructure to our majestic parks and wildlife protection programs. So I would urge Members to look closely at this legislation before making their minds up. Mr. Chairman, I would note that the pending bill continues a trend that we have seen coming out of the White House and from the Republican Leadership. And that is a trend of not keeping faith with the American people when it comes to various federal trust funds. With the highway bill, it is very apparent. There are those of us who want to return to the American people from the Highway Trust Fund the taxes they pay at the pump in the form of better roads and bridges. And there are those who do not. In the pending legislation, there is a trust fund account, the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund, financed by a fee imposed on the coal industry. This is the industry's version of Superfund. It is meant to provide funding to finance the cleanup of abandoned coal mine sites that pose a threat to human health and safety. The unspent balance in that trust fund is approaching $2 billion. Yet the pending bill flat lines the amount it would make available. I can assure this body there is no lack of need for this funding. We have an extensive inventory of sites which need to be reclaimed. This program is about improving our environment, and it is about jobs. Well paying construction jobs. And there is another trust fund involved with the pending legislation, and here too, this bill does not keep faith with America. Spending on Land and Water conservation Fund programs--which is authorized at $900 million--totals less than $150 million in this bill. Funding that would improve and expand wildlife refuges, National Parks and National Forests is sacrificed at the altar of tax relief for the rich. Apparently, the money for the Bush tax cut really did grow on trees. What's more, the Bush Administration, along with the Majority here in the House, fails to provide these funds even though half the money goes directly to the States for conservation and recreation purposes. If the Bush administration supports making rich people richer, that is their choice. But the American people should know where the money is coming from. The American people should know that the National Park they visit this summer will soon be surrounded by commercial development because there will be no funds to conserve the lands around the Park. The American people should know that the conservation and recreation programs planned by their governor will have to be abandoned because the Federal government won't come through with matching funds. The American people should know that, even though we are supposed to have the money sitting in a trust fund, dangerous abandoned mine sites will not be reclaimed because that trust has been broken. Gutting conservation spending to fund a tax cut is short-sighted and cynical. Members need to come to this House floor during the debate on this legislation and tell the American people where they stand. It appears that this administration and its friends in the Congress have thrown the keys to the Treasury off the continent, funding a war that we were not properly advised on its true cost. And now we are left with depleted funds for worthy and traditionally bipartisan programs, from roads and infrastructure, to our majestic parks and wildlife protection programs. I urge a ``no'' vote on the pending measure.