Nick Rahall

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, the deafening silence we hear tonight is the silence of the Republican leadership and its lack of support for unemployment benefits to millions of Americans thrown out of work during the Republican reign of ruinous indifference to families and livelihoods. Mr. Speaker, where oh where have the jobs gone? A crisis of epic economic proportions is upon us. Since the Administration has taken control, this Nation has lost 3.2 million private sector jobs, and those are the ones we are able to count. Who knows how many more are out there uncounted? This fact alone is bad enough, but under this Administration it gets much, much worse. According to a study in the August issue of Current Issues in Economics and Finance reviewed by Charlie Cook in this mornings Congress Daily AM, almost 80% of the jobs that have been lost since the President took office are permanent. A figure that is drastically worse than had been the case in previous economic downturns of the mid-1970's and early 1980's. I include in the record Mr. Cook's thoughtful comments on this important study. This finding should shock every business and every worker in the Nation, Mr. Speaker. A New Kind of Job Loss (By Charlie Cook) When we get the first look Thursday at economic growth numbers for the third quarter of this year, those gross domestic product figures may well show impressive economic growth: a sign that President Bush's tax cut-oriented, economic growth package did in fact stimulate the economy. History has shown that economic growth through the second quarter of the election year usually results in re-election for incumbent presidents. But the question today is whether that relationship will remain as strong in 2004 as it has been in the past. Despite the fact that the economic downturn ``officially'' began in March 2001 and ended in November 2001, a net loss of 2.6 million jobs has occurred since Bush took office, giving weight to the term ``jobless recovery.'' A recent paper by two economists with the Federal Reserve Board of New York shows quite clearly the most recent economic downturn and recovery are very different from past ones. Furthermore, it suggests economic growth figures in the near term might not be accompanied by the same kind of net job growth in the future. Writing in the August issue of an FRBNY publication, ``Current Issues in Economics and Finance,'' Erica Groshen and Simon Potter looked at the pattern of layoffs and job creation during and after the past six economic downturns. Observing that ``recessions mix cyclical (temporary) and structural (permanent) adjustments,'' Groshen and Potter found, for example, in the economic downturns of both the mid-1970s and the early 1980s, 49 percent of the job losses were cyclical. These are temporary layoffs, whereby an employer ``suspends'' an employee's job because of reduced demand for goods or services, then recalls that employee when the economy turns around, fueling fast payroll growth. In those two downturns, the other 51 percent of job losses were more structural or permanent, as when an employee's job is simply eliminated and the laid-off employee is forced to seek a new job. Given new job creation takes much longer than recalling former workers, structural losses are far more serious than cyclical ones. That 49 percent-cyclical/51 percent-structural loss mix of the 1970s and 1980s changed to 43 percent-cyclical/57 percent-structural in the economic downturn of the early 1990s, as more jobs were completely eliminated or relocated to other countries. For the most part, this shift went unnoticed. It became much more pronounced in the current economic downturn and recovery, with Groshen and Potter finding 79 percent of job losses were structural and only 21 percent temporary. During this most recent downturn and recovery, jobs in the fields of electronic equipment securities and commodities brokerage and communications were largely eliminated. Indeed, the only field that has truly prospered through this period is in the standard industrial code ``nondepository institutions,'' a group that notably includes mortgage brokers, who have benefited greatly from historically low interest rates and strong home buying and refinancing. Equally alarming, but more anecdotal than quantitative, are stories of more and more high-technology or other ``knowledge-based'' jobs shifting abroad, whether to call centers handling customer service and even technical support or in computer programming and other highly skilled fields I recently heard of some corporate legal departments shifting more rudimentary legal work--drafting contracts and the like--to India, an English-speaking country that uses the same English common-law system as the United States. No doubt some of these structural job losses are the result of the impressive productivity gains that American corporations have enjoyed in recent years as a result of automation and more efficient processes. But it is also clear many of these losses were confined largely to relatively low- skilled manufacturing jobs, many thought this was an unfortunate but inevitable shift. Low-skilled jobs like producing pencils could be done abroad more cheaply and efficiently than by higher-paid Americans under more strict environmental and safety standards. But as the job losses have shifted from lower-skilled to higher-skilled--the very jobs that displaced workers were told they should re-train for--this has become a far more serious problem. While few believe the solution to job losses is to construct trade barriers in this country, it is a far different and greater problem than we experienced in the past. And it isn't just an economic or trade problem; it is also a political problem. Sooner or later, voters will demand solutions from their elected officials or candidates for Congress and president.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, amid the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority's push for a free and democratic society in Iraq, this House has been constructing a dangerous wall threatening Syria. The recently passed legislation, H.R. 1828, will not help alleviate the incessant attacks that our soldiers are facing daily in Iraq, as an integral part in ensuring their safety is an immediate boost to provide Iraqis with jobs and prospects for prosperity. But the SAA will only prove to upset these efforts. Hugh Pope elaborates on this point in the article ``Iraq Adds Complexity for U.S., Syria,'' which appeared in the October 20th issue of the Wall Street Journal. I recommend the following article to all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, and to the administration. [From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 20, 2003] Iraq Adds Complexity for U.S., Syria As Washington Sanctions Damascus, American Troops Seek Syrian Trade Partners (By Hugh Pope) Mosul, Iraq.--While the House of Representatives was voting to adopt a new raft of Syrian sanctions in Washington last week, here in northern Iraq the 101st Airborne Division was doing everything in its power to burnish economic relations with Syria. ``It's the freest trade there has ever been here,'' said Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the 101st Airborne's 22,000 troops, in an Oct. 10 war room briefing for U.S. visitors involved in the campaign to promote American achievements in Iraq. He proudly called for the next slide, an image from the day the Iraq-Syria frontier post opened for business. It featured a Syrian border monument with a huge picture of that nation's late president, Hafez al-Assad. Mr. Assad's son Bashar is now Syria's head of state, and the sanctions, headed for the Senate, are meant to punish Damascus until the U.S. says it has stopped sponsoring terrorism. But the burgeoning relationship between Syria and American- controlled northern Iraq illustrates a divergence of interests between Middle Eastern priorities in Washington and the more immediate, on-the-ground needs of the U.S. occupation forces in Iraq, who seek to bring Iraqis the jobs and prosperity they view as a key step in ending attacks on U.S. forces. ``Our No. 1 problem is unemployment,'' said Gen. Petraeus, who has noted a falling-off in supplies of discretionary funds that his officers use to keep projects going forward in his area of responsibility. He has spent $28 million so far and says he needs more. ``The north has the military forces it needs,'' he said. ``All we need is money.'' Spurring the local economy is a critical element in Gen. Petraeus's campaign, and he has used his funds to restart a long-dormant asphalt factory, uncap local oil wells and work to bring irrigation to a new area of wheat fields. Gen. Petraeus didn't say whether he had had friction with the civilian U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad over his relationship with the Syrians. An officer of the 101st said its general practice was not to confront the CPA but to do what they thought best and ``apologize later rather than seek permission first.'' CPA officials said they had no comment on the wider question of trade with Syria, which also takes place elsewhere in Iraq, since no new U.S. sanctions were yet in force. But trade is vital to this city of 1.7 million and the surrounding region, and one of Gen. Petraeus's first priorities upon taking control of the north was to open the Turkish and Syrian borders. Now, he said, some 500 to 700 trucks arrive from Syria each day, paying a toll of $10 for a pickup and $20 for a bigger rig. He has also pioneered easy, visa-free travel between Mosul province, home to about 12% of Iraq's 25 million people, and the neighboring Syrian region. To help Iraq cope with its huge electricity deficit, the general dreamed up a scheme to buy power from Syria in return for Iraqi oil. Speeding the process with his fleet of helicopters, he brought together officials from Damascus, men from the new ministries in Baghdad and the best of the 60 lawyers in his own force to hammer out a deal. Negotiations dragged on, and the general feared they would collapse over bureaucratic details. To break the logjam, he proposed that his engineers swing open the valves on the Iraqi oil-export pipeline, the Syrians switch on the power lines, and the haggling proceed at leisure over the exact final price. Everyone agreed. Six weeks later, the informal arrangement appears to be working well, Gen. Petraeus said, even if the power from Syria represents well under 10% of local production. Security hasn't been neglected. Some 800 border guards have been retrained and set up at the old border post to keep an eye out for Islamist and other Arab fighters, some of them Syrian, who have been slipping over the border to attack U.S. troops. But on the tables of Mosul, breakfast now includes Syrian apricot jam.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 63, the Compacts of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003. These amendments to the existing Compact, extends and refines the official relationship between the United States and our friends and allies, the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) and the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM). For the next 20 years, we can only hope that these changes will result in continuing economic opportunity, social development, and improvements to the quality of life of these island nations as well as serve the interests of the United States. The RMI and FSM's contribution to our Nation's history is unique. Beginning in the mid-1940s, after World War II, their people sacrificed both land and culture to help preserve peace. Then under U.S. Trusteeship, atolls in the RMI were used as sites to test the effectiveness and power of U.S. nuclear weaponry. Islands comprising the FSM and also the Republic of Palau became our ``line in the sand'' in the middle of the Pacific Ocean from which we staved off the spread of communism. Though their role has largely gone unnoticed by the American public, the relationship we have since established with them to become emerging self-governing and self-sufficient democracies reflects how important we view their contributions to our Nation. Seventeen years have passed since the RMI and FSM became freely associated with the United States. The relationship has been successful and yet imperfect. The Compact amendments we are considering today will not make the relationship perfect, or guarantee success. There is no clear legislative path to accomplish such goals. However, all the tools are within this legislation for both the RMI and FSM to continue developing, as well as for the United States to continue to foster their growth. H.J. Res. 63 preserves education opportunities, advances economic activity, safeguards infrastructure investments, and adequately addressed the consequences of immigration to Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Marianas from the freely associated states. In that regard, I want to make note of the great amount of work Neil Abercrombie and Madeleine Bordallo put into this issue. With justification, they should be proud of their work on behalf of Hawaii and Guam as it relates to the matter of impact aid. Let me state that this legislation is the product of bipartisan support and multiple Committee collaboration. Bringing this legislation to the floor would not have been possible without the leadership of International Relations Chairman Henry Hyde and the Ranking Democrat Tom Lantos, as well as Chairman Leach and our colleague from American Samoa, from the Subcommittee on East Asia and the Pacific. Finally, I also want to thank Resources Chairman Richard Pombo for the bipartisan manner to which he worked with us on the Committee. His willingness to address important Compact issues in a meaningful and responsive manner gave us the opportunity to move this legislation expeditiously. I urge my colleagues to favorably pass H.J. Res. 63.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my strong support for the reauthorization of the Economic Development Administration (EDA). The EDA enhances regional competitiveness and provides critical long- term support for regional economies. In my own district of southern West Virginia, the EDA has been an important catalyst that has created or saved an estimated 2,240 jobs just since 1993. Similarly, over $31 million in federal funding has enabled 78 projects in southern West Virginia to leverage more than $50 million in private sector funding as well as approximately $24 million in state and local funding. In 2003. alone, EDA programs have provided much-needed funding for projects as diverse as University Center funding at several of West Virginia's institutions of higher education, an airport business park in Raleigh County, and engineering for building construction in Hinton, WV. But in some regions of our Nation, EDA cannot complete its mission without additional help. For example, the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) works in coordination with EDA to serve America's Appalachian region. Historically, the Appalachian region has faced levels of poverty and economic distress higher that national averages as a result of its geographic isolation and inadequate infrastructure. My home State of West Virginia lies entirely in the Appalachian region. Mr. Speaker, neither of these two important programs can sufficiently serve the area without the other. For over 30 years, the ARC has provided for development and jobs for more than 22 million people. The ARC's assistance to West Virginia, and to my constituents in the southern part of the state, through the West Virginia Infrastructure and Jobs Development Council has been critical. It has aided the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources to develop educational funding, training and job opportunities for local health care. In my district, the ARC made $1 million available to the Mingo County Redevelopment Authority to provide water service, and to create 130 jobs by processing West Virginia timber into hardwood flooring and related projects. Similarly, the ARC provided water service to 312 new customers in Crum, West Virginia, and it helped to improve the quality of mathematics and science education in Bluefield, WV. Tragically, however, the Bush administration proposed decreased funding levels for the ARC's nonhighway program by more than 50 percent. Of course, President Bush's friends in the Republican-led House followed through with his wishes by imposing the cuts in appropriations for next year. Now, the administration and the House Republicans say that they want to shift the ARC's nonhighway responsibilities to EDA for larger multijurisdictional projects, diluting the unique attention ARC provides this region of vast potential to serve our Nation. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have to be able to express my strong support for the EDA, and I support reauthorization of this vital agency. But, on behalf of West Virginians and all those throughout the Appalachian region, I mourn for the cuts to the ARC.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, when Mr. Bush told the American People he was against nation building, no one, including me, thought he was talking about America. Let me at the outset make clear my support for our valiant soldiers who are pursuing our enemies in Afghanistan, and who are securing the peace in Iraq. But the bill before us today, just as it ignites the Iraqi economy and keeps Iraqi kids out of more debt-- it costs America's great great grandchildren more long term debt, while America herself crumbles. Mr. Chairman, let us look at this bill's priorities and all of the unanswered questions it raises. There is plenty of money in here for Iraqi health care, but not one dime of the $1.8 billion American Veterans need for their health care, which the majorities in this Congress seem hell bent on ignoring. Why is that? The White House won't fund the No Child Left Behind education initiative, but we're supposed to pay Iraqi teachers' salaries. Why is that? President Bush says he needs more than $4 billion for water infrastructure when there are people throughout rural America who lack public water service. Why is that? The President wants $856 million to upgrade three Iraqi airports, a seaport and rail lines, while Amtrak is starved for funds and our ports remain vulnerable to attack. Why is that? The White House has a paltry underfunded proposal for road-building at home but wants to spend millions building roads and bridges elsewhere. Why is that? The President wiped out the COPS program at home, and now he wants to pay more than $3 billion for Iraqi law enforcement. Why is that? The President is seeking $5.7 billion to rebuild and expand Iraq's electric grid just as millions of Americans are regaining power lost to Hurricane Isabel, and Congress is grappling with the causes of August's blackout in the Northeast. Why is that? The President needed the coalfields of West Virginia last election, but today his priorities lie in the oilfields of Iraq. If we can help Iraq pump oil, we sure ought to help America burn coal. To those who would suggest we should rebuild Iraq at a time when we cannot rebuild America, I say that doing so costs our economy, costs us tax revenues in lost production, and costs American workers jobs as our infrastructure crumbles. The surest way to not be able to help Iraq, if that is the President's goal, is to further hurt America. To shortchange America's infrastructure. Meanwhile, by failing to win the support and aid of the world community, the task of rebuilding Iraq became America's responsibility alone. And, who pays for these government contracts in Iraq? They are being paid for, by the working men and women in West Virginia, and throughout our Nation. Is that fair? President Bush's friends are getting a double-dip giveaway. First, they get huge tax giveaways, putting more of the tax burden on middle and low-income families like many of my constituents in West Virginia. Is that fair? Then, the President's friends and campaign supporters, such as Halliburton and Bechtel, strike it rich with no-bid contracts. Is that fair? There are, according to the Washington Post, currently more contractors in Iraq than there are soldiers from any force of our allies. Is that fair? And where, oh where, have all our allies gone? Can this Administration not swallow its pride, can it not make a more conciliatory effort to enlist the World in the rebuilding of Iraq? Mr. Chairman, if we have to pay $87 billion for Iraq, why don't we do the wise thing and roll back the colossal tax giveaway to America's richest 1%, those making over $337,000? If we defer that giveaway to those making over $337,000, we could pay for the entire $87 billion. We have far too many unavoidable needs right here at home. Several weeks ago, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) identified real shortcomings on a nationwide basis. The ASCE report said we are failing to maintain even the substandard conditions of our transportation infrastructure. It described our national roads system as ``poor,'' and our national bridges and transit systems as ``mediocre.'' The ASCE report also identified needs in my home state of West Virginia regarding roads, bridges, water infrastructure, schools, and education. Right in my own district of Southern West Virginia, I can point to pressing infrastructure needs: 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 federal grant for Greenbrier Valley Airport? 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 the federal grants for these phases? In Raleigh County, just one of our wastewater projects is going to cost $6.8 million to serve 3,300 citizens in Glen White and Lester. This is a matter of public health, of bringing in new jobs, of fueling the economy. Where is the federal grant for that program? In Nicholas County, $7.3 million is needed for a water project to serve 562 customers who presently have no water service at all. Where is the federal grant for them? West Virginians are told by this President and this Congress that we can't afford federal grants! Nationwide unemployment levels remain unsteady. We have 42 million uninsured Americans and rising health costs for those individuals who actually are insured. State budgets in disarray. Attempts to buy homeland security on the cheap while we incur record level deficits. Meanwhile, the Bush administration tells us that we can't afford to pay for all of our needs at home. Not when we're investing in other countries, rather than our own. Well, Mr. President, this land is your land, but you should know this land is also our land. We have an economic stimulus package that we could pass right now to provide much needed jobs and get us out of this so-called ``jobless recovery,'' which is no recovery at all. I'm talking about reauthorizing the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st century, and fully funding it at the $375 billion that the Bush administration's Department of Transportation says is needed to maintain our economy. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that every billion dollars that we invest in our infrastructure provides 47,500 good-paying construction jobs. However, the Bush administration proposes that we spend almost $130 billion less over the next six years than what President Bush's own Department of Transportation identified as infrastructure problems. Mr. Chairman, we're fighting two wars at the moment. Like most Americans, I supported our effort in Afghanistan, and I voted in favor of it. I still support it. But, President Bush lost interest in our enemy in Afghanistan because he had this other war that he wanted to fight in Iraq. Now, we're faced with a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan along with a bill for Iraq. And, mark my words, this will not be the last time the administration comes calling for cash for Iraq. Estimates are that it will cost us more than $400 billion. With that amount of money we could afford to provide seniors with a meaningful prescription drug benefit under Medicare. But, Mr. Speaker, we won't be able to afford it because of the lack of priorities. Not when priorities are to finance Mr. Bush's war, and his rich friends' profit-making ventures. As I said at the outset, Mr. Chairman, I have total support for our troops. It is my hope that in the following hours and days we can fix this bill. Fix its priorities, putting the American soldier first, and getting the American taxpayer some relief. But, when we have so many great needs here at home that are being ignored, we need to focus on needs at home first. Then let us see how we can best serve America abroad.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, when President Bush told the American people he was against nation-building, no one, including myself, thought he was talking about America. Let me begin at the outset by making very clear my support for our valiant soldiers who are pursuing our enemies in Afghanistan and other parts of the world and are securing the peace in Iraq. The bill before us today, just as it ignites the Iraqi economy and keeps Iraqi kids out of more debt, it costs our American grandchildren and great, great grandchildren more long-term debt while America herself crumbles. This bill's priorities are wrong, Mr. Chairman. There is plenty of money in here for Iraqi health care but not one dime of the $1.8 billion American veterans need for their health care, which the majority in this Congress seem hell bent on ignoring. Why is that? The White House will not fund the No Child Left Behind education initiative, but we are supposed to pay Iraqi teachers' salaries. Why is that? The President wants $856 million to upgrade three Iraqi airports, a seaport, and rail lines, while Amtrak is starved for funds in this country, and our ports remain vulnerable to attack. Why is that? The White House has a paltry underfunded proposal for road building here at home, but wants to spend millions building roads and bridges elsewhere. Why is that? The President wiped out the COPS program here at home, and now he wants to pay more than $3 billion for Iraqi law enforcement. Why is that? The priorities are all skewed. Let us support our troops, but not with this $87 billion Iraqi economy rebuilding measure.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, the Syria Accountability Act comes to the House floor at a time when the situation in the Middle East is more volatile than ever: the United States' effort to gain control of the situation in Iraq; the breakdown of the Israeli and Palestinian peace negotiations; and the new tensions between Syria, Lebanon and Israel are all major concerns of U.S. Middle East policy. The proposed legislation, H.R. 1828, could harm the United States' ability to influence various actors in the region and could seriously impair U.S. diplomatic efforts at a very critical time in the Middle East. At this critical juncture in America's War on Terrorism we should work with Nations like Syria who are aiding our pursuit of the terrorists who attacked America on 9-11. Since September 11th, 2001, Syria has quietly helped the United States by detaining suspected members of Osama bin Laden's organization. Our government should continue its diplomatic relations with Syria in order to capture these terrorists. Syria supported the United States by voting in support of U.N. Resolution 1441 asking Iraq to comply with the United Nations and to allow inspectors back into the country. During America's Operation Iraqi Freedom, Syria assisted the U.S. by supplying power to northern Iraq, thus calming the population, and undoubtedly saving American troops' lives. In a most recent act of cooperation with the United States and at our request, Damascus has opened its financial and banking institutions allowing us to trace the accounts of the former Saddam Hussein regime. Syria is currently designated by the U.S. State Department as a state-sponsor of terrorism and, therefore, is already ineligible for U.S. assistance and faces numerous, strict sanctions. This legislation would further restrict the already limited leverage we have with Syria. Instead of singling out Syria for developing weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, Congress should instead support United Nations resolutions (687, par. 14) pursuing the goal of declaring the whole Middle East a region free from all such weapons and delivery systems. This bill lacks credibility by ignoring Israel's own advanced pursuit of such weapons including nuclear arms. Imposing unilateral sanctions on Syria would hurt American businesses. At a time when our country is facing increasing unemployment rates, Congress and the Administration should take action to foster economic growth and trade, including with countries in the Middle East, to foster an increase in American jobs. European and Russian companies have already made contact with Syrian businesses hoping to move in as American companies are forced to leave after adoption of SAA. This legislation attempts to adopt a simplistic approach to Lebanese- Syrian relations. Both Syria and Lebanon are sovereign countries capable of resolving their own differences without U.S. congressional meddling. Now is not the time to limit American options as we seek to pursue a long-term comprehensive political solution to conflict in the Middle East. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to stand in opposition to H.R. 1828 as we must remain focused on the difficult issues of the Middle East already at hand.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps). In my capacity as the ranking member of the Committee on Resources, I wholeheartedly join the gentlewoman in illustrating just one of the many outrageous and galling preemptions of due process which is part and parcel of how the energy bill conference is being managed. The issue that the Capps motion raises is not something of a partisan nature. If a Member represents a coastal State, they should be concerned, whether Republican or Democrat, over what is taking place in this energy bill in conference. And Members should be especially concerned if their constituents support the Federal offshore oil and gas leasing moratoria that have long been applied to both the east and west coasts. For what we are dealing with here is the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. When this body considered the energy bill last April, an amendment was offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) to strike a provision which would have required that an inventory be conducted of all oil and gas resources in the outer continental shelf, regardless of whether those resources fall within an area closed to oil and gas leasing by Presidential or congressional moratoria. That amendment passed by voice vote, and it passed by voice vote for a simple reason: if taken to a rollcall vote, it would have been approved overwhelmingly. Yet today we find that this very same language has been slipped into the draft energy bill conference report. The question then occurs, who is responsible for this language reappearing. I asked the majority side: Who is responsible for this language reappearing? When the Capps- Davis-Miller amendment was offered to the House version of the energy bill last April, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) asked our colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, point-blank whether it was his intention to support the reinsertion of this provision being removed at that time in the conference committee. In response, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) said, and I quote, ``It is not my intention to recommend the reinsertion of this language, no.'' Page H3312 of the April 11, 2003, Congressional Record, it is right there. Indeed, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) posed the same question to the chairman of the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo). In response, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) said, ``No, we have no intention whatsoever of doing that.'' That is from page H3310 of the April 11, 2003, Congressional Record. It is right there. So here we have the assurances of two powerful chairmen of two House committees with jurisdiction over the energy bill that this language would not reappear. But it has. Imagine that. It has reappeared. So today we appeal to these two powerful chairmen to support the pending motion and to join us in doing battle with what must surely be the culprit, that other body. To my colleagues, the language in question places at risk the offshore oil and gas leasing moratoria areas. Members cast a ``yea'' or ``nay'' vote on this motion on that basis. Members cast a vote on the same basis they did last year when during consideration of the appropriations subcommittee bill, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) and myself offered an amendment to block development of some 36 oil and gas leases off the coast of southern California. That amendment prevailed with the support of 67 Republicans joining 184 Democrats. We said then that California wanted the same protections that the President gave his brother, Governor Jeb Bush of Florida, when acceding to his concerns over a proposed lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico off that State's coast, lease sale 181, as I recall it. So I say to my colleagues, today on this pending motion we are asking those on the other side of the aisle to owe up to their vote on the Capps-Rahall amendment to the interior appropriation bill last year; and to my Democratic colleagues, we are asking them to do what we have traditionally asked them to do, and that is respect the views of the American people. I urge support of the motion.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, Arab-Americans, Muslim-Americans, South Asian-Americans and Sikh-Americans are a vital part of America. These communities join other ethnic and religious groups as they and their ancestors came to this nation in search of political freedom and economic opportunity. They have flourished in this nation and have made great contributions to our society. They have joined the ranks of service-members, law enforcement officers, teachers, doctors, lawyers, and business people. They also hold positions of leadership in this society, including members of Congress and Cabinet members. But, tragically in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks, some bigots turned against Arab-Americans, Muslim-Americans, Sikh-Americans, and South Asian-Americans, and singled them out as targets for violence and threats of violence. Hate crimes against these communities, including violent physical assaults, increased sharply. The FBI reported that the number of anti-Muslim incidents increased by 1600 percent from 2001 to 2002, largely in response to this post 9/11 backlash. Obviously this kind of increase has only added evermore to the awesome responsibilities facing law enforcement offices. Therefore, it is unfortunate that their resources must be directed to the unreasonable few rotten applies that take out their vengeance on the unsuspecting innocent. Most Americans all over responded and came to the support of Arab- Americans, Muslim-Americans, Sikh-Americans, and South Asian-Americans, condemning the attacks and embracing these communities. A resolution at that time, which I cosponsored, was passed that condemned violence against these groups. But, now again Arab-Americans, Muslim-Americans, Sikh-Americans, and South Asian-Americans are suffering, and it is again time to express support for them. Since the time when the war in Iraq began, hate crimes have seen another hike. There was a man who law enforcement believes was motivated by anti-Arab sentiment, when he allegedly shot four people to death in New York City during February and March. Even after President Bush declared that major combat operations had ended, the hate crimes against Arab, Muslim, South Asian and Sikh-Americans have continued. These crimes are wrong and are opposed to the values of American society. We must condemn them in the most serious and strongest terms, and law enforcement must investigate and vigorously prosecute the perpetrators. By the same token, we must pay close attention to the concerns of Arab-Americans, Muslim-Americans, Sikh-Americans and South Asian- Americans, that the federal government views them with suspicion, and they are being subjected to grossly heightened levels of surveillance as a result of their national or religious origins. Counter-terrorism efforts must not discriminate on the basis of national origin or religion or violate the civil liberties of innocent Americans. The government's efforts to combat terrorism must focus on criminal or terrorist behavior, not ethnicity or creed. Discriminatory counter-terrorism tactics and those that violate civil liberties are wrong and do not make the country safer. We must look to history, which has shown us that respect for individual rights enhances our stability and security. Singling out mostly innocent Arab, Muslim, South Asian and Sikh Americans runs counter to the principle of rejecting the use of racial and ethnic profiling, while we need to focus on building trust and respect by working cooperatively with community members. The resolution before us today, H. Res. 234, recognizes that Arab- Americans, Muslim-Americans, Sikh-Americans, and South Asian-Americans greatly contribute to American society and serve honorably in the military or law enforcement and it urges respect for civil rights and liberties, condemns bias-motivated crimes against members of these communities, and calls upon federal and local law enforcement to prosecute such crimes vigorously. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great woman and a great American, Mrs. Mildred (``Millie'') O'Neill, who passed away yesterday. Millie was the wife of our beloved House Speaker, Tip O'Neill. On the dedication page of his autobiography, ``Man of the House,'' Tip described her as ``The Speaker of My House. A loving wife, mother and my partner through so many triumphs and trials.'' They enjoyed 52 years of marriage together, and they had five children. But Millie was more than merely the wife of a well-known politician. In addition to her dedication to her children and her husband, she very ably served many worthwhile causes. Mrs. O'Neill was chair or a member of the boards of the March of Dimes, the Congressional Wives Club, the International Club, and So Others Might Eat. She led a $4 million fundraising effort as chairwoman of the historic Ford's Theatre in Washington, DC, which earned her a prestigious Lincoln Award in 1984. In addition, she was active in many causes back in Massachusetts, including the St. John's Church Rebuilding Fund, and the St. Coletta's School for Exceptional Children. Mr. Speaker, Millie was a lovely, charming woman who will be missed. Her warmth and her sense of humor were radiant. Story has it that Tip, always mindful of the rule that all politics is local, would make a point of asking her personally for her vote every election day as they left for the polls. Fitting her good nature, her typical response was to acknowledge the request by replying only, ``Tom, I'll give it every consideration.'' During the awards ceremony at which she was presented with the Lincoln Award, another well-known American, President Ronald Reagan, noted her marriage to Tip, by remarking ``he's lucky, mighty lucky, to be the man in your life.''

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call once again for reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA 21), which will expire in just over one week. Today, the House considers a five-month extension to TEA 21. But it ought to be passing a meaningful surface transportation bill that will address measurable needs in our infrastructure, provide desperately needed jobs, and bolster our economy. Several weeks ago, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) said that we are failing to maintain even the substandard conditions of our transportation infrastructure. It described our national roads system as ``poor,'' and our national bridges and transit systems as ``mediocre.'' For my home state of West Virginia, the ASCE report said more than a third of state roads are in poor or mediocre condition, and one-fifth of the state's bridges are deficient or functionally obsolete. This should not come as a surprise to anyone. The United States is in need of infrastructure reinvestment. The Federal Highway Administration, the General Accounting Office, and industry trade groups have clearly communicated the shortcomings in our Nation's infrastructure since last year. Almost 30 percent of our bridges are structurally or functionally deficient, and half our interstate bridges are over 33 years old. Of the 102,859 bridges that are part of our Strategic Highway Network, which the Department of Defense would use to mobilize against global and domestic threats, over 20,000 of them are rated as deficient. Twenty-four percent of both our Urban Bus and Urban Rail maintenance facilities are substandard. Highway congestion in cities with less than 500,000 in population experienced an increase of 217 percent in the years 1987 to 2000. It is worth noting that most of America resides in cities with less than 500,000 in population. Traffic delays in rush hour traffic increase travel times by 63 percent in urban areas. Estimates place the loss of productivity and motor fuel at $68 billion currently, and it is expected to near $100 billion by 2009. Importantly, the FHWA has also noted the benefits of economic investment in our infrastructure. Every $1 billion we invest in our highways creates 47,500 good-paying jobs at a time when unemployment levels remain unsteady, and it provides $6.1 billion of economic activity in return, which would help restore our uneven economy. Mr. Speaker, the FHWA said that we need to invest $375 billion over the next six years to sustain our surface transportation system in its current condition to maintain economic growth. However, many in Congress and the President say that we cannot afford this investment in our infrastructure, which is an investment in our present and in our future. For this reason, efforts to craft a meaningful surface transportation bill as the successor to TEA 21 stalled months ago. Congress should not oppose investment in our infrastructure to ensure our future. We know what needs to be done, yet we are being delinquent in our responsibility to the American people by not doing it. Congress should enact a surface transportation bill as a worthy successor to TEA 21. Meanwhile, the Bush administration tells Congress that what is needed is $87 billion for Iraq. Furthermore, a House Budget Committee study indicates that the cost of the Iraq war and occupation could easily reach $417 billion over the next decade. Mr. Speaker, this reflects skewed priorities. Moreover, it raises concerns for what programs may be cut to pay for the Iraq funding. My support for our brave troops is total, and that means they must have every resource made available to them. However, the task of rebuilding Iraq cannot be America's responsibility alone. We should draw upon the support and aid of the world community. However, we have needs at home as I have suggested. That is why I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 1789, the American Parity Act, which would require that America's priorities be addressed with the same urgency that the administration is giving to rebuilding Iraq. In addition to the infrastructure needs I mentioned, we suffer from having 42 million uninsured Americans and rising health costs for insured individuals, proposed reductions in Medicaid funding, insufficient funding for the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant of the National Health Service Corps, a national nursing shortage, the most far-reaching energy blackout in U.S. history, attempts to buy homeland security on the cheap, and record-level deficits. Americans need and deserve affordable health care, capable schools, quality education, sufficient homeland security, safe and reliable roads and mass transit, modern water infrastructure, and jobs, jobs, and jobs. We won't get these things by ignoring our problems here at home. We need to reinvest in America, first and foremost.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. I yield myself such time as I may consume. In the time that I have had the honor to serve as the ranking member on the Resources Committee, I have never had to come to the floor to oppose a bill reported by the committee being considered under suspension of the rules. Indeed, under former Chairman Jim Hansen, and during this Congress, under Chairman Richard Pombo, we have instilled a greater degree of bipartisanship when conducting committee business. I realize some may not want to hear that. Those who manipulate this body's schedule seeking to make political points--even if they last for a nano-second or do not even register in the public's mind--by overt partisanship maneuvers, no, they do not want to hear that. The fact of the matter is that Chairman Pombo has been fair in his dealings with all Members. He has been extremely fair with me. So I do not believe that it was through his will that H.R. 1409 is being considered under suspension today. This bill has been placed on the suspension calendar over my objection. It is a controversial measure and should be considered under regular order, with opportunities for Members to offer amendments and a full and open debate. I suspect that some in the majority are eager to push this bill because they hope to make Democrats in the House choose between our friends in the Native American community and our passion for our National Parks. This is a false choice and we refuse to make it. The condition of the facilities found on many Indian reservations is unacceptable. Far too often, Native Americans are forced to endure housing, medical facilities and educational facilities that many Americans would find shocking. However, carving out large chunks from the middle of our national parks, as H.R. 1409 would have us do, is not the solution to this problem. H.R. 1409 purports to deal with the Eastern Band, but of course a lack of quality educational opportunities is a problem that plagues Native Americans across the land. We are eager to work with the chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee--for whom I have a great deal of respect--to devise a solution to this problem that might help all Native American children. And we must find solutions that do not destroy our National Parks. What the pending bill does is carve out a huge chunk of land from the heart of the Great Smokey Mountains National Park valued at more than $3 million and trades it to the Eastern Band for land 30 miles away, not even within the park's boundaries, valued at $600,000. The bill is an attempt to shortchange the administrative process that is currently underway. The National Park Service and a coalition of nonprofit environmental organizations are examining this proposed exchange as we speak. The NPS is putting the finishing touches on an Environmental Impact Statement that will address the obvious impacts this planned construction will have on the Park's resources, as well as the possibility of building the schools elsewhere. The nonprofit groups have also publicly pledged to work with the Tribe to find an alternative site. Once we have gathered all the facts, we could move forward with carefully crafted legislation if necessary to resolve the educational needs of the children of the Eastern Band without impacting a national treasure. And yet we are moving full steam ahead with this legislation, cutting off the NEPA process and abandoning any attempt at compromise. This is particularly ironic given that language was included in the House-passed Interior Appropriations bill requiring further study of this proposal. Apparently, as recently as July, the supporters of this legislation felt that this proposed exchange raised concerns serious enough to warrant further study. To ram it through the House 2 months later is unwise and unwarranted. I would raise one additional issue. It is passing strange that tomorrow the Resources Committee is scheduled to consider another bill concerning lands Indians lay claim to, but in that case, the proposed solution is to pay them off rather than cede them the land. Why the difference in approaches? Simply put, the land in question in that case is rich in gold. It is valuable to the mining industry. Yet, the claims by the Western Shoshone to this land is well established. I have to wonder whether the inconsistent approach between these two bills is related to the fact that the land taken from the Western Shoshone is known to be extremely valuable to mining companies, while in the case of H.R. 1409, the land in question is in a National Park. To the Eastern Bank of the Cherokee, I understand that your history is one of broken treaties and stolen lands. It is the story of a great Indian nation hunted by the U.S. Cavalry, split at the seams, and forced either to escape to the mountains or to trudge along on a death march to a strange land. The Eastern Band were able to escape the Trail of Tears and live in the mountains of North Carolina. They stayed together and rebuilt their nation. I have nothing but respect for the Eastern Band, however, I must object to the consideration of H.R. 1409 under the suspension of the rules. If the administrative process underway is to be trammeled upon, I say to the proponents of this bill, at least bring it up under regular order. I urge my colleagues to defeat this measure on suspension.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the Fiscal Year 2004 Transportation appropriations bill. I voted for the Transportation appropriations bill because there are many worthwhile and appropriate provisions in the bill such as highway funding, funding for the Airport Improvement Program, and restored funding for the Transportation Enhancements Program. Our economy and lifestyles are dependent upon our integrated transportation network, and my vote reflects my support for our infrastructure. However, I voted for the bill with many misgivings. This bill grossly underfunds passenger rail in this country. As a long-time supporter of passenger rail in this country, I say that Amtrak has never been given adequate support by the U.S. Congress. Instead, it has frequently been made a convenient scapegoat for those eager to say that they support reducing federal spending, but who do not hesitate to fund other transportation modes. For many individuals from my Congressional district in Southern West Virginia, and for those in other areas, Amtrak serves as the primary source of travel even just for routine visits to the doctor's office or the Veterans Administration. Amtrak President David Gunn said he needs $1.8 billion in 2004 to continue to carry out his reforms, which have been very successful to this point. I think we ought to give him the money to do his job. Similarly, the bill underfunds the Essential Air Services Program. I realize $63 million is no small amount, but it represents a dramatic cut to air travel in rural 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. Small communities in over 35 states rely on this federal funding for much-needed air service and jobs. Furthermore, were it not for the efforts of Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee Ranking Member John Olver, my friend Tom Petri, who is Chairman of the Highways and Transit Subcommittee to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and several others as well as myself, the funding for the Transportation Enhancements program would not have been preserved as authorized. When we on the Public Works Committee, the precursor to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, authorized this valuable program with the enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act in 1991, we heard the requests of the American people for a transportation bill that reflected lifestyle interests over and above the construction of the highways. In addition to a sufficient roads network, the American people want opportunities to preserve and visit historic, archaeological, cultural, and scenic treasures. As my good friend, Jim Oberstar, the respected Ranking Member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, can no doubt attest, Americans also want to pursue recreational activities such as bike trails as alternatives to increasingly sedentary lifestyles. Attempting to alter programs through the appropriations process such as the Transportation Enhancements, or the National Scenic Byways program, encroaches upon the jurisdiction of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. This raises an additional point of concern. Mr. Speaker, the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA-21) will expire at the end of this month with no successor bill in place. This key surface transportation bill provides authorization and appropriations to address measurable needs in our infrastructure, but Congress has yet to even embark on a meaningful bill due to unresolved funding issues. This leaves the appropriators with no current, updated authorization language upon which to rely when crafting the transportation appropriations. The United States Department of Transportation says we need to provide $375 billion in federal funding just to maintain our surface transportation system in its current condition, which the American Society of Civil Engineers recently described as ``substandard.'' Congress should not oppose investment in our infrastructure to ensure our future. We know what needs to be done, yet we are being delinquent in our responsibility to the American people by not doing it. Congress should enact a surface transportation bill as quickly as possible.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, we learn from the Bible in Romans 12:21, ``Be not overcome with evil, but overcome evil with good.'' In the a.m. hours of September 11, 2001, a great evil befell America. Around 3000 lives were lost and over 281 million American felt the pain of their passing. Two years later we still feel that loss. Victims of this terrible tragedy came from all across this country, including Dr. Paul Ambrose of my home state of West Virginia, a talented and public-spirited young physician, was on the airplane that the terrorists crashed into the Pentagon. The two grand towers of New York City, the symbol of our Nation's strength here in Washington, DC, a field in Southern Pennsylvania, and America itself was struck a mighty blow two years ago, but on that day, the enduring spirit of the United States of America overcame evil with the human goodness and love of their fellow man and woman. In the aftermath of the attacks, Americans across our great land, including my home State of West Virginia, volunteered their services. Policemen, firemen, doctors, nurses, steelworkers, construction crews, plumbers, electricians, engineers, including members IOUE's National Hazardous Materials Program based in Beaver, West Virginia. Don Carson, the program's director, and a team of workers from the Beaver facility were among the first out-of-state workers to arrive at Ground Zero immediately after the September 11th terrorist attacks. They and many more giving individuals put their lives on hold to help in the search for the lives of others and to assist in the immense job of rebuilding New York, Washington, DC, Pennsylvania, and the rest of America. But, there was one thing they did not have to rebuild and that was America's resolve. Never had its presence been stronger. We suffered the worst attack on our own soil against civilians that this country has ever experienced, and though the number of lives lost was devastating, the world witnessed America's resolve on that fateful day. Partrick Henry told us in the beginnings of what would be the most powerful Nation in the world, ``United we stand. Divided we fall.'' Americans from all creeds, all religions, all backgrounds, from north to south, east to west, united behind each other that Tuesday morning and for the days that followed, proving Patrick Henry's words true. Though the World Trade Center towers eventually collapsed under great stress from heat and pressure, for the last two years America never waffled. I am proud to be an American today, and I am proud to say that many my fellow West Virginians have given of themselves so much to those who suffered two years ago and who still feel the pain of loss. We have stood together in the face of great, unspeakable tragedy and we will continue to stand together in the face of triumph. May God bless this great Nation, and give us the strength to serve his will.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. The issue at hand is relatively simple. The transportation enhancement program is about our communities and the enhancement and the empowerment of localities. As a Member who has served on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for going on 27 years now, and a former chairman as well as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Highways, I can recall that this was somewhat of a radical proposal when we adopted it back in 1991. Prior to that, Federal highway legislation was largely viewed as the bastion of the States, highway contractors, asphalt, cement and steel manufacturers. The enhancement program transcended those interests and brought a relatively small portion of a State's annual Federal highway apportionment directly to local communities for local community projects. As I have said, a somewhat radical proposal perhaps in 1991, but certainly not today, which is why after this program has worked so well over these past 12 years, it is odd that it is suddenly under attack. Every Member of this body has a community where the lifestyle of its people have been enhanced by this program, where people have been drawn closer together and the old-fashioned American values are again flourishing as a result of enhancement projects. In Princeton, West Virginia, for example, the community is being revitalized, partly as a result of a railroad museum partially funded under this program. In Milton, West Virginia, a historic covered bridge, cherished by the community, was rehabilitated under this program. And throughout the State, rails-to-trails, bike and pedestrian facilities, safety projects, and scenic beautification initiatives are enhancing the quality of life. I am sure as we have already heard that all Members of this body have similar projects in their districts, projects that serve local communities, provide for families and children and which deliver so much in the way of benefits for relatively small cost. I say let us stay the course. Vote for the Petri-Olver amendment. If changes are really needed to be made in this program, let us consider them in the normal legislative process as part of the TEA-21 reauthorization rather than going through the back door approach taken by the pending legislation. So I urge support of the pending amendment.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join our colleague Congressman Mark Udall in introducing the ``American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act Amendments Act of 2003.'' This bill is a sound proposal for the reform of the management of assets and funds held in trust by the United States for individual Indians and federally recognized Indian tribes. For well over a century the Federal Government has been the trustee of funds generated from leases on Indian lands. For almost as long, the Federal Government has been charged with mismanaging these funds. To this day tribal and individual Indian account holders cannot be assured that the balances the Department of Interior claims are in their accounts are accurate. Much attention has been given to the Cobell v. Norton class action lawsuit which was filed in 1996 on behalf of some 300,000 individual Indian money account holders. But regardless of what happens in this case, the current management and administration of Indian trust lands and trust funds by the Department of the Interior (DOI) is inadequate and must be reformed. Enactment of this bill would elevate trust fund management within DOI, affirm trust standards, and ensure Indian tribes have a greater management role over their assets and funds. These are all elements needed for reform of the system as determined by the Task Force on Trust Fund Reform, the Intertribal Monitoring Association and the National Congress of American Indians. I commend Mr. Udall for introducing this important bill and thereby starting the trust fund reform discussion in the House of Representatives. I remain open to other legislative proposals and am committed to working with Indian country towards true reform and protection of Indian trust funds.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, on August 26, Mrs. Florine Warden will be celebrating her 85th birthday. Her story is one of success. From the coalfields of West Virginia she has endlessly battled to preserve the liberties of her community. As her birthday approaches I wish to thank Mrs. Warden for the extraordinary effort she has put into our State. Thomas Jefferson once said, ``none deserve better than those who contribute to the amelioration of that form (government).'' Mrs. Warden's life has been one of great service and citizenship. She has dedicated her life to voicing her opinion and striving to improve our form of government. Those who reside in Southern West Virginia know of her unwavering dedication to encouraging others to become active citizens. She has fought diligently on the political battlefield at the grassroots level. She brings a special enthusiasm to her community and the State of West Virginia. She has donated her time to improve and enhance our political process. Mrs. Warden has spent countless hours working for the underprivileged. From picket lines to food drives, Mrs. Warden is a force for the less fortunate. She has sought to better her community by working as a booster for local high schools and colleges. This amazing woman has also devoted her time to the West Virginian Department of Highways, as well as the Department of Natural Resources. She has worked for the State, but more importantly for the people of West Virginia, which she cares for so dearly. She has worked tirelessly for the United Mine Workers of America. She is the true embodiment of the Mother Jones's mantra, ``Mourn the dead, and fight like hell for the living.'' Mrs. Warden's hard work has not gone unnoticed. Her many honors include the Distinguished West Virginian Award, the Beautification Award ``Make West Virginia Shine,'' and an induction into the Democrat Hall of Fame. Just last year I was at hand when Mrs. Warden was presented the labor award in the 17th Annual Celebrate Women Awards. With these awards, the word of her hard work has spread from Southern West Virginia to the rest of the State, and across our great Nation. In her amazing eighty-five years, she has been dedicated to promoting labor services in West Virginia and with her hard work she is irreplaceable in the political world. She has continually fought for the betterment of our form of government. I agree with Mr. Jefferson and feel that none deserve better than Mrs. Warden.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. RAHALL. I stand corrected. Anyway, the effort to fight the true terrorists, al Qaeda, would be harmed by the passage of this amendment. The Saudis have helped us, as have the Syrians; and that is the reason I brought up the other countries I thought were targeted as well, have helped us especially, since 9/11, in the fight against the true terrorists, al Qaeda. These countries get the message. They do not need the Congress to pass amendments of this nature or resolutions that go out that are nothing more than chest-thumping measures. These countries are getting the message already. They have gotten it since 9/11. For us to go out and to humiliate them publicly, as this amendment would do to the Saudis, is only going to cause them to become more stubborn. That is human nature. Any of us in this body if we are attacked publicly, are we likely to succumb the next moment, the next day and agree to that public trashing? I think not. We rather become more stubborn. That is part of human nature. That is what we are dealing with here. I believe this administration and their opposition to this amendment is on the right track. I also happen to agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin: let us make sure that the majority party has their votes on the board in opposition to this amendment, in support of their President, in support of the fight against terrorism, the true terrorists, al Qaeda. Let us make sure that we are in this together, in opposition to this amendment, because we are in the fight against terrorism together, wherever, by whomever it occurs. And if we want to see a comprehensive peace truly stand a chance in the Middle East, let us give this administration, let us give this President the tools with which to fight, the tools with which to show the participants in the area, to show all the players, friends and foes alike, that America means business about a comprehensive peace and that we are not going to take actions in this body that would undermine those efforts of this administration. I urge opposition to the gentleman from New York's amendment.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and in agreement with the gentleman from New York who has just spoken. I also want to compliment the chairman of the subcommittee for his very factual and very precise statement in opposition to this amendment. The Saudis have helped the United States in the first Gulf War, and while they may not have been out in front in the latest attempt to dislodge Saddam Hussein, they certainly did not get in America's way. So I hope those that were supportive of the war in this body will recall that the Saudis did not in any way put themselves out to hurt America's efforts in the latest Iraq war. I also support President Bush's road map to peace. I think he will show the same courage in enacting this road map to peace that he showed in dislodging Saddam Hussein. The actions of this body often send messages across the world. The gentleman from Arizona is perfectly right and several of my other colleagues. It is not about money. This amendment is not about money. It is about the message that this body sends. I have been one like many of my colleagues that have traveled the Middle East rather extensively, but I perhaps have spoken out on this floor more often than not for a more balanced policy in the Middle East, for what is in America's best interest in that region, which sometimes gets overlooked, in my opinion, when it comes to votes of this nature. This amendment would send the wrong message today. It would send a wrong message for those that support a peace in the Middle East, a just and comprehensive peace. The Saudis have been targeted for all the debate thus far; but as I heard the amendment explained by the gentleman from New York, there are other countries on this list as well. I think I heard Syria mentioned.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Resources for yielding me this time. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and I plan to offer an amendment soon dealing with an issue involving Yellowstone National Park. This morning, two Members who are in the majority are quoted as complaining in a newspaper report that we are being unfair because this matter should be debated in the Committee on Resources rather than as a rider to an appropriations bill. I would note that we in the minority are forced to use this tactic. We are in the minority. The majority will not give our issue the time of day in the Committee on Resources. The Members making this allegation should know better. They are in the majority. They know that the Committee on Resources will not hear or consider our issues. The situation is different with this particular amendment from the gentleman from California. He had every opportunity for the Committee on Resources to consider this matter. In fact, the bill was scheduled for committee consideration this past Tuesday. The chairman of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), scheduled his bill; yet he came to the committee and had it withdrawn. So I am going to vote against this amendment, and I am voting against it on the process that is being used. Perhaps then those two Members who took issue with my amendment and the amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey and the tactics that were used will recognize there is a difference. So we are being forced to offer amendments to an appropriations bill because we are not in the majority.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment today to halt the slaughter of bison in Yellowstone National Park. The bison is a symbol of America. Like the monuments on our National Mall or the dome on this Capitol building, the bison is an American icon. These magnificent beasts are woven into the fabric of our culture, not to mention being sewn onto the fabric of every uniform worn by an employee of the Department of Interior. After a century of wanton slaughter, we have a small herd in Yellowstone National Park, the last remaining example of the purebred, free-roaming bison left in this country. Is it any wonder then that the American public looks on in horror at footage of employees of the United States Department of Interior participating in the slaughter of Yellowstone bison? The general public is under the impression that these animals are being sheltered and protected by the Federal Government, not rounded up and shot. But the numbers tell the awful story: This year alone, the Department of Interior participated in the slaughter of 244 Yellowstone bison. On average over the last decade, 250 of these wild animals have been shipped off to slaughter or shot on site every year. The obvious question is why? Why is the Department of Interior murdering its beloved mascot? Should this picture be the new seal of the leading conservation agency in this country? Instead of a bison standing tall and proud on the seal of the Department of Interior, it is indeed dead, on its back, legs standing stiffly in the air. The reason these bison are being slaughtered lies in the Department's decision to pander to a single State's deadly approach to wildlife management. During the harsh winter months, bison migrate out of Yellowstone National Park to lower elevations in a desperate attempt to avoid starving to death. Once they leave the park, they can come into cattle grazing on public and private land; and some of the bison may carry a disease which can be dangerous to cows. But here is the critical point: The transfer of this disease from bison to cattle has never happened in the wild. Never happened. Yet one State and only one which borders Yellowstone insists that the only means to deal with a theoretical possibility that it might happen is to pursue an automatic death sentence for any bison that steps one hoof onto the invisible park boundary. Talk about using a sledgehammer to kill a flea. Under current policy, simply being a bison in Montana is a capital crime, punishable by death. Perhaps most shocking of all is that most of the bison are not even tested, not even tested to see if they actually carry the disease before they are being sent to their deaths. The truth is, this State is caught in a time warp. Despite the fact that we have entered a new millennium, this particular State is still pursuing wildlife management policies that were popular in the 1800s. Moreover, this State has demanded and the Department of Interior has agreed to help this State implement its approach to wildlife management by helping them shoot bison. That must stop. The National Park Service is one of the foremost conservation agencies in the world. It should not be required to kill the very wildlife they are sworn to protect. If adopted, this amendment will prohibit the use of any funds in this bill to kill or assist others in killing these magnificent animals. This is a very narrow amendment. If Montana wants to continue to slaughter bison as if they were still living in the old West, this amendment will not stop them. However, the Federal agencies funded in this bill, agencies with a conservation mandate, will not help them do their dirty work. The Federal conservation agencies funded in this bill will continue working within the existing bison management plan to address the theoretical threat of disease through hazing and capture of bison, through development of a vaccine for both cattle and bison, and through the use of other tools. But the tools they use will no longer be lethal. This is a very simple amendment. Members either support slaughtering Yellowstone bison or they do not. We know the American people do not support the slaughter of this icon of America, just as they would not support the slaughter of the bald eagle. There is no good reason for this killing, and I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, the fight over the use of snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park has raged on for more than a decade. In the most recent round, the National Park Service found that these machines impair park resources, a finding which required a ban on this activity. Only days after taking office, President Bush shelved the ban and requested a new environmental assessment of the issue. So 2 years and 2.4 million tax dollars later, the new study came out; and, lo and behold, that study reached the same conclusions. Snowmobiles are bad for Yellowstone. Not to be deterred by the facts, however, the Bush administration has pursued not a ban but rather increased snowmobile use in the park and is set to issue new rules to implement this policy any day now. The fact that the administration is allowing public natural resources to be abused of course is not news. Virtually every environmental policy developed by this administration is crafted to benefit one industry or another. However, the Bush snowmobile policy is particularly devastating because it threatens not only Yellowstone's bison and bald eagles but also the entire process of environmental regulation. To wake up one morning in the Bush White House and decide to toss this policy out the window is not just wrong, it is dangerous. Determining how best to protect the crown jewel of our National Park System is not sandlot football. You just cannot call for a ``do over'' if you do not like the way the game turned out. Either 78 decibels worth of noise harms wildlife in the park or it does not. Either discharging gasoline and motor oil directly into ground water harms the park or it does not. These are fundamental scientific questions that were answered through a careful and standardized policy-making process twice, twice. Deciding to change the answers or ignore them will have devastating consequences. If the Bush snowmobile policy stands, it threatens not only the park and its resources but also the public's confidence in our park system, our park service and our entire system of environmental protections. Like the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and several of our colleagues, I have visited Yellowstone. During the winter, I have experienced firsthand the devastating effect snowmobiles have on the park. I did not like what I smelled. I did not like what I heard. I did not like what I saw. Indeed, that evening I was having dreams, rather, I should say nightmares, of the Daytona Speedway as I went to bed. If the administration is not willing to uphold and defend the law, those of us in Congress who love Yellowstone must act. We must act to preserve Yellowstone but also to preserve the faith that the American people have in our stewardship of the national parks. This is not anti- snowmobile. This is pro-Yellowstone. It is pro-protection for one of the crown jewels of our American park system. I urge support of the amendment.