Nick Rahall

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Udall Amendment to stop the giveaway of important public resources. It seems that the giveaway of public lands is not just limited to the 1872 Mining Law. How ironic is it that we have a provision from another mining law--this one from 1866--that is being used to swindle the American public out of their public lands. We have people and organizations out there that are trying to take advantage of a law enacted 137 years ago that was so antiquated that Congress repealed it in 1976. Let us be clear on this outdated and repealed law that is known as RS 2477. It is a land grab. This is not about clearing up legitimate claims to roads that you or l or the American public would recognize. It is about bulldozing new roads across unspoiled public lands. Cowpaths and trails that begin and end nowhere are being claimed as roads and Interior Secretary Norton and her Department are attempting to use new regulations for previously noncontroversial Disclaimers of Interest to breathe life into RS 2477 and facilitate a public land grab. When then Interior Secretary Babbitt tried to develop a clear, common sense settlement to the RS 2477 issue in the 1990's, Republicans would have none of it and pushed through a legislative moratorium that remains in effect today on any regulations pertaining to RS 2477. However, Secretary Norton and her Department have chosen to ignore the law and press ahead with these new regulations on Disclaimers of Interest. Disobedience of the law and secret backroom deals; that has been the legacy of this administration on RS 2477. It's time we put a stop to the unwarranted and unjustified giveaway of public assets. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Udall amendment.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment. He has eloquently described the effort here, as well as has the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), a gentleman who does not get up on every amendment which has been offered today, but he has spoken strongly in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from New Mexico. I remind my colleagues regarding a letter cosigned by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and myself and some 100 other Members of the House to the President in March of this year. We wrote expressing our deep concern with the scope and the breadth of the initiatives undertaken by this administration. The cumulative effect of all of these proposals are to undermine or eliminate open decisionmaking, as we have already heard today, to eliminate accountability, eliminate resource protection, and limit opportunities for public and scientific input as well. On November 27, 2002, this administration proposed a NFMA planning role that renders the public process virtually meaningless, and that is what this amendment attempts to restore, public input and protection of our resources so every area is not just opened up for willy-nilly use or multiple use of our forest lands. I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me say once again that the bison is an American icon. In my own home State of West Virginia, at Marshall University, the football team's mascot is the bison. They are the Thundering Herd. Nobody slaughters that Thundering Herd just as nobody should slaughter the Yellowstone herd. Are there alternatives? Yes. There are alternatives for dealing with diseased bison. It is not that difficult. Contrary to what the State claims, it does not require shooting them. We support continuing efforts to keep bison from having any contact with cows through the use of hazing and capturing bison when necessary. We support continued and improved testing to determine precisely how many bison actually have the disease. We support allowing bison which test positive to be quarantined either within the park or on any of the many Indian reservations where a tribe has contacted the Secretary volunteering to take possession of bison. All of these activities and more are allowed under the Rahall amendment. The only thing that is prohibited is killing these animals. As far as the counter to our claim that there has never been a documented instance of a cow catching the disease from a bison, in the wild, it has never happened. I stress what we are saying here is in the wild. It is only a theory. If this concern were indeed serious, then bison would not be allowed to cross the southern park boundary and mingle with cattle in Wyoming, nor would elk, which also carry this disease, be allowed to leave the park and mingle with the cattle in Montana and Wyoming. None of this has led to an outbreak. The numbers regarding how many bison have the disease are inflated and unproven because under current practice most of them are not even tested before they are slaughtered. No one really knows how many bison have this disease. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me say that the Department of the Interior should not be out slaughtering an animal that they are in charge of protecting. This is not a difficult problem with which to deal. There are alternatives available. This amendment allows those alternatives to be pursued. The American bison is to our culture just like the bald eagle is the very icon of our American way of life. Let us protect that icon, and let us stop the slaughter of bison in Yellowstone. I urge the adoption of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, the American people have been misled. Just like the telephone salesman who interrupts our dinner hour with an offer that is too good to be true, the Bush administration has sold the American people a tax cut by withholding some very important facts. One of those facts is that, in order to subsidize rebate checks for people who live on estates which cover vast stretches of private land, the Bush administration now has to slash funding that would have gone to protect vast stretches of public land. Spending on Land and Water Conservation Fund programs, which is authorized at the level of $900 million, totals less than $200 million in the bill that is currently before us. Funding that would improve and expand wildlife refuges, national parks and national forests is all being sacrificed at the altar of tax relief for the rich. What is more, the Bush administration, along with the majority here in this House, fails to provide these funds even though half the money goes directly to States for conservation and recreation purposes. Gutting these conservation programs shatters an agreement made by this Congress just 3 short years ago when the Land Conservation, Preservation and Infrastructure Trust Fund was created as part of the Interior bill. It should be noted that there is one exception in this bill to the majority's desire to slash and burn conservation funding. This appropriation bill would authorize a new national heritage area. This new heritage area has not even been studied by the National Park Service. It would simply be designated, and it is by no means a small designation as it would stretch over 25 counties in North Carolina and be authorized to receive $10 million in Federal funding over 10 years. It had been my understanding that some in the majority, including the Committee on Resources chairman, opposed creation of any new heritage areas based on private property concerns; and, indeed, there are scores of Members, Republicans and Democrats alike, who are asking the Committee on Resources to consider heritage area legislation. As such, I can only come to the conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that the inclusion of this new heritage area in this new Interior appropriations bill means that those concerns over private property rights have been addressed, and we look forward to the timely consideration of all of the heritage proposals that are now pending before this Congress. Except for this one bright spot, however, the cuts of conservation spending contained in this bill are unacceptable. The American people should know that the national park they visit this summer is not being protected because there will be no funds to conserve park lands, and the American people should know that the conservation and recreation programs planned by their governor will have to be abandoned because the Federal Government would not come through with the matching funds. I urge a no vote on the rule and a no on the previous question.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate what the gentlemen are stating. In response to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), there is funding for these PDMs. Research and development is provided elsewhere in the Department of Labor budget. It is under the budget for NIOSH. In regard to what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) have said, MSHA did not suspend the proposed rule. I know what they stated. They stated they were suspending the proposed rule in a press release. That is not the case. The notice of this action in the Federal Register, and that is what counts, what is said in the Federal Register, the notice of this action in the Federal Register simply notes that the Agency was keeping the comment period open until further notice. It is not stated as a suspension in the Federal Register. What MSHA said in a press release does not match the facts, the reality, on the other hand as it appeared in the Federal Register. So it is not a suspension. There is no legal basis for suspending a proposed rule, and it cannot be done. In its guide for Federal agencies, the Office of the Federal Register advises that the term ``suspend'' applies only to blocking enforcement of existing final rules. The term does not apply to proposed rules. When agencies want to halt action on proposed rules, according to the guide, they withdraw the rules; and that has not occurred here. These proposed rules have not been withdrawn, and that is why my amendment is seeking to force the issue. In regard to further research and development into the PDMs, as I clearly stated in my opening comments on this amendment, I am in no way blocking continued research and development into the development of these PDMs. Both the unions and the companies want this research to continue. My amendment does not block that research. The amendment blocks MSHA from finalizing the proposed rule. It does not restrict MSHA from engaging in any other activity related to the proposed rule other than making it final. Second, there is nothing in the proposed rule that involves funding R&D into PDMs. The proposed rule does not contain funding, and if made final would not provide funds for PDM deployment. So for that reason I think my amendment is on solid ground, and I would urge the adoption thereof. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

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

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume; and I do offer an amendment, which is printed in the Record as No. 6. Mr. Chairman, I rise in recognition this afternoon of the ultimate sacrifice that thousands of our Nation's coal miners who have perished from the crippling disease known as pneumoconiosis, or black lung, have made to the energy security of this Nation. Today, I rise to extend condolences to the families of coal miners who died as a result of years of inhaling coal dust in our Nation's mines. Today, I rise to give hope to those who on this day descend deep into the Earth to produce a coal which fostered the industrial revolution in this country and which now fires the technological revolution. I rise in humble gratitude to them, and I say, thank you. And I rise in anger as well, Mr. Chairman, because despite the fact that the Congress in 1969 passed landmark legislation to put an end to black lung disease contracted over years of inhaling respirable coal dust in the mines, annually around 1,400 miners still perish from this disease. Yet this administration, the Bush administration, incredibly has proposed a regulation which would allow a fourfold increase of respirable dust in the coal mines. If made final, that regulation would directly translate into more deaths among our Nation's coal miners. I have asked that this proposed regulation be withdrawn. The United Mine Workers of America have asked that it be withdrawn. Hundreds, if not thousands, of rank-and-file miners across this country have asked that these regulations be withdrawn. In response, the administration has simply extended the public comment period. It is not going to withdraw these regulations. And why would it when the Assistant Secretary of Labor in charge of this issue was the very person who petitioned for these regulations when he served in the private sector? Imagine that. Today I hope to give the coal miners a fighting chance by offering this amendment to block the Department of Labor from finalizing these ill-conceived proposed regulations. Enough is enough. Over 55,000 coal miners perished from black lung between 1969 and 1990, and still today 1,400 a year pass away as a result of it. The poster to my right clearly illustrates what a coal miner faces from black lung. To the left is a healthy lung tissue. On the right, the far right, is a tissue sample of a 40-year-old coal miner. Compare that to the sample in the middle of a 90-year-old person. To quote from the Louisville Courier-Journal which once described this disease in this manner, ``It is as if the Titanic sank every year, and no ships came to the rescue. While that long-ago disaster continues to fascinate the Nation, the miners slip into cold, early graves almost unnoticed.'' This amendment would prohibit the Department of Labor from finalizing these proposed rules while allowing continued research and development on devices such as personal dust monitors. I want to emphasize that last point. This amendment still allows the continued research and development on devices supported by both the industry and the union known as PDMs, or personal dust monitors. I am not stopping research and development of those devices from continuing. The intent of this amendment is to cause MSHA to withdraw the proposed rule and repromulgate it in accordance with the letter and intent of the Mine Safety Act in order to improve the dust sampling and compliance regulatory program. I urge a yes vote on the Rahall amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement by The Chairman

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I do. The Department of Labor's March 6 Federal Register notice publishing these proposed rules notes that Energy West petitioned the Secretary of Labor on this matter during September 1997 and states on page 10800, ``This proposed rule responds to Energy West's petition for rulemaking.'' We obtained a copy of the petition, which I have right in front of me, and lo and behold, it is signed by David Lauriski in his then- capacity as general manager of Energy West.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio is correct. The Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Health and Safety, David Lauriski, was the general manager of a coal company known as Energy West, and was the very person who filed in September 1997 a petition asking for the rulemaking he is now in charge of administering.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I cannot allow obfuscation or dilatory diversion tactics from some in the majority to go unanswered. This is about increasing by four-fold the dust level in our Nation's coal mines, further putting coal miners at risk of losing their lives. The gentleman that just responded obviously was not listening to my previous two comments. These proposed rules have not been suspended, as MSHA said in a press release, because I have the Federal Register right here in front of me which says exactly the opposite of what their own press release said. So the question here is about protecting some of the bravest souls in America who are laboring deep underground to produce our Nation's coal which provides over 50 percent of our electricity. It is not about trying to defend some former company official who is now at the Department of Labor in charge of this exact same rulemaking that he tried to change when he was in the private sector. This is about increasing by four-fold the amount of dust levels in our Nation's coal mines, not what was intended by any act that this Congress has ever passed. It is a tragedy. It angers me, and here a gentleman from some other region of the country that I am sure does not have many coal mines in his district to come to the floor and make such defense of such defenseless acts of this administration is truly incomprehensible. It is mind boggling, and to see him make such comments and then walk off the floor without even hearing and obviously was not even here to hear the previous rebuttal to what the charges he is making that were handed to him by some coal company downtown. It is absolutely mind boggling that some of the majority would try to pull the wool over the American people's eyes. I would hope that those who have any comprehension of what it is like in our Nation's coal mines, who have ever visited a coal mine, who have ever talked to a coal miner and looked into his eyes will vote for this Rahall amendment to further protect him from this administration.

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

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, alumni of Woodrow Wilson High School Class of 1958 will congregate in Beckley, West Virginia. They gather to celebrate the 45 years passing after the graduation of 343 students. My alma matter, Woodrow Wilson High School, so named in 1917, traces its roots to July 13, 1900. The school mascot is a flying bald eagle and the enrollment of the school is identified as the Flying Eagles. As the bald eagle is a majestic bird, it is also an independent creature. Eagles nest but they do not flock. It was therefore preordained that the alumni of this school separate and spread to the four corners of our great Nation and beyond. The year 1958 represents a very different time with American citizens living under different standards. The Universal Military Training Act defined one of those standards. Under this Act, able-bodied male citizens past the age of 18 years were subject to six years of military training and duty. The United States Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps thereby benefited with the coming of age by Woodrow Wilson alumni. One chapter of the military contribution made by the Class of 1958 can be found in the Vietnam War. West Virginia sacrificed more sons on a per capita basis in the Vietnam War effort than any other state in the Union. Vietnam in wartime was where some 1958 graduates celebrated their 10th year beyond graduation. By the end of the Vietnam War, these alumni had returned to their homes and families, except one. This Flying Eagle was reported as missing-in-action on May 16, 1966, when the AC-47 gun ship he was navigating failed to return from a mission. At the time of his last action, the young man who had interrupted his studies at West Virginia University to serve his country held the rank of 1st Lieutenant in the United States Air Force. When the exchange of prisoners of war took place following the Vietnam War, this airman was not among the repatriated. During the following years, the airman's mother was encouraged by our government not to relinquish hope. She mailed letters and packages for years. None of the letters or packages were either acknowledged or returned. During these same years, the airman received posthumous promotions up to the rank of major. The mystery surrounding this Class of 1958 Flying Eagle was not resolved until November 24, 1999, when his recovered remains were positively identified. His remains, along with the remains of seven additional crewmembers on the ill-fated military aircraft, were obtained from the crash site during three separate collections during 1995, 1996, and 1997. The recovered remains of all eight crewmembers were scant, as the plane had been consumed by flames upon crashing, followed by more than 30 years of deterioration in a jungle environment. During the 34th year following his last day on Earth, this Woodrow Wilson High School alumnus was buried in Arlington National Cemetery, in common with the limited remains of his fellow crewmembers. Every Class of 1958 Woodrow Wilson High School classmate who served honorably in this Nation's Armed Forces gave something, but this one airman gave all for his country and in a greater sense, his family and his classmates. The Woodrow Wilson High School Class of 1958 alumni gathering in Beckley, West Virginia tomorrow wish to honor this classmate, Major George Winton Thompson, by having his name placed in the Congressional Record, as evidence he has yet to be forgotten. I hereby honor that request, as this is the first class reunion that the group has known the outcome of Major Thompson's story.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker today I am introducing legislation to protect the park professionals who ``dedicate their careers to preserving our system of National Parks from the Bush Administration's privatization plan. According to the Bush Administration, the rush to replace National Park Service employees with private-sector subcontractors is a harmless experiment to see if the services provided by thousands of dedicated public servants could be had more cheaply. The Administration claims it is considering only a small number of positions and asserts that taxpayers will see cost savings from this plan. Unfortunately, this is just not the case. The Administration's privatization scheme is so vast, so unwarranted and so clumsy that it threatens to undermine both the National Park Service and the resources it was created to protect. To avoid this, I am introducing legislation to stop the Bush plan. The Administration proposes to privatize approximately 1,700 full- time National Park Service employees by the end of next year. While this number alone is troubling, it is only the beginning. According to The Washington Post, the Administration has identified approximately 70% of the current NPS workforce it feels should be eligible for replacement by private workers. And who are the people the Administration is seeking to replace? According to the Director of the National Park Service, nearly 90% of the men and women potentially eligible for privatization in the Washington, D.C. area are minorities and the numbers in areas such as Santa Fe and San Francisco are similarly lopsided. Making matters worse, the alleged cost savings created by replacing these workers is unproven and unlikely. Despite paying private consultants more than $5 million, or about three thousand dollars per position being considered, not a single study has been produced demonstrating even a nickel in savings. Meanwhile, that $5 million came from funds intended to pay for the operation and maintenance of our National Parks. Of course, the reason no savings can be demonstrated is that there are no savings to be had. This entire scheme is based on the premise that you can build a workforce of dedicated professionals, with the experience, institutional memory and expertise of the National Park Service, for less money. You can't. The description on paper of an NPS employee's job doesn't begin to include all of the services that employee performs on the ground. Visitors don't direct their questions about plants and animals only to NPS biologists nor do they wait to ask questions regarding historic preservation until an NPS historian is available. Wildfires and heart attacks don't happen only when full-time fire fighters or EMTs are on duty. The National Park Service challenges all of its employees, regardless of their actual job titles, to respond to all kinds of visitor needs, and the employees work hard to meet this challenge. This kind of all- out commitment and willingness to pitch in comes from a passionate commitment to your job, a commitment which cannot be bought from the lowest bidder or adequately described in a want ad. What's more, each unit of our National Park System is unique, both in the resources it offers and the challenges it faces. Such richness and diversity defy a ``one-cheapest-size-fits-all'' approach. The best scientific mind to further stabilize the Anasazi ruins at Mesa Verde is not the best person to protect endangered species in the Dry Tortugas. A private corporation, offering the lowest possible salaries, probably can't provide either of these people, much less both of them. The fact is, NPS employees' salaries are scandalously low, their housing is dilapidated and they are frequently asked to pack up their families and move to a park thousands of miles away. These men and women work in the National Park Service because they love National Parks, and the people who visit them, and there is no excess to be wrung from their paychecks. While it is appropriate to seek the lowest bidder for the uniforms they wear or the equipment they use, allowing the lowest bidder to replace their expertise and experience will only cheapen our National Parks. The mission of the National Park Service is resource protection and visitor enjoyment, not profit. To accomplish that mission, the National Park Service needs employees motivated by a love of people and of parks, not of money. The natural, cultural and historic resources contained within our National Parks are too valuable to allow the job of protecting them to be traded on the open market. My legislation will stop this privatization scheme in its tracks and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim the time I yielded back.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished dean of the House the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, do I understand the gentleman correctly that it would be split as it was originally split, 10 minutes and 10 minutes on his side?

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price). (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This has been a good debate, a very healthy debate. There is no doubt that security cooperation needs to be restored between the Palestinians and Israelis. It has worked in the past. The road map now is the way to do it. Several of the speakers today have risen in support of the road map, and they will support this resolution. I cannot even find the word ``road map'' mentioned in this resolution, and that is a major, major problem with it. The economies of both Israelis and the Palestinians are in dire shape. There is no question about it, and this road map, for which I have already commended and continue to salute the President for presenting it, is the way out. Confidence building measures by both sides, coupled with stability and economic development, must occur, and it will help bring back the necessary hope that both sides so desperately need and the trust in one another that is so lacking at the current time. There are obligations of both parties under the road map. This resolution, unfortunately, points only to obligations of Palestinians and insinuates they are not fulfilling those obligations. There are obligations by the Israelis as well that are very clear. Yet they are not stated in this resolution. We must give Prime Minister Abu Mazen, a good friend with whom I have met, the help he needs to fight terrorism and we must not allow civil war among Palestinians to occur. The road map is the way to do that. It will take time. I salute President Bush for his personal involvement, for Secretary of State Powell's involvement, for Condoleezza Rice's involvement via her trip to the region any day now, and I salute our security people, the United States security people, our CIA and others that are on the scene in an effort to help the Palestinians restore security. That takes time. That takes patience and that takes an opportunity, that we must give and Israelis must give the Palestinians to create that security that is so vital to bring peace to this area. I am not going to urge my colleagues to vote one way or another on this resolution. They can make up their own minds, but each colleague I would say has to look in his or her conscience and has to determine in their best opinion what is in the United States' best interests in promoting the road map to peace in the Middle East. Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me correct something in which I may have misspoke earlier when we were talking about an extension of time on all sides and I said that perhaps that was the only area in which the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), my good friend, and I agreed. That is not the case. It was a misstatement on my part, and I do correct it, because as he has stated and as we have discussed on numerous occasions throughout our careers in this body, we perhaps see eye-to-eye on 95 percent of the issues involved in this particular area and in the Middle East. We certainly agree on the need to stop the violence. We agree on the need to end the terrorism. We agree on the strong Israeli- U.S. relationship that must always be maintained. And we certainly agree on the need for peace for all people in the region. I must respond to some comments that were made by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip of the House. He spoke quite eloquently about all of the Israeli deaths, as does this resolution refer to those numbers as well. But I never once heard the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) mention any type of sympathy for the innocent Palestinian deaths that have occurred since the Aqaba summit alone. The resolution mentions the 22 Israelis killed, but fails to mention the 55 Palestinians killed, the 258 Palestinians injured just since the Aqaba summit. Five ambulances have been destroyed; 33 houses have been demolished and 236 damaged; 7,116 trees uprooted; 328,000 meters of cultivated land have been destroyed; 500,000 meters of land confiscated for illegal settlement; 67 private businesses destroyed; water and irrigation pipes destroyed; homes demolished; people detained, as we saw in this morning's press. All of these actions have occurred since the Aqaba Summit against innocent Palestinians, so it is that perspective that this resolution so much fails to mention. I would say as well in calling upon both sides to agree with what they set upon at the Aqaba Summit, yes, there have been some illegal outposts, perhaps a flag here or a pole here that has been dismantled by the Israelis. But according to Israeli sources and journalists, 12 new outposts have been constructed since the Aqaba Summit, and there are rumored to have been five additional ones yet to be discovered. This has happened since the Aqaba Summit. I would remind the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) that a recent poll of Christian conservatives here in the United States found that 78 percent of the Christian conservatives in this country support President Bush's vision for Middle East peace. So, Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of areas in which all the speakers today have agreed. And certainly that makes some points of this resolution commendable. But, again, in looking at its totality, the resolution lacks in its objectivity. It lacks, Mr. Speaker, in what I term the United States' best interest first. A lot of parallels have been draw today between the Israeli responses to terrorism and Israel's right to defend itself and the United States' global war against terrorism and our fight against al Qaeda. I would say the main question that needs to be asked here is does the Israeli assassination policy, when there is no proven link that those assassinated are ticking time bombs, where there has been nothing judicial pending against them, there has been nothing but allegations of terrorist activity, in those type of assassinations, is that fairness? Does it promote what is justice in the region. Does it promote the United States' best interest in fairness when it is done with what is perceived to be United States approval? Maybe there are some in the Sharon government that compare this to our fight against al Qaeda. But those educated and those that will profess some sense of fairness will view this in a different light and see that that comparison is disingenuous to say the least. Certainly, Israel has the right to defend itself against those ticking time bombs and to prevent terrorist attacks from occurring. The United States has that right to fight the global war on terrorism, to fight al Qaeda whenever and wherever we can. But to make the comparisons between what is happening in the West Bank and Gaza by these Islamic militant groups, to compare them with al Qaeda is stretching it a bit in this gentleman's estimation. We must realize what are the true roots of the al Qaeda and the true roots of why they hate us in the Arab world. Let us look at that response before we determine if we can compare the Israeli fight against terrorism with the United States' fight against al Qaeda. There are many countries in the world that help us in the fight against the true terrorists, which is the al Qaeda network; and it is those countries that we will continue to need their help in our coalition fight against al Qaeda. Mr. Speaker, I do say to all those who are participating in this debate, it has been healthy. It has been what we have needed in this Congress for some time, and I hope that we will have the opportunity to debate this issue many more times. I have demonstrated during this debate the question that many Israelis have about the policies of their government in regard to fighting terrorism, and I think it is just as worthy a debate here in this country as it is in the country of Israel. We have that right in our democratic system. We also have the responsibility in this country to look at actions that we take as Members of Congress and resolutions we pass, to ask first and foremost what is in the best interest of the United States of America. I referred earlier to the cease-fire that has just been announced today and appears to have taken hold. While this resolution does not have the force of law, we must, and we know as Members of this body that every word we utter and every resolution we pass has profound impact across this world. Whether they are actually the words of the law or not, they do send a message. I think this is the wrong message that the United States should be sending at this particular time, this precarious time in the Middle East. Some say this cease-fire is only temporary and it would give the militant a chance to rearm during a 3- month cease-fire. This is the time that the new prime minister with whom the United States has built a relationship, with whom the Israelis have built a relationship, for the newly installed Prime Minister Abu Mazen, who has been in office for less than 2 months, this is the time he needs to gain the political credibility, to gain the support among his own people, to further crack down on the militants without creating a civil war among the Palestinians. Now, perhaps that is the goal of some on the other side, but that is not the goal of the United States; and it should not be the goal of the United States. But, rather, we should give the newly created prime minister, the newly installed prime minister in the Palestinian territories the time, the space, and the opportunity he needs to gather the support he needs to crack down and, indeed, make this cease-fire, however temporary in nature, of a permanent nature. Mr. Speaker, I urge that my colleagues look carefully and hard at this resolution before making up their minds and cast their votes in what in their good conscience they deem to be in the United States' best interest and in the interest of peace in the Middle East. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. I think for once the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and I totally agree on this particular issue. I agree with what he just said about the importance of it. I agree to the extension of time as he has requested.