Nick Rahall

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman from Arizona or the subcommittee aware of any formal requests from the administration for this provision?

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

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, continuing under my reservation, at this time I would like to reserve the option to see how many more speakers may come to the floor.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with the comments he made as far as his word and ability to work with everybody. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot about settling today, and I certainly agree with that. I think we all want to settle this very complicated and very unjust provision that does affect our Native Americans. I happen to believe, and the reason I offered this amendment, was that the provision in the pending legislation happens to hamper us in that effort and perhaps even prejudges the outcome of current litigation. My good friend from Washington has suggested that we perhaps work on this between the floor and the conference. And with all due respect, and I know he realizes, there are perhaps some scoping problems if that were to be done. I would suggest as an alternative using the framework of the gentleman from California, using the framework of the gentleman from Washington, whoever else's framework wants to resolve this in a fair manner, that we start with a clean slate. And in order to do that, we have to delete the current provision of the pending legislation. I would note as well that the Department of Interior, as I have already noted in this debate, will never be able to conduct a full historical accounting of these trust fund accounts, and the Department has admitted that to us during hearings before our Committee on Resources. In my opinion, the Department should be sitting down with the plaintiffs in the current Cobell litigation and settle this matter and move on. Something that has been referred to earlier is the lawyers' fees; that this is making the lawyers rich. I would note that the lawyers are working for fees only, no percentages, and I do not believe they could be described as getting rich on this issue. But, instead, I think some in the Department, and again this is not a partisan comment, but it has been occurring over time, have engaged in sleights of hand. They have thought to shuffle the deck chairs and intended to dilute their responsibility, and that is just truly unfair. I would suggest that we delete this provision and allow litigation to come to a proper and fair resolution. And I would note as well that any settlement of this litigation would not be paid for by this appropriation bill; rather, any settlement of this litigation would come out of the Claims and Judgment Fund at the Justice Department, which is set up when the United States loses any legal case, not just in this matter but any others. That is where the settlement would come from. It is not the intention of this gentleman to see this matter drag on any longer than it has. However, I cannot stand idly by while the rights of thousands of citizens are trampled upon by the limitation that is contained in the pending legislation. I think it is a dangerous precedent. It is one we should not be establishing, and especially in these times of widespread accounting scandals in the corporate world. So, in conclusion, we all agree we must settle this, but I fear that the provision in the current legislation would harm our bipartisan efforts to settle this important matter for our Native Americans in a fair manner, and I would urge adoption of the pending amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. I have no problem with 30 minutes. I just wanted to make sure I understood the division of time therein.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I say to my good friend from Washington, and fellow classmate, that I do not believe I was referring to any vague promises.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), a valuable member of our Committee on Resources.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, as the ranking Democrat on the Resources Committee I want to begin by thanking Jim Hansen for his work in getting this important resolution celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico before the House of Representatives. While it is true that Chairman Hansen and I often have a difference of opinion when it comes to issues involving Puerto Rico, on the matter before us today we stand united. I also want to commend the gentleman from Puerto Rico, Mr. Acevedo- Vila, for his diligence in bringing this measure to our attention, and working to have it considered by the House of Representatives in a timely fashion. During my tenure in Congress, I've come to appreciate the passionate deliberations over Puerto Rico's future political status. Anyone who is familiar with this history will recognize how studious one must be in crafting legislation, or otherwise, that makes mention of Puerto Rico's political status. In this regard, I offer my deep appreciation to Mr. Acevedo-Vila for working collaboratively with both Chairman Hansen and myself to compose a nonpartisan and status-neutral resolution recognizing this milestone for Puerto Rico. It is times such as this occasion that we are given good cause to step back and appreciate all that the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States has meant to each other over the years. The U.S. has benefitted from Puerto Rican achievements in business, the arts, government, and athletics. More importantly, the U.S. has been enriched by Puerto Rican history, culture, and language. I would also emphasize the in time of war the people of Puerto Rico have also shed their blood in defense of the United States of America. For her part, Puerto Rico has capitalized on the access to economic opportunities provided to her from the U.S. relationship. The result of this, being a prosperous economy and society. The relationship will be perfected. The determination of the people of Puerto Rico will make it so. I have a special fondness for the people of Puerto Rico. I have found them to be a hard working and diligent people with deep passions. Today, I congratulate the people of Puerto Rico on this anniversary and encourage my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, listen again to the words we will hear this Fourth of July: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'' Given the recent Federal Court ruling about the constitutionality of our pledge of allegiance, will the day come when a Federal Court of these United States will not allow our Declaration of Independence to be read or posted on the walls of our schoolrooms across this land? I pray not. We must always be mindful that the moral fiber of this Nation was built not upon the law of man, but rather upon the law of God. ``The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth,'' said Benjamin Franklin, ``that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice--is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?'' Throughout our Nation's history we have faced many challenges, fought many battles. But from troubled times, we've gained greater victories. To the American, trouble but fuels our soul. Ignites our spirit. Trouble forges our future's strength. September 11th's legacy will be no different. This Fourth of July, let us pause to give thanks to the almighty--to remember, reclaim, and rejoice in our national spirit born of revolution, our national quest. In President Jefferson's first inaugural address, he called us ``A rising nation, spread over a wide and fruitful land, traversing all the seas with the rich productions of their industry . . . advancing rapidly to destinies beyond the reach of mortal eye.'' Mountaineers are always free. We live Jefferson's words. The spirits of Flood ravaged West Virginians fan the flames of future's hope. ``The God who gave us reason,'' Jefferson said, ``did not ask us to forego its use.'' And truly America has taken his words to heart. We pursue life, liberty and happiness in this great Nation with great passion. And so it should be. Next January, our Nation will celebrate the 200th Anniversary of Jefferson's legacy, the Lewis and Clark Expedition, a national quest that has inspired us ever since. Freedom paves the path of our national quest. As we face new economic realities in West Virginia, we seek not only new industries, but also new economies. From new infrastructure to new technologies, we are working to build a new and brighter West Virginia. As we face the war on terrorism, we grieve for the terrible toll it has already taken, the lives of West Virginia's precious sons and daughters. Let us remember that their sacrifice was for our quest not to falter or to fail, but rather to set sail and soar. The rights for which our founding fathers and mothers so valiantly pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honors--and might I add they did so, and I quote, ``with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence,''--require the same from us in times of peace--and in times of war. Jefferson's last letter, which was read on July 4th 1826 in Washington, DC, the day he would pass from this earth--concluded, ``For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights and an undiminished devotion to them.'' Our national quest shall endure. We remain a rising nation. The Fourth of July is our constant reminder, and the good Lord, our constant strength, despite what any court, judge, or jurisdiction of this government says to the contrary.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), our friend, for yielding time to me. I do rise in support of this motion. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, it is time to enact a new national energy policy for the 21st century, but not, not, at the price of dipping into Social Security and Medicare to finance tax breaks for major oil companies. And that is exactly what the Republican-sponsored House energy bill would do through its lavish tax and royalty relief provisions for large oil companies. This is not just political rhetoric. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the House version will provide $35 billion in tax breaks. There is no offset provided and, of course, there are no budget surpluses to pay for it. Let me point out that one provision in the House bill would let companies that want to drill for oil and gas in the Federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico forego paying royalties to the American people. Truly a royalty holiday. Under the House bill, a company drilling in Federal waters of between 400 and 800 meters deep can receive, for free, 5 million barrels of oil or gas equivalent. The owners of these resources, the American people, guess what they get? Zero. Zero. Zilch. It gets even sweeter. Nine million barrels of oil or gas equivalent for drilling in waters between 800 to 1,600 meters for free. If they drill deeper, they get a whopping 12 million barrels of oil or gas equivalent for free. Oil production in the Gulf of Mexico has soared by 65 percent over the last 8 years, with gas production in deep Gulf of Mexico waters increasing by 80 percent in the past 2 years alone. At a time when the Gulf of Mexico is booming in such a way, I do not feel that we need to give more oil and gas away to encourage the industry to drill. In conclusion, executives of major oil companies will simply love the House energy bill. But a plain folk, a person who pays for gas for their vehicle, would have to wonder why they should be gouged twice: at the pump and at the U.S. Treasury. Mr. Speaker, vote for this motion. Vote for our constituents' interest and not the special interests. I commend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for offering the motion to instruct, and urge bipartisan support.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I understand the bipartisan fashion in which he speaks. The clean coal language in the bill, while I am not detracting from the use of clean coal technology, I do not cosponsor this particular provision. It happened to come out of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, not the Committee on Resources. I might also say to the gentleman, that the coal that happens to come from my particular region of southern West Virginia is already clean coal. Clean coal technologies are fine, and I do not speak against them, but we do not have to apply those technologies to the coal that comes out of southern West Virginia and eastern Kentucky, which is some of the cleanest burning coal, low sulfur content, high btu.

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

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I hope the gentleman does not forget about his lignite coal in his home State of Texas.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, a memorial service honoring the work and achievements of Hala Salaam Maksoud will be held on Wednesday, June 5 at Georgetown University. Hala Maksoud was a great champion for civil rights and human rights. It was truly a sad day on Friday, April 26, 2002, when she lost her hard-fought battle with cancer. Hala Maksoud was a passionate and vital advocate for Arab American concerns. As president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) from 1996-2001, she helped propel the concerns of Arab Americans to the forefront of our national debates. She led ADC in combating defamation and negative stereotyping of Arab Americans in the media and wherever else it is practiced. Her commitment to defending the rights of Arab Americans and promoting Arab-American cultural heritage was not only visionary but necessary. I would like to share with my colleagues the ADC Press Release mourning the loss of Hala Salaam Maksoud. [From ADC Press Release, Apr. 26, 2002.] ADC Mourns Loss of Hala Salaam Maksoud It is with a profound sense of loss and sadness that the Board of Directors and the national office staff of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) mourn the passing of Dr. Hala Salaam Maksoud, who died today after a long illness. Funeral arrangements will be announced by the family after they are finalized. One of the most influential and important leaders in ADC's history, Dr. Maksoud served as ADC President from 1996 to 2001. Dr. Maksoud had been actively involved with ADC since its inception in 1980, and was a member of the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors for many years. Dr. Maksoud held a Ph.D. in political theory and an M.A. in government from Georgetown University, and an M.A. in mathematics from the American University of Beirut. She taught courses at George Mason University and at Georgetown. In addition to her academic career, Dr. Maksoud was a prominent Arab-American leader and participated in the founding of several organizations, including the American Committee on Jerusalem, the Association of Arab-American University Graduates, and the Arab Women's Council. Dr. Maksoud was a nationally recognized advocate of civil and human rights, and was the recipient of a lifetime achievement award from the American Immigration Law Foundation in March 2002. Dr. Maksoud is survived by her husband, Dr. Clovis Maksoud, former Ambassador of the League of Arab States to the United States and the United Nations, and current professor of international relations at American University. ADC President Ziad Asali said ``this is a devastating loss for the entire Arab-American community, as well as for me personally. Hala was a visionary leader who charted a path to empowerment we will be following for many years to come. Her extraordinary command of politics was matched by exceptional compassion and a genuine commitment to human rights. She had a remarkable ability to communicate effectively with and inspire people of very different cultural and political backgrounds and across lines of religion and social class. Leaders of Hala's caliber are exceedingly rare and we shall miss her guidance and wise counsel. Our task now at ADC is to try to live up to the standard she set for us all.''

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, Today I am introducing legislation which I have sponsored in one form or another since 1991 to reform the Mining Law of 1872. Last Friday was the 130th anniversary of the May 10, 1872, date President Grant signed into law the legislation that became known as the Mining Law of 1872. I first introduced reform legislation in 1991, during the 102nd Congress. And today, along with our colleagues Chris Shays, George Miller, Ed Markey, Ron Kind, Jay Inslee, Tom Udall, Mark Udall, Frank Pallone and Eni Faleomavaega, will reintroduce a comprehensive reform measure once again. Having been at it for over a decade, without gaining enactment of a bill, a logical reaction would be a sense of frustration. However, I do take heart in the fact that the effort to reform the Mining Law of 1872 started just seven years after its enactment, in an 1879 recommendation of the first major Public Land Commission established by the Congress. In relative terms, I have been at it a short period of time. Certainly, the mining law has withstood countless reform efforts over its 130-year history. Its privileges--and it is a privilege to be deemed the highest and best use of public domain lands--have been protected by some powerful forces. These are the folks who benefit from the production of valuable hardrock minerals such as gold, silver and copper from federal public domain lands without paying a royalty to the American public. They are those who benefit from the hodgepodge of State regulation governing the reclamation of these federal lands and the lack of suitable environmental safeguards to protect the American public and the lands which we all own. Yet there are others, others who will view the introduction of our reform legislation as a ray of hope. They are those who are concerned that in the dawn of the 21st Century the United States still actually allows multinational conglomerates to mine valuable minerals from our federal lands for free. They are those, countless citizens, who live in the vicinity of these operations who must contend with a legacy of maimed landscapes and polluted streams. The bill we are introducing today is similar to the measure which passed the House of Representatives by a three-to-one margin during the 103rd Congress. Unfortunately, a House-Senate Conference Committee in 1994 failed to arrive at a final product before adjournment. Today, even under a Republican majority I remain convinced that if allowed to proceed to the House floor, this bill or something similar to it would pass the full House of Representatives. In fact, reform proponents have prevailed on every single occasion that an amendment dealing with the Mining Law of 1872 has been offered on the House Floor in recent years, usually within the context of the annual Interior Appropriations measure. For instance, the House has approved amendments to limit the issuance of patents, to limit the number of acreage available for waste disposal under millsite claims, as well as to uphold Clinton-era environmental requirements referred to as the `3809 regulations.' Indeed, perhaps the times are changing. Interior Secretary Norton, while rescinding most of the reforms contained in those `3809 regulations' has endorsed certain reform principles such as the concept of a production royalty and revisions to the patent system. And even the youthful president of the National Mining Association, Jack Gerard, has been discussing reform options as well. The fact of the matter is that the issue of insuring a fair return to the public in exchange for the disposition of public resources, and the issue of properly managing our public domain lands, is neither Republican or Democrat. It is simply one that makes sense if we are to be good stewards of the public domain and meet our responsibilities to the American people. This means that the Mining Law of 1872 must be reformed.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and our ranking member on the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for yielding me the time and for his very kind words. I also join in commending the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman, for his leadership; the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), ranking member; the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the ranking subcommittee member; and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the ranking subcommittee chairman, for their leadership, not only in bringing this legislation to the floor but for last year's invaluable leadership, the last time we did TEA-21, for their leadership in that regard as well. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that H.R. 3694, the Highway Funding Restoration Act, does have broad bipartisan support. It will restore, as we have heard, at least $4.4 billion to the Federal aid to highway program from the amount the administration had requested. These brutal cuts would have sucked the life out of our highway program in southern West Virginia. Keeping our new highway construction and existing road improvements on track is our number one need at this moment. This vital work saves lives and brings new jobs, especially in the southern part of West Virginia, as we are once again experiencing the devastating effects of floods that have ravaged through our area in the last couple of weeks. We have $18 billion sitting in the Highway Trust Fund. If anything, we need to pour more of it into building the roads our people desperately need, not less. Today, we will set a funding level of $21.7 billion for fiscal year 2003. This will help to ensure that each of the 50 States gets the highway funding they need so they will not have to resort to postponing or canceling highway projects. In West Virginia, we are working on many highway projects to enable our citizens to participate in interstate commerce and to open up West Virginia to new business opportunities, including the Coalfields Expressway, the King Coal Highway and upgrading the safety of Route 10. The West Virginia DOT cannot afford to lose Federal funds necessary to plan, build and maintain these roads. I know the DOTs in the other 49 States will say the same thing about their highway projects. That is why we have such broad support for this legislation, not only from Members of Congress, but from State governments, highway groups and others around the country. When we wrote TEA-21, we guaranteed a minimum level of spending in the Federal aid to highway program. H.R. 3694 will ensure that the budgetary firewalls are protected. In addition, this bill restores the obligation limits for fiscal year 2003 so Federal highway spending will not be less than $27.7 billion. In West Virginia, we have been working to build jobs through transportation. We also have a strong transportation research center at the Rahall Appalachian Transportation Institute at Marshall University in Huntington, West Virginia, which is one of the University Transportation Centers we established in TEA-21. The bill we will pass today will restore $4.4 billion to the Federal aid highway program. It will protect 180,000 family wage construction jobs. In West Virginia, we will see $45.9 million restored and 3,074 jobs protected. We have 317 bipartisan cosponsors of this legislation because of the tremendous leadership of Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar and because each Member realizes how vital a guaranteed highway funding level is to their respective States in order to secure constituents' jobs in the highway construction industry and to promote a healthy economy. Again, I ask for enactment of this legislation and commend the leadership on both sides of the House.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I do rise in opposition to the rule in its present form and urge Members to vote to defeat the previous question so that amendments to strike anti-environmental riders may be offered. Along with the distinguished dean of the House, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and eight of our colleagues, we filed an amendment to strike the unwise exemptions to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Endangered Species Act, which have been attached to this important bill. Unfortunately, the Committee on Rules did make our amendment in order, even though I am the ranking member of the Committee on Resources, whose jurisdiction has been abused by this bill. This rule adds insult to injury. Not only has Resources been excluded from the process, but meaningful public hearings have not been held on these important issues. Members will be denied a fair opportunity to debate and vote on these important issues under the rule in its present form, but if we defeat the previous question, the amendment to strike these objectionable anti-environmental exemptions may be offered. We should not sanction this bill's sneak attack on our environmental laws. This is not a fair rule, and I ask Members to defeat the previous question. Strike the Anti-Environmental Riders on DOD Authorization Vote To Defeat the Previous Question on the Rule Dear Colleague: We urge you to vote to defeat the previous question on the rule for the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2003 (H.R. 4546) so that amendments may be offered to strike anti-environmental riders. This legislation--while important to our national security and military preparedness--has been misused as a vehicle to bypass committee jurisdiction and public process in order to create unprecedented and unwarranted exemptions to key environmental laws. We would clearly have preferred that Members have the opportunity to vote directly to remove the harmful environmental provisions from H.R. 4546. But the Committee on Rules has refused to give Members that choice. Our amendment, which was cosponsored by eight of our colleagues, would have strategically stricken both section 311 and section 312, which unwisely exempt DoD from compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Endangered Species Act, respectively. Moreover, sweeping changes to these laws are unnecessary: Section 7 of the ESA specifically provides for a national security exemption (which DoD has never invoked) and DoD and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are close to finalizing an administrative agreement to resolve Migratory Bird Treaty Act disputes. In effect, proponents of these anti-environmental riders seek to accomplish through the back door of the Armed Services Committee and a closed rule what they could not through the front door of open public hearings and careful consideration in the regular legislative process. While we fully appreciate the importance of military training and readiness, we also do not think that DoD, in the very limited public process to date, has made the case that exemptions to important and long-standing environmental laws are necessary or that training is greatly impaired because of those laws. In fact, GAO--in a soon to be a released report--will inform Congress that readiness data provided by the military does not indicate that environmental laws or other ``encroachment'' by urbanization has significantly affected training readiness. To the contrary, DoD continues to report high levels of training readiness at almost all units. In our view, the House should not be stampeded into gutting key environmental laws based on illusory and inconclusive allegations by DoD. It defies logic that suddenly we should surrender to demands for new statutory exemptions so that the environment no longer matters to our largest and most powerful federal agency. As longstanding proponents of these critical environmental laws, we urge you to vote ``no'' on the previous question on the rule on H.R. 4546. Sincerely, Nick J. Rahall III, Ranking Democratic Member, Committee on Resources. John D. Dingell, Ranking Democratic Member, Committee Energy and Commerce. migratory bird treaty act (mbta) [section 311 of h.r. 4546] The MBTA of 1918, one of our Nation's oldest and most enduring conservation statutes, sets forth U.S. obligations under the Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds with Canada. It also provides implementing authority for subsequent Conventions with Mexico (1936), Japan (1972) and Russia (1976) which guide the cooperative conservation management of North America's migratory birds. H.R. 4546 would unilaterally exempt military readiness activities from MBTA requirements. This would compromise U.S. international treaty obligations and could establish a negative precedent for other signatory nations to exempt their own activities from such obligations or consider other forms of retaliation. This bill would grant the military an unprecedented, far less-restricted self-regulatory authority. No federal agency or state has such an authority. H.R. 4546 would negatively affect migratory bird management. Removing military readiness and training activities from compliance with the MBTA would likely increase unreported incidental mortalities. Migratory bird population estimates might become far less accurate, the listing of endangered species could increase, and regulated hunting seasons could be delayed or made more restrictive. A legislative ``fix'' is premature and unnecessary. Section 3 of the MBTA provides broad authority to the Secretary of the Interior to determine when the incidental ``taking'' of migratory birds is compatible and to develop regulations within the law's context. In fact, the Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of defense are close to finalizing a Memorandum of Agreement establishing an administrative process to resolve migratory bird disputes. The U.S. has fought in two World War, the Korean War, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf War with the MBTA in place. Since 1916 only one modification of this magnitude occurred (1997) and that was only after 20 years of negotiation. endangered species act (esa) [section 312 of h.r. 4546] The ESA requires, with limited exceptions, the designation of critical habitat for all endangered or threatened species. Federal agencies are required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under section 7 in order to avoid actions that destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. H.R. 4546 would exclude military lands from critical habitat designation under the ESA, if an Integrated Natural Resources Plan (INRMP) has been developed. Blanket legislative exemptions are not needed. Section 7 of the ESA already provides an exemption for any agency action for reasons of national security. According to the USFWS, the Secretary of defense has never sought a section 7 exemption. Critical habitat designation has also been precluded pursuant to ESA,. when concerns about the impacts on military training activities were raised. It is the critical practice of the USFWS to consider excluding areas covered by INRMPs from critical habitat designation if certain conservation criteria are met. Contrary to DoD assertions, the Clinton Administration did not determine that installations with INRMPs were automatically excluded from critical habitat designation. H.R. 4546 would require the USFWS to substitute an INRMP for critical habitat if ``such plan addresses special management considerations or protections'' with no further explanation or definition of this standard. INRMPs do not provide the same level of protection as critical habitat designations. The ESA has been in place since 1973. Our military maintained its readiness throughout the Cold War and trained for and executed Operation Desert Storm in 1991 during the Persian Gulf War with current laws in place.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for yielding me the time. I want to commend the leadership of two of our colleagues from the State of Nevada on this important issue, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), a member of our Committee on Resources, and the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), who is a very valuable member of our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. There are a number of reasons, Mr. Speaker, for opposing the pending resolution, but it boils down to this. There is no rock-ribbed, iron- clad, copper-riveted guarantee that the interment of high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain would be the safest course of action over both the near- and long-term. It is no secret that there is a multitude of scientific questions regarding this site, and I am sure all those questions have been gone into by previous speakers, but the GAO report noted that there are about 300 such questions and concluded that this site approval is premature. There is one very important reason that I would like to mention that I do not believe has been mentioned thus far in this debate as an additional reason for opposing the pending resolution, and that is that Yucca Mountain is located within the aboriginal area of the western Shoshone Indian Nation. The mountain is sacred to them and it holds a powerful spiritual energy for two Indian tribes in particular. In fact, the Ruby Valley Treaty of 1863 explicitly stated that this area belonged to the Shoshone. Yet in arrogance, and that is what it is, arrogance, this administration has determined that this particular sacred site is a pretty good place to put a nuclear waste repository. That is desecration, plain and simple. It is desecration to the Shoshone Indian Nation. Whether or not my colleagues understand the religion of these people, whether or not my colleagues subscribe to it, know this: Dumping nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain is akin to dumping nuclear waste at your own house of worship. I urge the defeat of the pending resolution.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I want to submit for the record an editorial from ``The Logan Banner'' about another West Virginia company closing its doors because of NAFTA. The work of the Logan Manufacturing Company, Inc. a local garment manufacturer creating sports clothing will stop production after almost forty years. Sales dropped off as the company could no longer compete against cheap foreign imports. The article makes an excellent point: What did we expect would happen? Exactly what did Congress envision would happen to American workers when they passed unfair trade deals that allowed a rush of cheap imported products into our market? Were our workers expected to work for a dollar a day to remain competitive? I don't think so. Shouldn't our country set the standard and not follow other countries unable to create economic policies that would bring their people out of poverty? West Virginia workers deserve better than these type of trade deals. This news comes on the same say the House of Representatives considered the reauthorization of the Import-Export Bank. On all matters of trade brought before this chamber we must answer to the workers in our districts who may be affected by such legislation. It is our responsibility to ensure that these workers, these families, are not hurt by our actions. Democracy should be as much a part of our trade bills as it is in everything else this great nation espouses. I strongly opposed the passage of NAFTA in 1993. Since that time, I have closely monitored the implementation of NAFTA, and I continue to be disappointed with its impact upon the American people. NAFTA has led to a grater trade deficit with Mexico, deteriorating labor and environmental conditions along the borders and an increase in unsafe vehicles on America's highways. In addition, recent attempts by the Administration to pass trade promotion negotiating authority (formerly known as fast track), would allow the President to expand trade initiatives similar to NAFTA to include additional nations, and possibly, the rest of the Americas under the Free Trade Areas of the Americas (FTAA). Despite my opposition and those of my colleagues concerned about the American worker, the House passed TPA on December 6, 2001. This bill is now before the Senate for consideration. I worry that just like with NAFTA, granting the President this type of accelerated trade authority in the past has led to government proposals lacking strong labor and environmental protection provisions; something I continue to insist upon for any trade agreements. I continue to work to insure that any trade agreement is fair to the American worker and results in a fair deal for our economy, rather than a fast deal. To that end, I support inclusion and expansion of the Trade Assistance Act. American workers laid off as their company moves jobs abroad deserve to be compensated for such action. These workers must be retrained for other jobs. This bill would prohibit free trade agreements without strong, enforceable worker rights and environmental safeguards. West Virginia workers deserve better trade agreements. The time has come to stop these undemocratic trade agreements. As ``The Logan Banner,'' put it best, it's time our elected leaders put Americans first. [From the Logan Banner, Apr. 17, 2002] Where We Stand The workforce of Logan Manufacturing Company Inc., a local garment manufacturer creating the Sportsmaster brand of apparel got a dose of bad news this past week. They were laid off. Logan Manufacturing is just the latest victim of NAFTA, the North American Free Tade Agreement. These people lost their jobs because sales dropped off and the company couldn't compete with products from overseas that are made by laborers who are paid next to nothing. Logan Manufacturing has been here for 39 years. October would have been its 40th year. Back when the Clinton Administration passed the North American Free Trade Agreement one H. Ross Perot warned of the coming of the ``Great Sucking Sound'' as American companies would leave our shores in order to cash in on the cheap slave labor south of the border. Perot warned the deal would cost Americans their jobs. He was right. It only stands to reason that in an agreement where we lower all our tariffs with Mexico (and other countries) to nothing while only reducing theirs 10 percent a year it would be a good deal for them and cause many of us to wind up unemployed. Logan Manufacturing said the federal government's allowance of imports to be procured for much lower rates than what can be manufactured in the U.S. through programs such as NAFTA, Caribbean Basin Initiative and the African Trade Bill along with the economic downturn following the Sept. 11 attacks was more than they could handle. When will our elected officials in Washington wake up? Foreign trade deals that boost sales of cheap items made overseas at the expense of hardworking Americans are no deal at all. Thousands of American have been unemployed over these bad deals. It is time that our elected leaders put the U.S. first.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is probably the most political nonpartisan resolution in the history of Congress. I have every bit of empathy and concern for those innocent Israelis that have lost their lives. And the statistics in the resolution, they have been demonstrated here today; but no mention has been made of the innocent Palestinians that have been killed by Israeli forces and settlers. In terms of U.S. numbers, this amounts to more than 30,000 dead, 120,000 wounded and maimed. So let us look at this issue in a balanced approach. Let us send a balanced message to the Middle East. The tens of thousands of Americans that have come to our Nation's capital demonstrating on both sides, Israelis have come, Palestinians have come, they need to see that Washington and the Congress is balanced in our efforts here. Neither side has fulfilled their agreements under Oslo. Let us get that straight. You have heard the attacks against Arafat. Sure he has not fulfilled them. Neither have the Israelis. Neither side, neither side is an angel here. Neither side is an angel. Let us get that on the record perfectly clear as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), a gentleman who has sponsored a very balanced resolution in this body.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), a member of the Appropriations Committee.