Nick Rahall

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. Again, I say that there are other approaches and more balanced approaches that we can take that would further the cause of peace and that would further American interests in the region and certainly do this Congress a great deal more credibility. I do notice the main sponsor of the resolution has just walked on to the floor, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), and I want to commend him for the last 2 sentences that he finally put in his resolution, urging all parties to pursue and establish a just and lasting and comprehensive peace in the Middle East, which I believe is only the second time in the whole resolution where the word ``peace'' was used, but nevertheless he finally got around to that. Then he did mention the suffering and the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people in the very last line, and I appreciate that. I would ask him as he gets ready to close if he would also agree to the inclusion in his resolution of a line which, as President Bush has stated, recognizing the Palestinian state alongside an Israeli state. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close on my side. Mr. Speaker, this has been an interesting debate today; and I do congratulate all those that have participated in it and followed it, because it is a very emotional issue, it is a very difficult issue and a very delicate issue. There is no question, as I said in my opening comments, that America stands by Israel. They are our ally and should always be. Israel must protects itself. But the important question that we must ask is how Israel must protect itself. The first step is to acknowledge its role in creating the violent conditions in the region. The time has come to stop blaming everything on Arafat. That just will not get it anymore. Getting Arafat is no solution. I am not here to defend him, nor defend his actions. But getting Arafat is not the solution that is going to bring us peace. Continued humiliation is no solution. This is a method of operation of bullies, not of those who want to return to the peace process, to the negotiating table. ``Whereas anybody involved,'' that means give and take. Is that the real fear here of going to the negotiating table, where it means you have to give up something? Does the father of the Israeli settlement policy, the current Prime Minister, really fear about going to negotiations? That is a question that I think is legitimate to ask. The military option will not secure a peace in the Middle East. The military option will not work. No peace can be achieved. There are many steps that we can take to offer a balanced approach too numerous to mention at this particular time. But the bottom line is we cannot dispossess a people and then attempt to govern them by occupying their land, by forcing them to subsist in refugee camps, by blocking roadways to their jobs, by refusing access to medical attention, by cutting them off from their schools and universities, and by discounting their humanity. This is not the roadway to peace. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think the bottom line is the Palestinians crave the recognition of their dignity; Israelis crave the dignity of recognition. It is incumbent upon this Congress to recognize both and do both. I ask for rejection of this one-sided resolution.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton). (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks and include extraneous material.)

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution and request half of the time. The SPEAKER pre tempore. Is the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) opposed to the resolution?

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, but I do want to note that this has been a good debate, and I would not object to the extension of more time, even another hour or 2, or even 3 hours. I think we need to debate this issue more fully. It certainly has been debated fully in the Knesset in Israel, and I am glad to see this debate in the House of Representatives this afternoon, and I hope we will have more such debates.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Here we go again. How many times has this body passed resolutions of this nature that are so unbalanced, so one-sided. That we become the laughingstock of the world? How many times have we passed resolutions of this nature? Yet do we have peace today? Do we have peace today? I support the state of Israel. I do not support the brutal humiliating policies of Ariel Sharon. I support a strong relationship with Israel. That is not the issue here today. I support Israel being our ally. That is not the issue here today. Yes, Israel is our ally. Yes, we have had, we have today, and we will continue to have a strong relationship with Israel. But, by golly, we need other allies in the region as well. What about the moderate Arab allies that want to help us, to whom we only cast further embarrassment today by the passage of these one-sided resolutions? Let us not shut the door. Let us not shut the door on those in the region who want to help us pressure Arafat to stop approving of these heinous acts of terrorism against civilians. Let us not shut the door on those allies of ours around the world, including the European Union, who want to help us, who want to help Israel stop these brutal acts against innocent civilians. And I deplore them as much as the next person. There are those in the region that want to be our friends. Let us look at America's interests, number one. Let us look at America's interests. Are we furthering America's interests today by the passage of this one-sided, unbalanced resolution? Let us look around the world and ask ourselves that question. I urge defeat of this resolution.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, ``You give but little when you give of your possessions,'' the Lebanese poet Khalil Gibran once wrote. ``It is when you give of yourself that you truly give.'' Danny Thomas lived this truth. His generosity of spirit endures at the St. Jude Children's Research Hospital forty years after he established this essential institution. ``As a member of the Professional Advisory Board since 1996, I was honored to work with Danny Thomas to further the Hospital's mission. It is one of the world's leading centers of research and treatment for life-threatening childhood illnesses, particularly cancer. Remarkably, no child pays for St. Jude's services. I am proud that the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities raise the funds to cover all costs of patient care.''

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, yesterday at this time several Members of the House Committee on Resources Democratic Caucus rose to speak on a number of environmental issues as a prelude to Earth Day, which is April 22. As the ranking Democrat on that committee, today we continue with this theme. My purpose this morning, however, is not to speak to the more traditional environmental concerns of which I share, but rather to draw attention to the destruction of sites located on Federal lands which are sacred to American Indians. Valley of Chiefs, Montana. This area contains historic rock art and is used for ceremonial purposes. Yet the Bush administration believes it is a pretty good place to drill for oil and gas. Indian Pass, California, a place where dream trails were woven. Yet the Bush administration has given the green light to a massive 1,600 acre open-pit gold mine there. There are many other examples. Most Americans understand a reverence for the great Sistine Chapel or a traditional church with steeple and a bell. I believe it is time we sound the alarm bell for Indian sacred sites and treat them with equal reverence. We are, after all, one Nation under God, and all of our religious beliefs must be protected.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation aimed at providing equity in the treatment of benefits for eligible survivors of recipients of black lung benefits. Joining me in introducing this measure is the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Education and Workforce, George Miller of California, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, John Murtha. By way of background, in 1981 the Black Lung Benefits Act was amended in several respects at the urging of the Reagan Administration. The driving motivation for this legislation at the time was to shore up the finances of the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund through which benefit payments are made to beneficiaries where mine employment terminated prior to 1970, or where no mine operator can be assigned liability. After the enactment of this legislation, administrative actions and a number of extremely harmful court decisions made it extremely difficult, if not almost impossible, for those suffering from the crippling disease of black lung to qualify for benefits. However, today, a large number of the problems claimants faced have been remedied by a Clinton Administration rulemaking that was finalized on December 20, 2000. Yet, two provisions of the 1981 Act in particular continue to be most troublesome, and largely impact, in a very adverse way, surviving widows of coal miners who die as a result of black lung disease. As it now stands, due to the 1981 amendments, there is a dual and inequitable standard governing how benefits are handled for surviving spouses of deceased beneficiaries. In the event a beneficiary died prior to January 1, 1982--the effective date of the 1981 Act--benefits continued uninterrupted to the surviving spouse. However, if the beneficiary dies after January 1, 1982, the surviving spouse must file a new claim in order to try to continue receiving the benefits and must prove that the miner died as a result of black lung disease despite the fact that the miner was already deemed eligible to receive benefits prior to death. This is illogical, unfair and outlandish. In addition, as a result of the 1981 law, there is also a dual and inequitable standard governing the basis by which a miner or his widow is entitled to benefits under the Act. For pre-1981 Act claimants, a rebuttable presumption of the existence of black lung disease is established if the miner worked for 15 years or more in underground coal mines and if over evidence, such as an X-ray, demonstrates the existence of a total disability respiratory or pulmonary impairment. This rebuttable presumption, however, does not apply to post-1981 Act claimants. The legislation I am introducing today removes the requirement that a surviving spouse must refile a claim in order to continue receiving benefits. It also applies the rebuttable presumption of black lung disease for pre-1981 Act claimants to those filed after the effective date of that statute. This is a fair and just proposal, and one which should have been enacted years ago. In fact, I have introduced various black lung bills since 1988. During the early 1990s the House of Representatives on two occasions passed reform legislation. Much of what was contained in these comprehensive reform bills was finally addressed by the Clinton- era rulemaking. However, the subject matter of the bill I am introducing today demands action by the Congress. I urge the leadership of this body to consider this matter, and to allow this bill to be acted upon this year.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 23rd anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act. This vital piece of legislation serves as the basis of America's strong relationship with the country and people of Taiwan. The Taiwan Relations Act was signed into law on April 10, 1979. The passage of this act codified the mutually beneficial political, commercial, and cultural ties shared by our two nations. Over the past 23 years we have witnessed the transformation of our Asian ally flourish into a multiparty, pluralistic democratic government respectful of its citizens' political and human rights. Taiwan stands as a model nation to its neighbors. I wish to also recognize and thank Taiwan for its support and assistance immediately following the tragic events of September 11. On this anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act, I feel certain that the strong relationship between our two nations will continue for many more decades to come.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), a gentlemen, I might add, who has been very much on the forefront on this and other Indian issues, and a valued member of our Committee on Resources.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the mismanagement of the Indian trust funds is truly one of the worse embarrassments of this Nation. Sadly, we have become the United States of broken promises to many of our first Americans. Today, as we consider S. 1857, there is a multi-billion dollar lawsuit pending where the court has already ruled that the Interior Department is in breach of its trust responsibility to Indian account holders. Two cabinet Secretaries have already been held in contempt of court, and a third may also be found in contempt at any time. The Federal Government has held monies in trust for the American Indians since 1820, and almost immediately the criticism started on how funds intended for the benefit of Indians were handled. In 1828, Henry Rowe Schoolcraft, a noted negotiator of several Indian treaties, wrote, ``The derangements in the fiscal affairs of the Indian department are in the extreme. One would think that appropriations had been handled with a pitchfork.'' In 1834, the House Committee on Indian Affairs filed a report which characterized the administration of Indian Affairs as being ``expensive, inefficient, and irresponsible.'' Were these warnings heeded? No. Let us fast forward almost 160 years to 1992, when the House Committee on Government Operations released a report on the mismanagement of Indian trust funds. The report detailed numerous basic problems, including the inability of the Department of the Interior to give account holders proper account balances, the lack of uniform written policies governing how accounts are to be managed, the insufficient training of personnel needed to carry out the duties required, and the inadequate automated and recordkeeping systems. Some of us remember our response to that 1992 report. We sat down with tribal and individual Indian account holders, the Department of the Interior, banking and trust management experts, and the computer experts and together developed legislation to address these problems. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate but true that even after that legislation was signed into law and sent to the Department of the Interior for implementation, as of today the four basic problems I just outlined still exist. Indeed, there are no written uniform policies. Personnel charged with such an important job are not given sufficient training. The promise of a greater computer system has become a multi-million dollar disaster, and the Department cannot provide account holders with a full and complete accounting of their funds. This last point brings me to the issues raised by the pending legislation, S. 1857. Congress appropriated $20 million, which was contracted to Arthur Andersen to provide each Indian tribe with an accounting of their federally held trust fund accounts. It was clear when these reports were sent to Indian tribes in 1996 that they were not a full and accurate reconciling of the tribal accounts. Now, 6 years later, Indian tribes fear that a statute of limitations could run out on them and they could be precluded from challenging the accuracy of those Arthur Andersen reports. While I think it is unlikely any court would find in favor of the government in any such case, we need to allay the concerns and put off this deadline. S. 1857 would extend the statute of limitations for another 3 years in order to give an extension of time for negotiations between Indian tribes and the Federal Government over trust fund account balances. I am an original cosponsor of the companion legislation in the House, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill and head off dozens of additional lawsuits filed against Secretary Norton. This is an important step to take, but it is only a temporary one. We must settle the issue of all Indian trust fund account balances, and we must set up a system where future Congresses are not quoting us when describing a still-continuing problem. Let me be clear: the Federal Government cannot give a full and accurate historical accounting of Indian trust funds to the account holders. Members do not have to take my word for it. Numerous reports exist detailing trust fund documentation that are too damaged to read or are lost entirely. Members can read testimony from BIA employees of storing documents in a barn in Oklahoma, only to toss them out to make room for new documents. Members can ask Secretary Gale Norton, who admitted as much before the House Committee on Resources just last month. Just this past November, Secretary Norton announced the establishment of a new agency within the Department of the Interior to handle Indian trust activities. She made a dreadful mistake by not working with the account holders before bursting forth with this proposal. I know she realizes that now, but not after precious time has slipped by. I do not claim to have all the answers; but I do know that the answer will come only when we all stand up and face our responsibility, admit the mistakes, and work openly and honestly with Indian country. I urge passage of the pending legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), another very valuable leader and friend of Indian country.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to restore our Nation's historic commitment to insuring lifetime health care for retired coal miners. Joining me in introducing this bill is the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, Bob Ney. Enactment this year of CARE 21, the ``Coal Accountability and Retired Employee Act for the 21st Century,'' is necessary if we are to avoid seeing a curtailment in health care coverage for thousands of retired coal miners and their widows. Indeed, this would not be the first time that Congress has acted in this matter. In 1992, in what is known as the ``Coal Act'' enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act, Congress established the UMWA Combined Benefit Fund (CBF) combining the union's 1950 and 1974 benefit plans. This action came in response to changes in the coal industry which created a large class of ``orphaned''miners whose benefits were no longer being paid by an active coal company. A key feature of the Coal Act was the financing of orphaned miner health care costs through an annual transfer of a portion of the interest which accrues to the unappropriated balance in the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. Simply put, in restoring abandoned coal mine lands we must not abandon the retired coal miner. The Coal Act was working well, health care for retirees whose former employers could be identified would be financed by premiums paid by those companies while providing for a transfer of reclamation fund interest to finance orphaned miner care. However, a barrage of litigation and adverse court decisions once again is threatening the financial integrity of the program. Among them, what is known as the ``Chater'' decision which overturned the Social Security Administration's premium determination reducing premiums by 10 percent. Another court decision ordered the CBF to refund about $40 million in contributions. And the Supreme Court has rendered two especially harsh decisions; in the Eastern Enterprise case adding some 8,000 retirees to the orphaned miner rolls and just last week ruling that successor companies to signatories of the national wage agreement are not responsible to continue paying premiums for former employees. The result: Without a new source of funds, the CBF will face a cash shortage most likely beginning at the end of this year which could force curtailments in health care coverage for some 50,000 retirees and widows whose average age is 78. CARE 21 takes a relatively simple and straightforward approach to addressing this impending crisis: It would lift the restriction in current law that reclamation fund interest can only be used for orphaned miner health care. Rather, it would allow AML interest transfers to be made for the purpose of offsetting any deficit in net assets in the CBF. I would note that interest accrues to the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund at a rate of, for example, $103 million last fiscal year. Meanwhile, there is a $1.8 billion unappropriated balance in the Fund. CARE 21 in no way adversely affects the abandoned mine reclamation program. The principal remains intact for that effort, and is fueled by annual reclamation fees assessed on every ton of mined coal which finances the program. As such, one of the key features of CARE 21 is that the general taxpayer is not being called upon to pay for retired coal miner health care, but rather, the coal industry itself would provide for this coverage through the interest which accrues to the fees it pays into the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. Mr. Speaker, I noted earlier there is a historical commitment to providing health care for retired coal miners. This is a unique situation in that what would normally be a matter solely for the private sector is not in this instance. The genesis for this situation dates back to 1946 in an agreement between then-UMW President John L. Lewis and the Federal Government to resolve a long-running labor dispute. At the time, President Truman had ordered the Interior Secretary to take possession of all bituminous coal mines in the country in an effort to break a United Mine Workers of America strike. Eventually, Lewis and Secretary Julius Krug reached an agreement that included an industry-wide, miner controlled health plan. In fact, the 1992 Coal Act itself was formulated partly on the basis of recommendations from the Coal Commission, established by former Labor Secretary Libby Dole, which in 1990 recommended a statutory obligation to help finance the UMWA's Health Benefit Funds. Mr. Speaker, the people covered by this health care program spent their careers producing the energy which powered this Nation to greatness. We must not forsake them. We must not cast them adrift in their later years, robbed of the health care they so desperately need.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that the House will pass S. 1206, the ``Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2002'' today. This bill is nearly identical to HR 2501, a bill to reauthorize the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) that we passed in the House on August 2, 2001. The ARC gives grants to build highways, water and sewer systems, industrial parks and to develop health care programs and educational workforce training in distressed areas. I am pleased that HR 2501 originated in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, of which I am a Member. I am also pleased that my constituent, Mike Whitt, the Executive Director of the Mingo County, West Virginia, Redevelopment Authority, testified on June 20, 2001, before the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management. Mr. Whitt gave case studies of how ARC programs make a positive difference in the lives of the people of West Virginia When Mike Whitt testified, he told of how the ARC gave financial help to create the James H. Buck Harless Wood Products Industrial Park that was developed on a reclaimed strip mine site. This created 90 new jobs for my constituents to manufacture value added wood products. In addition, the ARC gave Mingo County a big boost by helping its people get in to the acquaculture industry. In the mid-90s, ARC funded a study conducted by the Freshwater Institute of abandoned mine waters in West Virginia. Mingo County and neighboring Logan County were identified as having water with enough volume and quality to generate 25-30 million pounds of arctic char--a fish belonging to the salmon family. Mingo County has begun hatching fish in these mine waters. Then they ship the minnows to a grow-out farm in Logan County. This project has created nine new jobs so far for local residents, and Mr. Whitt projects about 40 additional new jobs will be created in the acquaculture industry for local residents. Best of all, Mingo and Logan Counties are the only counties in West Virginia that will ship fresh arctic char to Boston's seafood market-- and the ARC study of abandoned mine waters gave them their start. Finally, regarding tourism, Mike Whitt was able to help to develop the Hatfield-McCoy Trails Recreation Project with the help of a $100,000 grant from the ARC. The Hatfield-McCoy Trail has become really popular with hikers. It has boosted travel and tourism in Mingo County. Motels that never had guests over the weekend are now filling up on weekends. Again, the ARC seed money for the project gave the Hatfield-McCoy Trail help with its development. So we have an industrial park, acquaculture and tourism coming to Mingo County, thanks to ARC's helping hand, when previously Mingo County's residents relied almost solely on the coal mines for a job. Mingo County is still on the ARC's list of distressed counties. The ARC is helping Mingo County to diversify, with funds to back up projects, and working hand-in-hand with good people like Mike Whitt, whose goal is to take Mingo County off the ARC distressed counties list. The entire state of West Virginia is included in the ARC jurisdiction, along with parts of 12 other states ranging from the far North of the Deep South: New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi. Today's bill will authorize $446 million for ARC programs from fiscal years 2002-2006. Because two of my goals in Congress are to bridge the digital divide and to crate jobs, I am pleased that the bill includes a Telecommunications and Information Technology Initiative and an emphasis on boosting job skills. First of all, the Telecommunications and Information Technology initiative is authorized for $33 million from fiscal years 2002-2006 in order to develop the telecommunications infrastructure in Appalachia, so that rural and small towns will not be left behind in the Information Age. This means that students in West Virginia, and all of Appalachia, will have remote access to course materials that previously were only available in more affluent, urban areas. For job creation, S. 1206 provides that the ARC can enter into partnerships with educational institutions, nor-for-profit organizations, state and local governments and unions to provide job training to boost the local economy in West Virginia and throughout Appalachia. Finally, S. 1206 contains an ``Entrepreneurship Regional Initiative'' to help local entrepreneurs throughout Appalachia to start and expand local businesses. This will be done by providing local business persons with more capital and education and training. Madam Speaker, the ARC is a true example of results and has been a model for developing other organizations to help citizens like the Delta Regional Authority which serves 236 counties in federal-state partnerships in eight states: Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri and Tennessee. The reason the ARC has been used as a model is because, through its programs, the ARC has helped people to help themselves by giving them a start in health care, education, business development, and in building highways and water and sewer infrastructures, along with bridging the digital divide, which is so vital in today's world. I could not be more pleased that the House will pass this bill today, and I look forward to the seeing the president sign the bill expeditiously.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, as February 14th approaches it seems appropriate to examine the budget proposed by President Bush to see who gets Valentines and who does not. The lucky ones include the very wealthy who stand to receive huge windfalls as part of the President's massive tax cut. Those who stand to lose include average taxpayers. Take, for example, the President's unwise cuts to the PILT Program. The federal government owns or manages about 30 percent of the land in this country. Unlike private land owners, however, Uncle Sam is not required to pay property taxes to counties or local governments. Given that such property taxes are the lifeblood of many county budgets, Congress created the Payments in Lieu of Taxes, or PILT, Program. PILT is a formula grant program which reimburses local governments for these lost property tax revenues. Created in 1976, the program accounts for a substantial share of many county budgets, particularly in Western states where the percentage of federal ownership is highest. Now, there are obviously advantages to having the federal government as a neighbor. Many local communities thrive thanks to tourism dollars attracted by National Parks or federally managed recreation areas. And we all benefit when federal land managers work to protect and preserve our natural resources for future generations to enjoy. But the revenue loss experienced by some local communities is very real and by proposing to slash the amount available to reimburse these communities, the Bush Administration is not being a good neighbor at all. Such a cut is really just a tax increase on local taxpayers. PILT funds replace lost county revenue and if the Federal Government no longer pays its share, those governments have no choice but to raise local property taxes. Apparently, the President feels that while wealthy Americans' income taxes are too high, local property taxes are not high enough. This is particularly surprising given that the President claims to be a champion of local government. PILT funding flows directly to local communities and is available for any government purpose, no strings attached. In my home state, the President's plan means that the counties in West Virginia which receive PILT would have $287,000 less to spend on schools, public safety and other local needs. Perhaps the President is counting on Congress to come to the rescue. The Bush Administration proposed cutting PILT last year and Members of Congress, who care about their counties, stepped in and restored the funding. If that is the plan, next time you hear that the President wants to save money and Congress wants to spend it, remember that PILT is part of the President's ``savings.'' In my view, the Federal Government should continue striving to be a good neighbor and maintain PILT payments at their current levels. Unfortunately, the Bush Budget plan hits the wealthy with Cupid's arrow but gives local taxpayers the shaft.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, ``the man who really counts in the world is the doer,'' President Theodore Roosevelt once wrote, ``not the man who only talks or writes about how it ought to be done.'' Dave Thomas was the definition of a doer. He was one of the youngest soldiers to manage an Enlisted Men's Club for the U.S. Army, and his innate business acumen led to success after success, making him a millionaire by the time he turned thirty-five. But truly successful people do not hoard their earnings or ignore the pain of others. Dave Thomas believed in civic responsibility and eagerly involved himself in the communities he called home. In Columbus, Ohio, where he founded Wendy's Old Fashioned Hamburgers in 1969, Mr. Thomas supported financially and morally the Children's Hospital, Recreation Unlimited, and the Ohio State University Cancer Research Institute. I worked with Dave Thomas to further the mission of the St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, on whose Professional Advisory Board I have served since 1996. Located in Memphis, Tennessee, St. Jude was founded by Danny Thomas in 1962. It is one of the world's leading centers of research and treatment for life-threatening childhood illnesses, particularly cancer. Remarkably, no child pays for St. Jude's services. The American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities raise the funds to cover all costs of patient care. Dave Thomas served six productive years on the St. Jude's Boards of Directors and Governors, from 1978-81 and from 1994-97. Richard C. Shadyiac, Sr., St. Jude's National Executive Director, ``recalled him as a very close personal friend of Danny Thomas.'' Mr. Shadyiac went on to say that ``Mr. Thomas made major contributions and stock gifts to St. Jude's, especially in its early, formative years.'' Most Americans know Dave Thomas from his television commercials. They embody his easy demeanor and engaging personality. Not many captains of industry would return to high school, as Dave Thomas did in 1993, to earn a diploma forty-five years after leaving school to work full time. Fewer still would have the grace and humor to attend the prom. Dave Thomas lived a life of purpose and action. He was devoted to his family, committed to his business, and endlessly generous with his time and wealth.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to commend our colleague, Representative Pastor, for his work on this important legislation. Given that we are still a comparatively young nation, the list of sites in the United States dating from the 17th century is a short one. We must be certain to provide those few we have with the protection they deserve. This legislation achieves this important goal. Furthermore, few sites in America speak to the history of such a broad array of peoples. This area is rich in Native American, Spanish, Mexican and European culture. Such rich and diverse history must be preserved and H.R. 2234 will do just that. Representative Pastor has described to me the annual fiesta held at the old mission attended by hundreds of people representing each of the cultures which value this site. I am very pleased that, thanks to Representative Pastor's diligence, this year's fiesta may take place on an expanded site that more accurately represents the way this historic area once looked. We thank our Republican colleagues for their assistance in moving this legislation, commend Representative Pastor for his hard work and urge our colleagues to support H.R. 2234.